email: mike.del.brown@gmail.com

Make your most compelling and coherent case. Less is more. Don't make a flurry of weak arguments just to suck time from your opponents and then drop them. Mostly this just sucks my motivation to vote for you.

Provide clear signposts, be articulate, and enunciate so I can easily flow your case. Pauses, emphasis, and eye contact on key points are powerful tools. I flow from your speech, not the email chain. Don't bet that I won't miss something; use your delivery to stack the odds in your favor.

I'm so old that I was around when spreading was spewing, and spewing was cool. I'm increasingly convinced that a monotone, hyperventilated list of bullet points and mumbled reading of evidence is the death of compelling, argumentation. Rather than throw out as many arguments as possible, find the weakest part of your opponent's argument, and put a big, persuasive hole in it.

Neg conditionality isn't a get out of jail free card. If you are making a bunch of arguments, I'll look at them together. For example, if you run a counterplan that violates your K, you are telling me not to vote for either.

Explain your arguments. Don't assume I understand the jargon or theory. Even if I do understand it, don't use jargon as a shorthand substitute for effectively explaining the substance your argument.

The starting point is a debate on the resolution. If you'd prefer to read poetry, discuss the pointlessness of existence, or posit that debating the topic is a bad idea, then you will have to be extra persuasive to win.

Frame the debate and justify your arguments. If you don't make it clear why an argument is worth voting for, then I probably won’t.

Respect your opponents and have fun - enjoy the experience, learn something new, and make friends!

Or, ignore all of this, and spend the next week complaining about your judge!

Katie Ford--4 years of high school debate at Fremont Senior High School, Nebraska. 2.5 years of collective college debate experience between KCKCC and Emporia State University. Double-octafinalist at CEDA Nationals 2014 and 9th speaker at the CEDA Nationals 2014 tournament. Multiple time tournament champion and outround qualifier. Former assistant coach for Westside High School in Omaha, NE and former assistant coach for Lincoln East High School, Lincoln, NE

My paradigm is not what I require of debaters when I'm judging them, but mere suggestions that I think can improve the quality of debate. If I am judging you, your best bet is to go for whatever arguments you're comfortable with, I'd rather see you debate well with what you know well, than struggle to cater to what you think I want to hear. Regardless of my preferences or the arguments I used to read in debates, I will still vote for whatever argument wins the round. Debate is what you make it and I'll evaluate it how you tell me to.

My speaker points are generally as follows:

26s & Below: These are reserved for debaters who have said atrocious or harmful things in the debate round. The lower speaker points you receive will depend on how much I think you are harmful for this activity. If you actively harass, assault, or make anyone in the room feel unsafe, I will likely give you a 0.

27-28.5s: These speaker points are for average speeches that perhaps were poorly constructed or were just not well explained in the round.

28.6s-29.3s: These speaker points are for debaters who are well versed in their arguments, and are able to win flows and make smart decisions in their answers, links, etc.

29.4s-29.7s: These speaker points are given to debaters who have all-but owned the debate, there isn't much more I could ask out of them in the round, perhaps a few small things here and there that were not a big deal. Smart choices, persuasive speeches, and confidence in your arguments and advocacies.

29.8s-30s: You owned the debate round.

Aff Things:

I don't care if you are going to read a plan text or not, either way, you need to have a well-explained story for how your method/plan/advocacy/etc. solves the impacts that you claim it does, whether it be through a plan text, ROB, advocacy statement, or just a well-constructed 1AC. I think affirmatives have seriously started slipping when it comes to internal links.

I would rather listen to a couple of really good pieces of evidence than 37 cards that you can divide up into four sections of arguments that all say the same thing. Quality over quantity, this is still a communication activity.

Whatever you like to do, is what I'd like to see you debate about. Be affirmative.

Neg Things:

Find good links, even if they're analytical. Make presumption arguments; I feel like teams forget that the status quo is negative ground.

If you're reading K's, I'm down. But please don't assume I know exactly what your entire K said, how it solves, etc. just because you said a particular author that I am in general familiar with. You are still held to the responsiblity of explaning your advcocacy and solvency, just like the affirmative is. Also, don't just keep repeating the same words that your author uses without contextualizing your arguments to the affirmative teams' or the debate in general.

Framework/Topicality: If you're going to go for Topicality, do it smartly. Don't read really generic, old, boring, and bad T shells. Make nuanced arguments that makes the affirmtiave defend why their argument is productive educationally for debate.

If you are going to go for framework, I'd rather you didn't read it in the generic, unproductive way that everyone tends to. Introduce policy education into the debate in some way and provide the education you felt was lacking from the affirmative team.

DA's: Make them actually link. If you're going to go for a DA just as a way to prove the aff is untopical via a no link argument they'll likely make, please don't spend half your time on it and then kick it in the block or 2NR. I don't want to waste that much ink.

"Non-Traditional" Negatives: Explain what your advocacy is, contextualize it to the aff, have links.

Other Things:

Don't steal prep time, it's obvious, and also annoying.

Don't purposefully take forever to exchange files if flashing or emailing... it's also obvious and also annoying.

I don't take prep for flashing/emailing/whatever

I will likely keep track of prep time/speech times

Don't cut cards and don't lie about what cards you read

Have fun

Please add this email to the chain: celine007@gmail.com

I am a parent judge so please avoid too much spreading. Articulation is appreciated.

Signposting is appreciated.

Please time yourselves.

Not very familiar with K's or T's.

Prefer quality arguments over quantity.

He/Him

Add me to the chain: carlito913@gmail.com

General Info:

I don't count flashing or emailing as prep.

I try to go off the flow as much as I can. But in the case of not given how to evaluate the round, I'll start at impact calc/comparison in the 2ar/2nr and then work back from there.

TLDR: I don't have a preference for policy versus a k. Either way, just know your evidence well, do specific impact comparisons, and follow the 2ac order. If the 2nr is likely to be K do more line-by-line than an overview. If it's policy then don't just ignore the case debate. I would prefer a more in-depth case debate over that one extra off. Overall do what you do best rather than adapting to me. If you know your evidence well, I will vote on a plethora of things despite personal beliefs.

Evidence comparison is underutilized and can vastly help you even if your warrants aren't the best.

Speed:I'm good with any speed just be clear, if you're unclear I will say "clear"

K affs:

Some of my favorite debates have been with k affs if the aff knows their lit well.

I don't have a great grasp on the larger k lit base but if you explain your arg/why the resolution is bad I am willing to vote on it.

Please don't read high theory in front of me, I think the debate is great and though whether the resolution should be debated is contestable, debate as a game probably isn't.

You should probably have a more specific advocacy or at the very least develop one as the debate goes on. In cx if the neg is asking you questions about the advocacy, which should be the weakest part, try to answer them without being circular. I would like to know how your advocacy gets to what you claim it does, not just that the end goal is a good idea.

Framework:

Don't over-adapt to me despite preferences, they're not super strong. They are privy to adapt depending on the round.

I don't have a preference for impacts but I do think fairness can be an impact. But it's not a very good one and aff teams are most prepped for this debate usually. Most of the time when the neg wins these debates it's because the aff mishandles the TVA or doesn't answer the negs limits well/make inroads to it. Or winning some da to the model of debate but not explaining that in comparison to the negs impacts. The neg has an easier time winning if they have some access to the affs education, ethical subject formation etc. claim(s).

The aff usually wins when the 2nr goes for too many impacts/doesn't compare enough to the affs disads of the model. Or the neg doesn't have a way to access the affs model or education.

Topicality:

Explain your impacts well and compare your model with the other teams. I do default to competing interpretations. That being said I will still vote on reasonability if the size of the link to limits or grounds is mitigated.

Even if the aff is 'core of the topic' if you explain your definition and a violation well, it being 'big' doesn't matter.

Quality of definition is important and underutilized, as well as if the definition has the intent to define/ intent to exclude.

Impacting out T is very important, you must go past limits and grounds and explain what impact that has. For me, focus not on that there's not enough literature for that topic model but that there is too much and it's unfair for the neg to prepare for all of what the aff justifies.

I have a much lower threshold for T with small affs, but if the aff has a better explanation of their model I'm willing to vote for that. It will just take more work than is probably worth it.

K:

Having highly organized and structured speeches is very important. If you do the line by line and make it clear where you are that's perfect. Don't have long overviews, over 30sec and I'll be less inclined to flow it. However I would prefer no overview unless there's an issue that covers the entire flow.

Having case-specific links is important, carded is better but even if it's not, analytically making specific links is much better.

Framework: often they're hard to decide because they get messy. I will default to weighing the aff, but I have no problem voting otherwise if you win that that is bad.

Giving models of each interp regarding debate or the outside world is important. So is how each time accesses their interp, this is more for aff teams but applies to both.

Perms need to have an explanation in the 2ac, I think the aff has a right to the perm and they can be important to check against k tricks, but the legitimacy of the perm is up for debate.

Roll of the ballot/judge arguments are usually self-serving and I'm not the best judge for them.

A conceded root cause explanation, value to life impact, or “alt solves the aff” claim is effective if it’s sufficiently explained. That being said I'm not the best judge for K tricks I'd prefer you just win strong a link. A floating pic should probably be made clear by the 2nc.

DA:

Specific impact calc/comparison is fantastic as well as specific turns case arguments rather than generic nuclear war makes structural violence worse.

I'm not a big fan of sketchy internal links for a bad politics da, but I understand their need in cases. As long as you know your evidence and can explain it, I probably won't have a problem.

The link is the most important part if you have a strong link, then impact work becomes easier but vice versa as well.

CP:

Solvency advocates are good but not necessary.

I will not judge kick the CP unless told to by the 2NR. The 2ar can make that not the case with a few well-analyzed arguments.

Theory:

I would prefer not to listen to a 2ar on theory, that being said I realize the necessity of it being there. So plan on going for substance but if theory is necessary: be specific in answering their args, don't reread blocks, and explicitly compare your model of debate to the other teams.

I can be persuaded to reject the team rather than the argument but make sure you either compare models of debate or make in-round abuse obvious.

Most theory args are up for debate for me, and I think 2ar's on condo are underutilized. You should punish the neg for having bad condo answers. That being said condo being good is usually my default.

This paradigm wasn't written by me btw - my actual knowledge on policy is much worse.

Parent judge - take your worst imagination and multiply it by 5
- If you read a K-aff, strike me
- Honestly for best arguments I will understand - DA, CP, T if you must (but only if the violation is exceedingly obvious - not some random T-Substantial Interp)

Too long; didn't read (TLDR):
- Please don't read theory or kritiks (Ks).

Policy:
- I'm a lay judge - go Public Forum (PuFo) slow or slower if you want me to flow the arguments.
- If it's not in my flow it probably won't be evaluated when deciding the round
- Preferably don't read kritiks (Ks) - if you do, it'll be considered a non-unique disadvantage (DA) since I won't understand framework debates.
- Preferably don't go for theory - it still must be answered though.
- Topicality (T) arguments need to be incredibly convincing - I defer affirmative (aff) in general.
- General framing is based off probability * magnitude, specify in round if you want it to be something else - although it's not recommended to change framing because I probably won't understand it.
- Please include as much judge instruction as possible in the last rebuttals (specifically impact calculations).
- Note that my debate argument experience consists of a 20 minute lecture of all the key things to look out for - no high-level jargon.

Director of Debate at Alpharetta High School where I also teach AP US Government & Politics (2013- present)

Former grad assistant at Vanderbilt (2012-2013)

Debated (badly) at Emory (2007-2011).

Please add me to the email chain: laurenivey318@gmail.com

Top-level, I really love debate and am honored to be judging your debate. I promise to try my best to judge the round fairly, and I hope the notes below help you. Most of the below notes are just some general predispositions/ thoughts. I firmly believe that debaters should control the debate space and will do my best to evaluate the round in front of me, regardless of if you adapt to these preferences or not.

I flow on paper and definitely need pen time; I've tried to flow on the computer and it just doesn't work for me.

Counterplans- I like a good counterplan debate. I generally think conditionality is good, and is more justified against new affirmatives. PICs, Process CPs, Uniqueness CPs, Multiplank CPs, Advantage CPs etc. are all fine. On consult counterplans, and other counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive, I tend to lean aff on CP theory. All CPs are better with a solvency advocate. If the negative reads a CP, presumption shifts affirmative, and the negative needs to be winning a decent risk of the net benefit for me to vote negative. I am probably not the greatest person for counterplan competition debates.

Disads- The more specific, the better. Yes, you can read your generic DAs but I love when teams have specific politix scenarios or other specific DAs that show careful research and tournament prep. If there are a lot of links being read on a DA, I tend to default to the team that is controlling uniqueness.

Topicality- I find T debates sometimes difficult to evaluate because they sometimes seem to require a substantial amount of judge intervention. A tool that I think is really under utilized in T debates is the caselist/ discussion of what affs are/ are not allowed under your interpretation. Try hard to close the loop for me at the end of the 2nr/ 2ar about why your vision of the topic is preferable. Be sure to really discuss the impacts of your standards in a T debate.

Framework- Framework is a complicated question for me. On a truth level, I think people should read a plan text, and I exclusively read plan texts when I was a debater. However, I'll vote for whoever wins the debate, whether you read a topical plan text or not, and frequently vote for teams that don't read a plan text; in fact, my voting record is better for teams reading planless affirmatives than it is for teams going for FW. However, I also think this is because teams that don't defend a plan are typically much better at defending their advocacy than neg teams are at going for FW. I tend to think affs should at least be in the direction of the topic; I'm fairly sympathetic to the "you explode limits 2nr" if your aff is about something else. Put another way, if your aff is not at least somewhat related to the topic area it's going to be harder to get my ballot. I do think fairness is a terminal impact because I don't know what an alternative way to evaluate the debate would be but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Kritiks- I am more familiar with more common Ks such as security or cap than I am with high theory arguments like Baudrillard. You can still read less common or high theory Ks in front of me, but you should probably explain them more. I tend to think the alternative is one of the weakest parts of the Kritik and that most negative teams do not do enough work explaining how the Kritik functions.

Misc-If both teams agree that topicality will not be read in the debate, and that is communicated to me prior to the start of the round, any mutually agreed previous year's topic is on the table. I will also bump speaks +0.5 for choosing this option as long as an effort is made by both teams. I am strongly in the camp of tech over truth.

I am unlikely to vote on disclose your prefs, wipeout, spark, or anything else I would consider morally repugnant. I also don't think debate should be a question of who is a good person. While I think you should make good decisions out of round, I am not in the camp of "I will vote against you for bad decisions you made out of round" or allegations made in round about out of round behavior. But, I have voted against teams or substantially lowered speaks for making the round a hostile learning environment and think it is my job as a judge and educator to make the round a safe space.

Good luck! Feel free to email me with any questions.

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.

Eshkar Kaidar-Heafetz – He/They

Chattahoochee ’23 – Wenatchee Independent KK – UWG ’27

Email chain – esh5.atl.debate@gmail.com

213 Rounds debated, 67 Judged, 2X TOC Qual, 1X NDT Qual

Affiliations – Chattahoochee, Johns Creek, Brookfield East SM, Alpharetta

“K debaters cheat, Policy debaters lie. If you believe both, you should pref me highly. If you believe one of the two, you should pref me in the middle percentile. If you don’t believe either, go do PF” – Josh Harrington

_____

No one in debate should have to interact with their abuser. If a round is unsafe, please let me know before the round, I will go to tabroom and fight for whatever potential solution I can. This is something that should be taken up with tabroom, your coach, etc. and is not something I would want to have to adjudicate in the middle of a round. If you are someone who treats others like trash, is implicated negatively in a title IX investigation, etc., I should be at the very bottom of your pref sheet.

_____

Most important notes

Clarity is massive for me. I have a memory loss disorder along with minor hearing problems. This does not mean that I am unable to hear or process the spreading of any given round, but that your persuasive ability majorly goes down when I have to spend more of my time processing figuring our what you’re saying rather than focusing on the quality of your arguments and instruction. I don’t care how fast you’re going; I care how clear you are when going at that speed.

Highlighting in debate right now is maybe one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever seen. Your evidence should still be highlighted to be, generally, grammatically correct and highlighted warrants.

Everything about basic decency that you’ve seen in every other paradigm I believe in. Racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. is unacceptable and will be given a L25, likely combined with an incredibly serious email to your coach.

Evidence ethics – clipping, miscites, cards cut with sentences omitted, cards cut that don’t begin and end at the start and end of paragraphs, changes to words in a card altering the meaning of the evidence are also an L25.

Also, I think highlighting words from the name of the article or book is ridiculous. Don't highlight cites...

_____

Arguments –

I wholeheartedly believe that I’m good for any argument. My high-school career included a lot of policy debates and even more K debates. My senior year, I exclusively went for disability on the affirmative, and our negative strategy included anything from conditions counterplans to kritiks to impact turns. I was both the 2A and 2N for four years. My college career has just started, but I primarily read queerness on the AFF when 2Aing and on the NEG when 2Ning, but when I was the 1A read a policy aff and when I was the 1N extended almost exclusively topicality or a PIK.

The only major threshold for evaluating if an argument should be read in front of me is if you’re willing to go for it, I dislike throw-away strategies.

Wipeout, spark, death good, whatever are all fine positions. I believe there is a difference between a post-fiat argument that centers around death being good, and a real world threat of violence (i.e., telling a debater to inflict harm upon themselves, threatening harm upon someone, etc.).

Specific arguments –

Disadvantages – I love seeing creative disadvantages or just ones that are articulated very well. My main issue with DA debates nowadays is I tend to see ones where, by the 2NR, many parts of the debate feel incredibly isolated rather than a cohesive story that I can sit down and say I understand. Debaters that are able to clearly articulate and define the link debate beyond just shallow extensions do much better in front of me when they fit that link explanation into the broader story of the AFF/DA.

Counterplans – Some of my favorite debates when the counterplan actually competes. I went for conditions and pics a lot of the time my senior year (probably at least 1/2 of my 2NRs), the sorts of debates for counterplans that I dislike are ones that get incredibly muddled in solvency/impact questions, ESPECIALLY if your evidence is not specific and you’re trying to write a plan text around generic evidence to make it work. I am not the world’s best judge for intense counterplan competition debates, but don’t let that deter you from going for what you want. I think delay is a silly cp.

Topicality – I honestly went through most of high-school HATING topicality debates but have now grown incredibly fond of them. As of my freshman year in college, topicality usually makes up nearly two-thirds of my 1NRs. What I think deters most debaters is a numbers game for interpretations, but I genuinely believe that an incredibly high quality interpretation is far better than a ton of short cards that barely say anything. Give me a solid caselist and view of what would happen for debate under the AFF’s counter-interpretation and do in depth evidence comparison and warrant comparison, because a LOT of topicality debates seem to lack these. Storytelling is so critical and underrated in T debates, I want to clearly imagine the world of the interp/counter interp.

Kritiks – My bread and butter, went for Ks a ton throughout all of high school. I’m familiar with most branches of literature, my weak spots are Baudrillard, Deleuze, Guattari and Derrida, but I am very well versed in nearly every other branch of lit. I think kritiks probably need aff-specific links (at least articulated/contextualized in the 2NC) and have no particular thought on if I should weigh the consequences of the plan or not. I hold Kritik debates to a much higher standard, because I know what a good K debate should look like and expect you to produce a good K debate.

Kritik Affirmatives – Love them, ran them exclusively both my senior year of H.S. and (as of writing this) freshman year of college. However, I am incredibly skeptical of most K-AFF’s ability to solve their impacts or solve/do anything at all. I am a judge who is completely willing to vote on a 5 minutes of presumption 2NR, because often times these AFFs don’t have a topic link, don’t do anything, etc. My favorite affirmatives are ones that defend actual material strategies, methods, etc. or at least are able to have a position that I feel is sufficient to beat back on SSD/TVA and presumption. I am not going to do the work for you. Last note – most of your authors probably hate each other and I think a lot of affirmatives fail to reconcile that, if you’re going to be reading an affirmative in front of me, the evidence/narrative should be cohesive. I like anything from more traditional K-AFFs to poetry to songs to completely uncarded ones, but understand I have a reasonably high threshold for solvency. For the negative, I love a well-executed KvK debate and will reward a high-quality one, but I am similarly amenable to framework.

Framework – Go for it, I don’t really care what impact you go for. I hate seeing teams over-rely on generic blocks and miss the actual content of AFF offense, so if you want to go for framework, I expect to see you spend time engaging the affirmative’s arguments, actually responding to the content of them, etc. Otherwise, you can see me checking out on something like a counter interp + risk of a DA more easily than I’d like to. I am very skeptical of a lot of KAFF's offense versus framework, you should maximize that.

__________

Miscellaneous

I am a small-school debater who handled running their program since 2021. If you need any help with your own, reach out to me.

Favs -

Kelly Lin, Allison Lee, Charles Sanderson, Patrick Fox, Avery Wilson, Srikar Satish, Sophia Dal Pra, Rose Larson, Astrid Clough, Jordan Keller, Robin Forsyth, Ash Koh, Geoff and Sarah Lundeen, Lauren Ivey, Kevin Bancroft, Grey Parfenoff, Blaine Montford, Austin Davis

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PUBLIC FORUM ADDENDUM:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

Piper Meloche [she/her, last name rhymes with "josh" not "brioche"]

Incoming 1L at Harvard Law School. If you have any questions about law school admissions, please reach out!

pipermeloche@gmail.com [all email chains, questions]

grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com [high school only]

NCFL Note

I am able and willing to listen to any argument at any speed. As a default, I decide debates based on technical choices and concessions. Please let me know if I am judging your last debate. I would love to give you a little congratulations and speaker point boost. Good luck and take advantage of the small amount of prep you have!

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

What I expect from you

1. Non-negotiables - Racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, or other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated. Nor will cheating. Unless the tournament rules tell me otherwise, I will not let an ethics challenge be "debated out." If there is an instance of discrimination in a round I am judging, I will allow the impacted person to decide whether the debate continues. I cannot adjudicate what I did not directly witness.

2. Strong preferences - flow, keep your own time, and frame my ballot at the top of the late rebuttals. Whenever possible, prioritize evidence quality - good cards and smart re-highlights will be rewarded with high speaks.

3. Be nice to each other and have fun - the people we meet and the ideas we learn in debate are far more important than the result of any individual round, tournament, season, or career. I am very sensitive to condescending and rude cross-ex questions - especially when the two students have a power imbalance.

What to expect from me

1. Tech over truth - but the two are far more interwoven than many debaters think. I often grow frustrated when teams give their opponents' best arguments the same attention as their opponents' worst arguments. Truth exists and should determine how you execute tech. Arguments also must not be morally repugnant - death good, oppression good count as morally repugnant, and hot take, global warming good is pushing it. All below preferences assume equal debating.

2. Much better for policy arguments - I was a K debater in high school, but my research now exclusively focuses on the policy side of college and high school topics. The purpose of this paradigm is not to constrain what you do in front of me but to give you the most accurate understanding of my predispositions and how I try to judge debates.

Topic Things

College --

1. D4/5 will be my first time judging this semester. If some community norm about the coolest cards to read or the worst advantages has developed since then, please take the time to explain that to me.

2. Many debates on the college topic will be an assurance or deterrence disad against an aff claiming to solve these impacts. Love that for y'all, but you need to do more link comparison. Asserting that you clearly solve prolif, but your opponent clearly doesn't without warrants gives the same vibes as "I know you are, but what am I?" and almost forces me to intervene.

High School --

1. FSPEC...I don’t get it. SPEC arguments are likely only true if dropped unless you can convince me I’m missing something.

Whatever happened to strategically vague plan texts?! Funding mechanism advantages are whatever, but you are opening yourself up to annoying PICs and process counterplans that change one tiny thing about that funding mech you specified in your plan text or in cross ex! “Normal means” is the best answer to “how is the aff funded” because “Perm: do the counterplan” is the best answer to counterplans that change funding in a way that still results in a JG, BI, or social security expansion.

2. Love that people are going for T, but I think there are more convincing options than “taxes and transfers.” I am unconvinced that the word “and” can never mean “or.” Piper likes to eat chicken shawarma sandwiches with extra garlic and mint chocolate chip ice cream. Did you read that as I like to put ice cream on my chicken shawarma sandwiches with extra garlic? I sure hope not. In this instance, “and” does mean “or.”

Policy v. Policy

1. The politics disad is good, actually. It's only "bad" if you're bad at storytelling. Know the major political figures and forces involved in the disad.

2. A smartly constructed advantage counterplan can solve most affs.

3. Counterplans should compete. Creative permutations can and should check counterplans that do not compete.

4. Conditionality is good, and all other theory is a reason to reject the argument. Conditionality ends after the 2NR if there is equal debating on judge kick or everyone is silent on the issue.

Clash

I'm far more familiar with identity Ks than Baudrillard and friends.

K affs v. Topicality --

1. Neg teams should answer case.

2. K affs should have a substantial tie to the topic.

3. Creative TVAs are an underrated part of the T debate - they should be something you actively research, not an afterthought.

4. I would prefer that aff teams provide and defend a clear counter-interpretation for the topic.

5. Everyone should avoid making gross exaggerations on the topicality page. K affs, for example, will not cause everyone to quit the activity.

Policy affs v. K --

1. Aff teams are most successful in these debates when they invest time in link comparison and flesh out the perm.

2. Neg teams are usually in a better spot when they prove that the aff is worse than the status quo and invest a substantial amount of time into the alternative.

K v. K

I have not judged enough of these rounds to give insight into how I evaluate them. Please prefer and provide judge instruction accordingly.

Random Hot Takes

1. The state of the high school and college wikis is disheartening. If you are scared that your entire strategy will collapse if others have your evidence, your evidence is probably not that good to begin with.

I think posting cites instead of Open Source is perfectly fine. BUT you have to check that you’re uploading complete cites! That includes the full tag, author, date, qualifications, a link to where we can access the text if available, and the first and last 3 words of your card.

2. Inserting rehighlights is *usually* good practice - read better evidence if this makes you sad. Rehighligted evidence will only be considered to the extent that it is explained. "Meloche goes neg" is not an explanation. At some point, introducing excessive rehighlights makes the level of explanation I need impossible.

3. A phenomenal 2AR cannot make up for a 2AC with sloppy mistakes - taking a few seconds of 2AC prep to make sure everything is in order is more valuable than saving those 15 seconds for the 2AR.

4. Your breath control sucks - easiest way to fix it is to try and take breaths at the end of sentences like we do in normal conversations. You'll sound and feel better.

5. After each tournament, I check how the points I gave compared to those received by the teams I judge throughout the weekend. This is my attempt to keep up with point inflation, but it doesn't always work.

6. Death by a Thousand Cuts is a fantastic Taylor Swift song - it is a mediocre neg strategy.

7. I am judging how easy to read, quickly sent, and aesthetically pleasing your judge doc is. Not in a win/loss way, but in a "I'm keeping a mental tier-list" way.

8. https://twitter.com/mcfuhrmann/status/1362452482165768193/photo/1

----

1. I've been trying to delete this numbered list for like 20 mins and gave up :(

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/

Oakland University - PhD Applied Mathematics (2017)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topicality: I am willing to vote on T. I think that there should be substantial work done on the Interpretation vs Counter-Interpretation debate, with impacted standards or reasons to prefer your interpretation. There needs to be specific explanations of your standards and why they are better than the aff's or vice versa. Why does one standard give a better internal link to education or fairness than another, etc?

CPs: I am willing to listen to any type of CP and multiple counterplans in the same round. I also try to remain objective in terms of whether I think a certain cp is abusive or not - the legitimacy of a counterplan is up for debate and thus can vary from one round to the next.

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

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

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

Performance: Sure. I prefer if the performative affirmation or action is germane to the topic, but that is up for debate. I am certainly willing to listen to your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

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

Other general comments:

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

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

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

You should read rehighlightings.

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

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

Have fun!

LD and PF - I'm very tech over truth, but I love empirical evidence. I do vote off of cross - I also love it when you lay out your points and tell me how to vote. I don't mind a far-fetched argument as long as you have some evidence. I also value solvency, even if you have to stretch on solvency.

Speech - I love passion and confidence.

Policy Debate - I am a lay judge with three years of experience judging LD/PF debates. My son participates in policy debates. Recently, I completed a judging season on the national circuit as a Policy Judge, gaining a better understanding of the fundamentals. Although I grasp some debate terminology, I'm still not fully proficient, so please avoid using overly complex language.

Email chain: adrnobrn@gmail.com

Off-time roadmaps - I LOVE off-time roadmaps.

Spreading/Spewing - I have found this past season that I don't mind speeding or spewing. As long as I have the document, feel free to deliver your arguments rapidly. I rely heavily on the document but have developed the ability to flow somewhat by listening. While clarity is not critical, I need to understand where you are in the document. Shout those taglines!

Arguments:

Kritiks- Although I'm open to kritiks, you might need to simplify them as if I were a 5-year-old. I'm not deeply familiar with all the literature. While I'm open to framework arguments, I'm not very into theory, so please explain everything as if I were 5. I prefer if the alternative to the Kritik relates to the real world and you prove how it solves the issues rather than just focusing on the framework. Please explain the whole story of the kritik - the links, the internal connections, the impacts, and the alternatives.

K Affs - I was exposed to them last season, and I find them difficult to understand, and I don't think they stick to the topic. Run them at your own risk.

T/Theory - I don't love the idea of theory because it takes away from the debate; however, I will still evaluate it if there is actual in-round abuse. The threshold for proving the in-round abuse is going to be pretty high.

However, topicality is a little bit different. I believe it is the aff's burden to be topical, so if the neg can solidly prove why it is untopical and how that hurts the debate space, I will vote on it.

Counterplans - I love counterplans. I will not vote on a counterplan if it doesn't have a net benefit. I will not kick out counterplans for you. I will not judge kick for you. Please be very clear on what you are kicking. If the CP doesn't solve for the DA and you don't kick out of the CP, you will lose on both. Going along with net benefits, please specify which one it is because I am still new and learning to evaluate everything.

Disads - This is pretty basic; make it make logical sense. Tell me the story of the disad, and link it to the impact. I like a good extinction impact, and I'm very pleased if you can convince me, but I will admit that very few teams have been able to get me there. Shout out to the team who argued no IRS = extinction. It was beautiful.

Case - The aff should be a clear and coherent story. I am heavy on solvency, so you must prove solvency. If you don't prove how this is an issue, you lose. Extend your evidence; your best evidence should be in the 1AC.

Other thoughts - I am very story-driven. Tell me how we get to where we get to. Outline it very clearly for me. I love off-time roadmaps so that I can organize the flow better. I will try to keep up, but there are no guarantees I will catch everything. Your cards are critical. I rely heavily on them. The more organized your cards are, the better. Don't be afraid to tell me how you are winning in the cards. Spell it out, highlight it, bold it - color it, and keep sending it to me until the very end; I don't care if it's the same cards --- remind me why you are winning! It's a crutch I'm happy to use until I get better. Make sure your cards are up to date. I've voted against teams specifically because of outdated cards that were obsolete. It's policy, and you are arguing for real-world change. I've witnessed a seasoned judge checking recent news to verify if a cited card was applicable, and unfortunately, it wasn't. As a result, that team lost. I adhere to that approach. Take everything with a grain of salt, though, because I am still a new policy judge trying to get the hang of everything; there will be updates the more I figure out what I like and dislike! Debate hard and have fun!

LD: As I flow your round, I’ll be looking to see how your value and criterion work in tandem to prove the moral rationale that LD rests; furthermore, I don’t like when crossfires engage in obnoxious back-and-forths with questions that don’t add any substantive value to the round. Lastly, it's imperative that you underscore the credibility of your cards, especially when making claims including stats, data, points, and political and historical claims that attack your opponent’s arguments.

PF: I enjoy PF and like to flow the rounds I judge to provide you with the best feedback I can. I love to see link chains and impacts that are substantial to the case; rather than just reading the cards, I’d appreciate you explaining and further reinforcing your points, data, and stats, to let me know that you know your case all around. If you speak too fast, I’ll try to keep up as I flow but once you’ve lost me, I’ll stop flowing. I am not a fan of voters that are reliant on ethos; I prefer you use logic in voters that explain to me what you’ve argued in round. Don’t forget that I’m also flowing the round so if your claim is that they’ve dropped certain points, I’ll refer to my flow to assess that claim.

CX: I like to flow Policy rounds - please be mindful that I will flow the round and I appreciate signposts. If you’re speaking too fast (spreading) and I lose track of what you’re arguing, I may not be able to appropriately flow the round. I like policy and I’ll be looking for which side proves the resolution is true or false. I’m not a fan of off-cases (T, XT, FX, or Ks) unless they’re CPs. If you must absolutely run a K because you believe you have an edge over your competitors, please explain it to me if it’s an obscure or unpopular K.

I am a policy judge. I debated for 3-4 years, coached for 3 more, and have judged for 4ish years now (all policy).

I can understand spewing/spreading/whatever else you call it.

I do not flow cx so if you make a good point you need to bring it up in your next speech or I will not flow it through. If I am typing during cx, I am probably catching up on my notes from the previous speech.

I like judging on impact calc, but the role of the debate is the most important thing to me (if aff or neg does not fulfill their roles, it is an automatic loss). I also invite you to write the ballot for me (tell me what arguments you won and why, what arguments they dropped, etc). Structure your rebuttal speeches that way.

***Make sure you flow your arguments through unless you intentionally drop them***

Alpharetta 21. Emory 25.

Email chain: hargunn.sandhu03@gmail.com

Note:

I have ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE. Explain acronyms and don't assume I know the limits/consensus on T.

General:

1. Tech > Truth. Better debating can easily overcome any of the preferences I have below. Judge instruction is key, especially in the final rebuttals.

2. Good debating requires quality evidence; strong logical explanation, and contextualization.

3. Online debate: please slow down and enunciate more than you normally would. Clarity should not be sacrificed for speed. Sending analytics might be useful in case internet cuts out. Try to keep your camera on at least during speeches and CX.

4. Racism, sexism, discrimination, or any other problematic actions will result in an L and the lowest speaks.

5. Clipping = L and lowest speaks. If you accuse someone of clipping you must have evidence, if you fail to prove they clipped then you get an L.

Specifics:

1. K:

a. K Affs: Clash > Fairness > Education/Skills. I'm more inclined to vote on t usfg/framework since I have mostly been on this side of the debate. Heg good, cap good, etc are all good 2nr options. However, I do think the aff can win with impact turns to the negative's model. Good K affs have a connection to the topic and a clear offense/defense mechanism in the 1AC.

b. Ks: Leaning towards aff gets to weigh the plan. Who cares if fiat isn't real. Specific links, pulling quotes from the 1AC, and in-depth explanation at every level are very important. Avoid large overviews. Turns case/root cause/alt solves > fw 2nrs. Extinction ow/impact turn > permutation 2ars.

2. CPs/DAs:

a. CPs: Cool. If undebated, I'll judge kick the CP. I might be a little more receptive to intrinsic perms than most.

b. DAs: Turns case is crucial. Politics DAs are good, spin is important. 0% risk is a thing, but hard to get to.

3. Theory:

a. Conditionality: Good. Worth noting that I think aff teams rarely capitalize on neg teams' poor defense of condo.

b. International CP and Ctrl + f word PICs are bad assuming even debating. Neg leaning on most other theory.

4. T - Assuming even debating, competing interps > reasonability. Precise, contextual evidence is key to winning these debates, for both the aff and the neg, but especially the aff if there's a substantial limits differential. Read cards. Both sides should be clashing over their visions of the topic and the impacts to it.

5. Case: Not a fan of framing pages. Impact Turns are fantastic. Good case debating is underutilized. Presumption is possible.

6. Misc:

- Speaks: I'm prolly a little above average giving them out. Specific strategies are good. It always helps to make the round fun. Quality evidence is good. If you opensource, let me know, + .1

- Insert perm texts

- I'm usually not expressive, and anything I do express is usually not your fault.

- Things I prolly won't vote on: ASPEC, death good, and out of round issues

Mike Shackelford
Head Coach of Rowland Hall. I debated in college and have been a lab leader at CNDI, Michigan, and other camps. I've judged about 20 rounds the first semester.

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible.

Key Preferences & Beliefs
Debate is a game.
Literature determines fairness.
It’s better to engage than exclude.
Critique is a verb.
Defense is undervalued.

Judging Style
I flow on my computer. If you want a copy of my flow, just ask.
I think CX is very important.
I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions.
Add me to the email chain: mikeshackelford(at)rowlandhall(dot)org

Feel free to ask.

Want something more specific? More absurd?

Debate in front of me as if this was your 9 judge panel:

Andre Washington, Ian Beier, Shunta Jordan, Maggie Berthiaume, Daryl Burch, Yao Yao Chen, Nicholas Miller, Christina Philips, jon sharp

If both teams agree, I will adopt the philosophy and personally impersonate any of my former students:

Ben Amiel, Andrew Arsht, David Bernstein, Madeline Brague, Julia Goldman, Emily Gordon, Adrian Gushin, Layla Hijjawi, Elliot Kovnick, Will Matheson, Ben McGraw, Corinne Sugino, Caitlin Walrath, Sydney Young (these are the former debaters with paradigms... you can also throw it back to any of my old school students).

LD Paradigm

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of my expectations and preferences. I spend most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I do teach LD and judge practice debates in class. I try to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: I'm unlikely to vote here. Most theory debates aren't impacted well and often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: Clarity > Speed. That should be a no-brainer. That being said, I'm sure I can flow you at whatever speed you feel is appropriate to convey your arguments.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.

Collin Smith -- collin.smith8941@gmail.com

Most of my argumentation has been on the K side of things in debate. My research interests, however, are very broad, and I do not really care what form your arguments take. As a judge, I value specificity, evidence comparison, and in-depth explanation. I generally decide debates by identifying key points of offense and sifting through the evaluative mechanisms set up by either team to discern whose impact matters more, and how I should conceive of solvency.

Framework – I will vote for it, I will vote against it. I think neg teams win these debates when they win clash/debate-ability as an internal link turn to aff and some type of procedural impact, but I see the utility in switch-side or topic education arguments in some contexts. Neg’s also need to win a framework comes first/case doesn’t matter argument. I think the aff is set to win these debates when they win an impact they can solve, an impact turn to the neg’s interp, and apply that disad to the 2nr’s arguments. I do not think a counter-interpretation is necessary, though often it is quite useful.

Case/disads - I really enjoy a detailed, specific case or disad debate. I am willing vote on well-executed defense to mostly minimize the risk of an advantage or disadvantage.

:)

Dartmouth, Interlake. He/him.

Email Chain

Add me: ant981228 at gmail dot com

College people, add: debatedocs at googlegroups dot com

Please include the tournament, round, and teams debating in the subject line of the email.

Key Things to Know

I will flow and vote based on the things you said. Negs can say whatever but the more it says the plan is bad the better. Conditionality and judge kick are good. Affs should be T and are likely to lose if they aren't. If you say death good you lose. If you ask for a 30 you will get a 25.

I do a lot of work during tournaments and will be tired on their last few days. I have found that this makes it harder for me to focus. To counteract this, I have gone back to flowing on paper, which I have found helps me process the debate as it is happening. You will benefit if you make my paper flowing life easier (give me time to flip the page, warn me if you're going to make an abnormally large number of arguments about part of the flow, tell me to make an overview or framework page if I need one, etc.).

Online

I STRONGLY prefer that all cameras be on whenever anyone in the debate is speaking, but I understand if internet or other considerations prevent this.

If my camera is off, assume I am away from my computer and don't start talking. If you start your speech while I am away from my computer you do not get to restart. That is on you.

Here is how to successfully adjust to the online setting:

1. Inflect more when you are talking.

2. Put your face in frame. Ideally, make it so you can see the judge.

3. Get a microphone, put it close to your face, talk into it, make sure there is an unobstructed line between it and your mouth.

4. Talk one at a time.

T/L

Tech determines truth unless it's death good. If you tell me to embrace death because life is bad I will vote against you even if you do not go for the argument. More broadly, all else being equal, I strongly prefer to solve problems without resorting to violence or force if possible.

Otherwise, unless my role as a judge is changed, I will attempt to make the least interventionary decision. This means:

1. I will identify the most important issues in the debate, decide them first based on the debating, then work outward.

2. What is conceded is absolutely true, but will only have the implications that you say it has. Unless something is explicitly said, conceded, and extended, or is an obvious and necessary corollary of something that is said, conceded, and extended, I will attempt to resolve it, rather than assuming it.

3. I will intervene if there is no non-interventionary decision.

4. I will attempt to minimize the scope of my intervention by simplifying the decision-making process. I would prefer to decide fewer issues. If an issue seems hard to resolve without intervening, I will prioritize evaluating ballots that don't require resolving that issue.

This procedure typically means (for example):

1. I will prioritize resolution of impact claims.

2. I will deprioritize resolution of claims that do not affect the relative magnitude of two sides' offense. For example, in a DA/case debate where turns case is conceded, uniqueness is often irrelevant since aff solvency is reduced to the same extent neg offense is inevitable.

I am aware that this procedure can influence my assessment of substance. Given infinite decision time, I would decide every question in the debate. However, shrinking decision times make this impractical. Minutes spent resolving complex or under-debated issues that are not outcome-determinative trade off with the quality of my assessment of issues that are. I believe this process net reduces error costs.

As of end-of-season 2024, I have voted aff 47% of the time, and sat on 11% of panels.

I often vote quickly. This does not necessarily mean the debate was lopsided or bad; more likely, it is a sign that the teams clearly communicated the relationships between their arguments, allowing me to perform evaluations as the debate is happening. If I take a long time that means I was unable to do this, either because there was significant complexity in the debate or because communication was poor.

The following are my inclinations - if you don't like them you can change them through debating.

DAs

The agenda DA will usually not survive a rich, accurate description of the current legislative agenda based on thoughtfully reading the news.

CPs

If no one says anything I will assume I can judge kick. It is very hard to use theory to stop me from thinking about the status quo. Nothing but conditionality is a voting issue. Pretty neg on most theory, except fiating out of your own straight turned offense.

Competition is usually more impactful than theory. Theory arguments that logically presume you have won a competition argument ("CPs that steal the aff are a voting issue" assumes you have demonstrated that the CP has stolen the aff, which is a competition argument. "CPs that are not functionally and textually competitive are a voting issue"... come on, what are we doing here) are a waste of time. Just win the competition argument.

Functional competition + explaining what your plan does + definitions + reasons to prefer your definitions >>>>> anything involving the concept of textual competition. Textual competition is mind poison that corrupts any competition model it touches. "Should =/= immediate" with a real card should be a crush.

If I can't explain what a CP does and how it accomplishes whatever the neg says it does, I am unlikely to vote for it. You can avoid this by writing a meaningful CP text AND explaining it in the speech.

T

I like judging good T debates. I really don't like judging bad ones. What sets these apart is specific application of broad offense to interpretations and impact debating that is specific to internal links, grounded in a vivid vision for debates under your topic.

I do not think the intrinsic value of being "factually correct" about your T argument is very high.

Many parts of a T argument can be enhanced with cards - e.g. link to limits, claims of aff/neg bias in the literature, predictability via prodicts/indicts.

Argue by analogy and comparison to other affs, especially in CX.

Ks / Planless Affs

Good for specific Ks on the neg, bad for random backfile slop, bad for K affs, death good = L.

If your K is secretly a DA, refer to the DA section. If your K is not a DA, it needs a framework and alternative (you don't have to use those words, but some argument needs to serve those functions).

I do not judge many debates involving nontraditional affs. The biggest hurdles to voting aff for me are usually: 1) why can't the aff be read on the neg, 2) why is the aff's offense inherent to resolutional debate or to voting neg on framework instead of some avoidable examples, and 3) how do I reconcile the aff's vision of debate or the topic with debate's inherently (even if not exclusively) competitive nature.

I am very willing to entertain arguments that attempt to denaturalize debate as competition but struggle when these critiques lack an alternative or a theory of why debate as a way of putting two teams and a judge in conversation with one another is nevertheless useful.

I think affs that creatively reinterpret the resolution in a way that does not create excessive curricular demands would be more up my alley, but no one has tested this, so proceed with caution.

For whatever it's worth, I do most of my thinking about debate arguments through the lens of competition theory. This includes neg K framework arguments (which, in front of me, would benefit from disaggregating the questions of what about the aff is a basis for competition, what alternatives are legitimate, and what impacts are the most important). If you say "ontology first," what I will hear is that the aff's ontology is a basis for competition. I will expect the link arguments to be about the aff's ontology, and I will expect to hear about an alternative ontology. When these components are misaligned, my struggle with neg perm answers tends to increase. To me, this is no different than saying "CPs must compete functionally, and here is my argument for why this one competes textually."

I am open to different understandings of what it means for things to compete if there is no plan. However, "no plan, no perms" is nonsense.

The only effect of my ballot is to decide the winner.

Speaker Points

Strong strategy, being fun/engaging to watch, being smart, being classy, being clear = higher speaks.

Making wrong strategic choices, being underprepared or ignorant about substance, making CXs annoying/pointless, making bad arguments, being needlessly mean, being a mumbler... = lower speaks.

I do not view speaker points as divorced from substance.

My points are slightly below average.

Asking for a 30 will yield a 25.

You can find my ethics and conduct policies here.

Debated at Okemos High School 2016-2020

Debated at KU 2020-2022

Coaching at Blue Valley

sonyaazin@gmail.com

T - fine

FW - fine

DA's - fine

CP's - fine

K's - I love these, so definitely fine; race theory/pomo/gender and or sexual orientation

K-Affs - ^^^^

Theory - fine

not much lit base for K's (or much of any arg) on this topic so just explain the link, I/L, and impact.

Non-TLDR

Run whatever you want, be clear, signpost and warrant out all arguments you want me to vote on. If it isn't in the 2nr/2ar, I will not vote on it. A dropped argument is a concession but make sure you point it out and EXPLAIN why it matters. I'm familiar with a fair amount of K literature but some of the heavy pomo/race theory stuff should be explained and warranted.

LBL should be a little more in depth and have a lot more warranted analysis than I've seen recently.

TLDR

Args I've run consistently: Cap, Militarism, Set Col, Antimilitarism K-aff, Set Col K-aff, FW/T-USFG

Args I'm familiar with: Fem, Set Col (and it's varients), Afropess (and it's varients), Psycho, Black Psycho, Baudrillard, Deleuze and Death Good.

K stuff

Link: make sure it's something unique to the aff, something that the aff does or supports through direct evidence or analysis. "Aff does _____ with ____ which causes ______" A link doesn't have to be a direct quote but it does have to be a direct mechanism or flaw with the aff/resolution. If you're critiquing the resolution then at least tie your theory into whatever your are dismantling/restructuring. Other than that, I don't have too much of a high threshold for the topicality of the K or the K aff.

Alt/Solvency for K-Aff's: I have a little more leniency with alt's on a K than an alternative/mode of solvency for a K aff because in my opinion, when critiquing an aff, it should honestly be enough to say that the aff's epistemology is flawed, therefor we shouldn't invest any energy into debating about it, and they should lose. If you're critiquing the resolution though, you need to have some concrete way of doing something about what you've critiqued. A lot of K-affs just kind of say the rez sucks and then do quite literally nothing about it. Even in round education can beat a lot of other off case offense, but you have to explain how reading your aff in debate spills out into something that changes our relationship to the rez. Even in a world without fiat, I need to know why the scholarship of the aff is net better than any scholarship the neg would have access to in a debate under different circumstances.

Case and Case v K Stuff

At the end of a round in which I vote aff, I need to be able to coherently describe the mechanism of the aff, the impacts, and how the aff solves the impacts. If the 2ar doesn't have this or spends a minute doing some sloppy LBL with unintelligible spreading on case and then moves on to answering 4 minutes of the K/FW, I'm probably not going to vote for you. I understand that sometimes people feel like they know their case very well and the "premise" of the aff "should" solve the residual offense, but it gets muddled or you get rushed because you're running out of time on the K. So just be mindful. Explain the warrants of the LBL.

T stuff

Do whatever you want, but I don't really believe in voting on T as a reverse voter but under some special circumstances, I can see myself doing so, assuming the Aff can clearly explain a voter and standards that prove they lost ground by having T run on them (for some reason I have a fear of this, don't ask). Slow down a little on standards and block stuff.

FW stuff

If you don't extend your interp throughout each speech then I probs will have a harder time voting for you, so make sure to do so. Other than that though, do whatever the hell you want. Standards and/or Impact turns being gone for should be extrapolated and contextualized to the type of advocacy/education in the round. Read all the disads you want. Make sure to tell me why policy education might be better vs. critical education in the long run for a certain case scenario. Keep FW separate from framing on case but MAKE CONNECTIONS.

CP stuff

I mean if you want. I tend to give condo more weight when there are 3 + conditional advocacies, including the K, so be a bit careful there.

Impact stuff

IMPACT FRAMING!!!!!! 2ar/1ar as well Block/2nr need to be solid about what impacts/offense is/are being gone for in the debate. There's obviously going to be concessions on both sides at the end of the debate but where are they, why do they matter, and what does this mean for other arguments on the flow? 2ar's/2nr's that write the ballot at the top of the rebuttles>>>>>>

Spreading Stuff

Pls enunciate the tags and don't spread through blocks at the rate of a lawnmower on drugs, especially when/if they're not in the doc. I have a sore spot from a round with clipping so I'll probably say clear like 5 times, and if there's still an issue after that I'll mention something at the end of the speech. If it keeps happening, there will probably be more severe consequences.

Speaks

I'll probably give you better speaks if you're slower and have good arguments than if you're fast and make little strategic arguments. If you're fast and make good args, I'll definitely give you the extra speaker points.

The vibes I'd like us all to strive for are ????????????, preferably in that order. ???? does not include derogatory language or disrespect. Rock on!