I want to receive the speech docs, mcbonitto at gmail.com.

This year (2023-2024), I am working as a licensed clinical psychologist in Seattle, WA, in a community health center providing low-cost/free integrated behavioral/mental healthcare primarily to teenagers. I also judge occasionally at both the high school and college levels. I have a full-time job outside of debate. I choose to stay involved with debate because it matters to me. I care about being a good judge and a good coach. I view myself as a constant learner, and I enjoy learning about and thinking about all sorts of debate arguments. If I don't know something in a debate, I will usually try to learn about it by the next time I see you.

Prior to this year- For debate- I was an assistant coach, then the Assistant Director, and later Interim Director of Debate at Wichita State. Prior to that, I was an assistant coach at several high schools in Kansas, including Washburn Rural, Wichita East, and Kapaun. Not debate- I was an assistant clinical professor of education and psychology at Wichita State University. My academic work focuses primarily on psychological assessment.

I did policy debate in both high school and college, I graduated from Wichita State University in 2011. I have a wide background in debate arguments. I have debated and coached almost every style of argument. I firmly believe that you will do best in debate by reading what you are best at, and that is what I want to hear. I want this debate to be about you. I respect you, and I value your education in debate. I will try VERY hard to listen to anything you have to say and vote for whichever team did the better debating.

Across both high school and college, I have judged at least 3 tournaments a year since graduating undergrad 12 years ago. This year (2023-2024), I do not do topic work. The thing I find myself asking for more than anything else in decisions is fewer arguments and more focused explanations.

I think participation in debate is important for all marginalized groups, and I believe in the importance of debate as a community of activists and a tool of empowerment. That being said, yes, I will still vote for your framework arguments, your T debates, your theory arguments, your CP's, or your disads (I really do want to hear what you're best at).

Don’t talk down to or threaten your partners or the other team. I spend more than most people in this activity in healthcare settings working with people with disabilities, many of whom are actively suicidal, depressed, and/or anxious. If you are someone who needs someone in your corner who has that experience during the tournament, I'm happy to try to be that person. If someone is visibly emotionally upset in a debate, before starting prep time, I will usually stop the debate to check in and may encourage a break. I care about people infinitely more than I care about who wins or loses. Also, I am likely not a good judge for final rebuttals that center around arguments that life has no value, death is good, or arguments that encourage suicide or are explicitly violent.

Speaker Points: Norms keep changing with points, and I'm trying to be attentive in giving points consistent with the community norms. I have been told that my points are both wildly too high and wildly too low at various points throughout the years I have been around judging debates. Know that I honestly am trying, and I do apologize if I mess it up. I don't memorize names well, so I am not good at knowing the points you are "supposed" to get. I base points on what I thought of that round and what I perceive to be the norms of that tournament.

Forfeits: Assuming that a tournament gives me the discretion and power to do so, if a person/team in a round that I am judging are clearly interested in and attempting to complete a debate, in the event of a forfeit for reasons that the team cannot control or otherwise make them unable to compete, I will give the round loss to the team that forfeits but will do my best to award fair speaker points to both teams.

Online Debate: For clarity's sake- Please try to slow down a bit and keep your cameras on if possible.

I debated 3 years of policy and 2 years of parli in college (2005-2010) for the University of Wyoming. I went for a little of everything and am willing to listen to pretty much whatever and judge the round how the debaters debate it out. That said, I don't judge often (pretty much once a year) and instead spend my time teaching tiny children. Please remember CARD is not the same as policy or other debate formats and I want to see debates that focus on practicing effective advocacy and communication.

Gosh, I needed to update this...

I'm a long-time coach with a lot of policy debate experience. I pay attention to what's going on and try my best to meet you at your level. I've judged every weekend this season.

Include me on the email chain please - charrier@gmail.com

I prefer a more traditional approach to debate - policy evaluation, dead bodies, uniqueness, etc. Not ruling out other methods, I'll listen intently, but it might be more of a roll-of-the-dice.

Disclose in a fair and honest manner, adhering to Kant: "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.”

Noteworthy items:

(1). K vs. K debates leave me confused. K vs. Policy makes more sense, still not your dream K judge. K's of institutions and methods make more sense than K's of in-round whatever. If you are winning a framing issue, tell me why it matters - how does it interact with impacts?

(2) T/Framework. If there is a plan that's even in the ballpark of being topical, don't make T your 2NR strategy. If there is no plan, my ears are much more sensitive to T. But again, not ruling that method out either.

(3). Embedded clash. I'll do my best but I'm going to do the least work for both teams possible. Back in my day, we mocked the lump-and-dump teams without mercy and I still carry that bias. Times change, I'll do my best.

My hope is that you will have enjoyed Debate so much that you will be a lifetime supporter of the activity.

Jeremy Christensen Philosophy LD 2024 (Updated)

Hired by Washburn University - Currently Unaffiliated. I teach English at a regional community college in eastern Ohio.

Quick Hits

1) Treat me pretty much like a lay judge. This is likely disheartening, but it is my effort to be honest. My hearing is not as good and my mind not as sharp as it was once, and they weren't that great then. Intersection of unlabeled issues is tough for me. For instance, abandoning tags for disadvantages, the K, counterplans, and fundamentally eliminating line-by-line debate as a practice has made the activity difficult for me to manage. My preference is line-by-line and labeled arguments, but even then, I cannot guarantee I'm going to be up to speed on the nuance. You have to explain it to me.

2) I have not judged a single round on this resolution. That means two things for you: 1) I have no background in the literature. You will want to explain arguments to me rather than just referring back to the author names. 2) Also, I have not judged LD since NFA Nationals in the spring of 2022, so it would be in your interest to go at about 80 percent of your max rate rather than your max rate.

3) The Affirmative needs to have an advocacy statement or plan that includes action by the USFG. If your strategy is to reject the resolution, I will not be a good critic for you, as the odds are high you will lose (not inevitable, but high). The Negative will need to argue “USFG” topicality and win the competing interpretations debate, but they will have significant latitude.

4) Probably I lean more toward tech over truth, but just because an argument is dropped does not mean it automatically wins. Someone needs to explain why that argument is important to the overall scheme of the debate. Be nice. That does not mean do not ask hard questions or make direct statements, but I have no tolerance for badgering, bullying, and name calling. Do any of those and even if you win the round, speaker points will be in the zero to five range.

5) I am adverse to intervention and only reading the debate. I know some intervention is inevitable, but I like to stay away from the big ones: imagining links, extending an argument and warrant that were not fully extended, intepreting an internal link that wasn't articulated. I still see the verbal debate as important, and that is where debaters should explain links and the intersection and prioritization of arguments. Everything, for me at least, does not happen on SpeechDrop. I think notetaking is a good skill for everyone, so I don't expect folks to write out their analytics. They probably should slow down a bit, but they should say them if they want then in the debate.

6) Background – I understand folks like to know, but I wouldn’t read a lot into this. My position has changed, so my experience may not help. Still, here it is: I did policy debate in the 1980s and early 90s in college, coached NFA LD from the 2000s to 2019, coached national circuit NPDA from the mid-90s to 2017, coached IPDA from 2010-2019, and dabbled in some NDT/CEDA as coach (novice/JV) and have worked with high school debaters in policy and national circuit LD from 1992 until 2020. I checked-out of coaching debate during the pandemic, as I was just not feeling it. I love the activity, or I wouldn’t have given up thirty years doing it. That means I’m not hostile to what you are doing; I just want you to know where I am on things.

Specifics

Delivery – I have no bias here, but my limits are outlined above. I don’t keep track of how many WPM I can flow, but I know it is not as many as it was before my hearing loss and when I was in tune with the literature. I do not care from what position you speak or how you deliver. Speaker points for me come down to organization and impacting arguments, as well as the quality of the arguments. I rarely go below 24 (out of 30), but see the above cases when I do.

Also, my preferences is to flow the spoken round. I don't like to go back into SpeechDrop and flow because I feel like I'm intervening.

Advocacy – Everything, I understand, is open to debate; however, I am at a point where I have a more difficult time seeing the value in punting the resolution. Therefore, Affirmatives should have a policy statement/plan action. That said, alternative frameworks to net-benefits are welcome, as are critical arguments in the case advocacy. Those, however, need to work through the agent specified in the resolution. If no framework is provided, then I will default to net-benefits and use some matrix of timeframe, magnitude, probability, and reversibility.

Procedurals

Topicality is a voting issue, and I resolve that based upon competing interpretations, which means you need to win the standards debate to get access to your interpretation. For me, my threshold for topicality depends upon the term in question and the nature of the resolution (bidirectional, clearly has greater latitude, for instance).

Specification arguments are welcome, but you should show some articulated abuse. Potential abuse standards in the shell are okay, but at the end of the day, you needed to be using the procedural to leverage a DA, CP, or criticism. My advice is that if it is important the NR will go for both the procedural and the argument it is holding in place.

Conditionality/Time Suck arguments are fine. I am probably in the minority here, but I really don’t care if someone reads four CPs and seven DAs and goes for one DA. While the 1AR is short, I think there are opportunities to point-out double turns in that many arguments. Also, I am not smart, so that number of arguments will probably confuse me, so there is that. Likewise, if an AFF kicks the 1AC and goes for a turn on a procedural, I am open to that too, or kicks the 1AC and goes for a turn on a DA only, then I’m okay there. Read the theory, have the debate, but just be aware that if someone reads multiple arguments and collapses to the best one, I think that is pretty smart, not unethical. Feel free to persuade me otherwise.

Other Procedurals– More on this later, but I won’t vote on a procedural that requires another debater to write-out analytics. I just won’t do it. I guess if there is an ADA requirement that is documented, requiring the entire debate to be scripted and provided to the other debater, then that is different, but absent that, I am not interested in that argument

Presumption – If the affirmative meets the prima facia burden, the Aff has overcome presumption of the status quo. The Negative does NOT need a CP, though I welcome one. To win on the negative, assuming the AFF has met that burden (and most often the AFF does), then some offense that outweighs the advantage of the AFF is necessary (case turns + solvency mitigation, solvency mitigation + DA, CP + solvency mitigation, as the differential between the CP solvency and the Aff solvency is a disadvantage to endorsing the Aff.)

Criticisms – This is tough for me. Since the early 2000s I like to think I have been open to all of these arguments and have heard a fair number. I have a solid background in critical theory (deep in Foucault, Marxism, and Lacan, shallow on feminism, queer theory, and gender studies), and I have taught several courses in critical theory, so I'm not put off by criticism in any way. The problem I have, however, is that the way the cards are cut and employed sometimes, works against the theory advanced or is misrepresenting it. Consequently, that confuses me, and then debaters are disappointed that I just don't get it. In short, these are a risk. Just because I understand critical theory, doesn't mean I understand your approach or brand of critical theory.

My other challenge, increasingly, is that I like to see specific links to the resolution. Critical affirmative arguments should be linked there, critical negative arguments should be linked to the Aff’s advocacy statement or literature and not to the AFF or NEG as a person. Just reading settler colonialism or militarism without some specific indication why that links to the AFF makes me, again, feel like I have to intervene. If the kritik is a “call out,” I am very uncomfortable with that, and am highly unlikely to vote for you. Otherwise, go for it. I view criticisms as arguments rooted in personal policy statements. I do like an alternative. If your particular diet of criticism eschews alternatives, that is fine, but read a card that explains why leaving out an alternative is key to solving the problem. outlined in the criticism . Read good links and win the framework debate.

Rebuttals and Pulling Cards – I like to be a listener in a round and not a reader. I want to judge your interpretation of evidence and analysis and not have my intervene. To that end, I really like rebuttals that weigh-out issues (not just names of cards or post-date questions) and that write the ballot for me. Of course, I will look at evidence, but only if the particular nuance of a card is discussed in the debate.

Credentials and Flowsheets - It is in the interest of both debaters to discuss their advocates' credentials. I, however, do not think having an infinitely regressive standard of citing the citation of your citations is necessary. Even in an academic literature review that practice is rare, so to insist upon it in a speech of six or seven minutes seems silly. That said, what you say verbally is what I will flow, and I see my flow as the record of the debate (for better or worse), not the submitted briefs. Analytics do NOT need to be written out and shared, though slowing down a bit to give me pen time on those will help me to get them.

Final Thoughts – I have given thirty-five years of my life to this activity, so I love it. I hope you do too, and to that end, I really hope you have fun and appreciate what a privilege it is to get to convene with so many good people who enjoy doing what you do.

I have no idea what I may have overlooked here. In the end, I know some about debate, and I will do my best to serve as a fair and reasonable critic, but if you are looking for a perfect critic, that is not me.

Updated for the Legalization Topic 9/11/14

I do want on the e-mail chain: mmcoleman10@gmail.com

Debate Experience: Wichita State graduate 2009. We read a middle of the road straight up affirmative and won more debates on arguments like imperialsim good than should have been possible. However, on the negative roughly half of my 2NRs were a K (with the other half being some combination of T, politics/case etc.) so I believe firmly in argumentative flexibility and am comfortable voting for or against almost all arguments.

Judging Experience: 5-8 tournaments each year since graduating.

Most importantly: I do not work with a team currently so I have not done any topic research, my only involvement is judging a handful of tournaments each year. It would be in your best interest to not assume I have the intricacies of your PIC or T argument down and take some time explaining the basis of your arguments. If the first time I figure out what your CP does or what your violation is on T is after you give me the text after the debate, my motivation to vote for you is going to be pretty low. I am currently a practicing attorney so I may have some insight on the topic from that perspective, but I'll try to minimize what impact that has on my decisions outside of possibly some suggestions after the debate on how to make it more accurately reflect how the legal process works.

Ways to kill your speaker points/irritate me

1. Cheating - I mean this substantively not argumentatively. This can include stealing prep time, clipping cards, lying about disclosure etc. If people are jumping cards or waiting to get the flash drive and you are furiously typing away on your computer it's pretty obvious you are stealing prep and I will call you out on it.

2. Being unecessarily uptight/angry about everything. There's no need to treat every round like it's the finals of the NDT, try having some fun once in awhile I promise your points from me and others will go up as a result. I take debate seriously and enjoying being a part of debate, but you can be very competitive and still generally pleasant to be around at the same time. I have no problem if people want to make fun of an argument, but it's one thing to attack the quality of an argument and another entirely to attack the person reading those arguments.

3. Not letting the other person talk in cross-x. It irritates me greatly when one person answers and asks every single question on one team.

4. A lack of line-by-line debate. If your only reference to the previous speeches is some vague reference to "the link debate" you are going to be irritated with my decision. I'm only willing to put in the same amount of work that you are. This is not to say that I can't be persuaded to have a more holistic view of the debate, but if I can't tell what arguments you are answering I am certainly going to be sympathetic if the other team can't either. Also people over use the phrase "dropped/conceded" to the point that I'm not sure they mean anything anymore, I'm paying attention to the debate if something is conceded then certainly call the other team out, if they spent 2 minutes answering it skip the part of your block that says "they've conceded: . It just makes me feel that you aren't putting the same work that I am in paying attention to what is occurring in the debate.

5. If your speech/cx answers sound like a biblography. Having evidence and citations is important, but if all you can do is list a laundry list of citations without any explanation or application and then expect me to wade through it all in the end, well we're probably not going to get along. I do not tend to read many cards after a debate if any. I pretty quickly figure out where the important arguments (debaters that identify and highlight important arguments themselves and resolve those debates for me are going to be very far ahead) and then I will turn to arguments and evidentiary issues that are contested.

Ways to impress me

1. Having strategic vision among the different arguments in the debate. Nothing is better than having a debater realize that an answer on one sheet of paper is a double turn with a team's answer on another and be able to capitalize on it, bold moves like that are often rewarded with good points and wins if done correctly.

2. Using your cross-x well. Few people use this time well, but for me it's some of the most valuable speech time and it can make a big difference in the outcome of debates if used effectively.

3. Having a working knowledge of history. It's amazing to me how many arguments are just patently untrue that could be disproven with even a basic understanding of history, I think those are good arguments and often more powerful than the 10 word overhighlighted uniqueness card you were going to read instead.

Topicality

I enjoy a well crafted and strategic T argument. My biggest problem with these debates is the over emphasis on the limits/reasonability debate occuring in the abstract, usually at the expense of spending enough time talking about the particulars of the aff/neg interps their support in the literature, and how the particular interp interacts with the limits/reasonability debate. T cards rival politics uniqueness cards as the worst ones read in debate, and more time should be spent by both teams in pointing this out.

I think this topic provides an interesting opportunity for discussion with the absence of the federal government in the topic as far as what the Aff can and should be allowed to defend. I'm curious how both Affs and Negs will choose to adapt to this change.

Topicality - K Affs

I think you have to have a defense of the resolution, the manner in which that is done is up to the particular debate. Unfortunately I've been forced to vote on T = genocide more times than I'd like to admit, but Neg's refuse to answer it, no matter how terrible of an argument it is (and they don't get much worse). Critical Affs are likely to do the best in front of me the stronger their tie is to the resolution. The argument there is "no topical version of our aff" has always seemed to me to be a reason to vote Neg, not Aff. Stop making that argument, doing so is just an indication you haven't read or don't care what I put in here and it will be reflected in your points.

I don't ususally get more than one or two opportunities per year to judge debates centered around issues of race/sex/identity but try to be as open as I can to these types of debates when they do occur. I still would prefer these arguments have at least some tie to the resolution as I think this particular topic does allow for good discussion of a lot of these issues. I have generally found myself voting Aff in these types of debates, as the Negative either usually ignores the substance of the Aff argument or fails to explain adequately why both procedurally and substantively the way the Aff has chosen to approach the topic is bad. Debates about alternate ways in which these issues might be approached in terms of what Negatives should get to say against them compared to what the Aff should be forced to defend seem most relevant to me, and one that I find interesting to think about and will try hard to make an informed decision about.

Counterplans/Disads

I like this style of debate a lot. However, one thing I don't like is that I find myself increasingly voting on made up CPs that for some unknown reason link slightly less to politics, simply because Aff teams refuse to challenge this claim. To sum up, don't be afraid to make smart analytical arguments against all arguments in the debate it can only help you. I am among those that do believe in no risk either of an aff advantage or neg disad, but offense is always nice to have.

Affs also seem to give up too easily on theory arguments against certain process CPs (condition/consult etc.) and on the issue of the limits of conditionality (it does exist somewhere, but I can be persuaded that the number of neg CPs allowed can be high/low depending on the debate). In general though I do tend to lean neg on most theory issues and if you want to win those arguments in front of me 1) slow down and be comprehnsible 2) talk about how the particulars of the neg strategy affected you. For example conditionality might be good, but if it is a conditional international agent cp mixed with 2 or 3 other conditional arguments a more coherent discussion about how the strategy of the 1nc in general unduly harmed the Aff might be more effective than 3 or 4 separate theory arguments.

K's

I judge these debates a lot, particularly the clash of civilization debates (the result of judging exclusively in D3). Negative teams would do well to make their argument as particularized to the Aff as possible and explain their impact, and by impact I mean more than a vague use of the word "ethics" or "ontology" in terms of the Aff and how it would implicate the aff advantages. If you give a 2NC on a K and haven't discussed the Aff specifically you have put yourself in a bad position in the debate, apply your arguments to the Aff, or I'm going to be very hesitant to want to vote for you.

Additionally while I vote for it pretty often exploring the critical literature that isn't "the Cap K" would be pleasantly appreciated. I can only judge Gabe's old cap backfiles so many times before I get bored with it, and I'd say 3/4 of the debates I judge it seems to pop up. Be creative. Affs would be smart not to concede big picture issues like "no truth claims to the aff" or "ontology first." I vote for the K a lot and a large percentage of those debates are because people concede big picture issues. Also keep in mind that if you like impact turning the K I may be the judge for you.

Background

My pronouns are he/him. I've competed in debate for seven years - four years of high school Policy (CX) debate, and three years of college parliamentary (NPDA) debate. Since then, I've taught/coached both middle school and high school debaters in PF, LD, and Policy. Bottom line with me is do what you do best and what you enjoy most.

Big Picture

I consider myself a flow judge. That means the arguments you make in the round I'll evaluate, and I compare them to your opponents arguments and both of your interactions and clash with them/each other.

I don't have an issue with speed for the most part, but if your opponents ask you to slow down or to be clearer, please adjust accordingly.

I generally think you're in a better boat when your warrants for your claims are clearly explicated, which is easier when you somehow differentiate them from one another (speed makes that harder, so adjust accordingly).

Lastly, be respectful to your opponents and remember that you're here to have a good time. These things should be hand in hand.

Specifics

I don't have any arguments that are just no-go's/non-starters for me. Any argument you make should just be well justified and persuasive.

On K's: I think a good kritik needs a robust framework for how I should evaluate the argument(s) in the round. Equally important is an explication of the solvency for the alternative, which can often times be under-developed or under-explained.

On T/Theory: I don't need proven abuse to pull the trigger on these arguments. Good T debates I think treat the debate on the components similarly to a DA, so take from that as you will. Also I tend to believe if you're going for T/Theory that should result in the other team losing the debate and not just an argument, you should go all in on that argument.

On non-topical aff's: I did this quite a bit during my time in NPDA, so I don't have anything against it. That being said, I think the Aff should have a clear and persuasive reason why they're not topical.

Judging Philosophy

Robert Groven

Chair, Assoc. Professor, Communication Studies, Film & New Media, Augsburg University

Director, Minnesota Urban Debate League

Coaching policy at Eagan High School, Eagan, Minnesota

Email: groven@augsburg.edu (please add me to the email/file exchange)

Background: I started policy debate in the 7th grade, debated all through junior high, high school (Como Park, St. Paul, MN) and college (Concordia College, Moorhead, NDT out rounds, Kentucky Round Robin), and since then I've coached for more than 25 years at the college and high school level, both on the national circuit and locally in the Midwest. I have also directed and taught at multiple camps over the years. I’m one of the original founders and current head of the Minnesota Urban Debate League, and am a tenured faculty at Augsburg College where I teach argumentation, rhetoric, persuasion and various specialized forms of public address.

Debate Paradigm: When left to my own devices I function as an educational games player, which means I believe that competitive academic debate is an activity designed to educate, enlighten and improve its students and society. My primary responsibility is to serve the debaters as students, in my role as an educator, both in and out of rounds. Therefore, unless given a different framework, I resolve procedural issues by evaluating the impact the precedent would set for the educational value of the activity. If the debaters do not specify a substantive decision-making framework, I default to being a pragmatic policy maker. However, I have spent many years studying rhetoric and critical theory and I’m happy to function in non-consequentialist and discursive frameworks if the debaters defend them. I am sensitive to the important, manifold issues of identity and have devoted many years attempting to redress systemic injustices in and out of debate.

I greatly prefer specific links and specific evidence when I can get it, but vote without specific links when I must. Topicality is a default voter, but I’m persuadable and have voted for non-topical and non-policy advocacy statements many times. In general, I do my best not to intervene on any issue, and decide rounds based only on what the debaters do and say in the round.

Style Preferences: Respect, kindness, and fun in rounds are high values for me. I do not enjoy debaters who are rude or domineering and will reduce points accordingly. Debating and debate rounds should be intense, passionate, and enjoyable.

Speed is not a problem for me, but comprehensibility is crucial. As I hope you know, most judges, even experienced, well-regarded judges, pretend to understand most of most rounds. 20 years on, I am past pretending. If I cannot understand you I will ask you to be clearer, but I will only make that request three times per person. After that, I just do my best. But, I will not vote on an issue or argument that I could not understand in constructives. And, suddenly giving clear meaning to incomprehensible gibberish in rebuttals, although occasionally entertaining, is grossly unfair to the opposition.

Tag CX is fine as long as the debaters are all respectful to one another. I’ll time prep and time speeches along with you, but you must keep your own time too.

“Be kind whenever possible.

It is always possible.”

-His Holiness the Dalia Lama XIV

Background/Experience

I debated a lot (CEDA, NDT), and have coached and judged even more (CEDA, NDT, NPDA, NPTE, Worlds). I teach courses in argument theory, diversity, and civil dialogue, and I am heavily involved in community service. While my debate background comes primarily from a “policy” paradigm, I have no problem with either good “critical” debates or “persuasive communication”, and am willing to listen to any framework a team feels is justifiably appropriate for the debate.

I think that debate is simultaneously a challenging educational exercise, a competitive game of strategy, and a wonderfully odd and unique community – all of which work together to make it fun. I think debaters, judges, and coaches, should actively try to actually enjoy the activity. Debate should be both fun and congenial. Finally, while a written ballot is informative, I feel that post-round oral critiques are one of the most valuable educational tools we as coaches and judges have to offer, and I will always be willing to disclose and discuss my decisions, even if that may involve walking and talking in order to help the tournament staff expedite an efficient schedule for all of us.

Unique consideration

I am hearing impaired. No joke – I wear hearing aids in both ears, and am largely deaf without them. I think most would agree that I keep a pretty good flow, but I can only write down what I understand. I work as hard as just about any of your critics to understand and assess your arguments, and I appreciate it when you help me out a little. Unfortunately, a good deal of my hearing loss is in the range of the human voice – go figure. As such, clarity and a somewhat orderly structure are particularly important for me. For some, a notch or two up on the volume scale doesn’t hurt, either. However, please note that vocal projection is not the same as shouting-- which often just causes an echo effect, making it even harder for me to hear. Also, excessive chatter and knocking for your partner can make it difficult for me to hear the speaker. I really want to hear you, and I can only assume that you want to be heard as well. Thanks for working with me a little on this one.

Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.)

Although I don't see absolute objectivity as easily attainable, I do try to let the debaters themselves determine what is and is not best for the debate process. Debaters should clarify what framework/criteria they are utilizing, and how things should be evaluated (a weighing mechanism or decision calculus). I see my role as a theoretically “neutral observer” evaluating and comparing the validity of your arguments according to their probability, significance, magnitude, etc. I very much like to hear warrants behind your claims, as too many debates in parli are based on unsubstantiated assertions. As such, while a “dropped argument” has considerable weight, it will be evaluated within the context of the overall debate and is not necessarily an automatic “round-winner”.

Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making

As noted, clarity and structure are very important to me. It should be clear to me where you are and what argument you are answering or extending. Bear in mind that what you address as “their next argument” may not necessarily be the same thing I identify as “their next argument”. I see the flow as a “map” of the debate round, and you provide the content for that map. I like my maps to make sense.

That said, good content still weighs more heavily to me than slick presentation. Have something good to say, rather than simply being good at saying things.

Additionally, 1) although I think most people speak better when standing, that’s your choice; 2) I won’t flow the things your partner says during your speech time; 3) Please time yourselves and keep track of protected time.

Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making

I find that good case debate is a very effective strategy. It usually provides the most direct and relevant clash. Unfortunately, it is rarely practiced. I can understand that at times counterplans and kritiks make a case debate irrelevant or even unhelpful. Nevertheless, I can't tell you the number of times I have seen an Opposition team get themselves in trouble because they failed to make some rather simple and intuitive arguments on the case.

Openness to critical/performative styles of debating

See above. No problem, as long as it is well executed – which really makes it no different than traditional "net-benefits" or "stock issues" debates. To me, no particular style of debating is inherently “bad”. I’d much rather hear “good” critical/performative debate than “bad” traditional/policy debate, and vice versa.

Topicality/Theory

While I try to keep an open mind here, I must admit I’m not particularly fond of heavy theory debates. I think most debaters would be surprised by just how much less interesting they are as a judge than as a competitor. I realize they have their place and will vote on them if validated. However, screaming “abuse” or “unfair” is insufficient for me. I’m far more concerned about educational integrity, stable advocacy and an equitable division of ground. Just because a team doesn’t like their ground doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have any. Likewise, my threshold for “reverse voters” is also on the somewhat higher end – I will vote on them, but not without some consideration. Basically, I greatly prefer substantive debates over procedural ones. They seem to be both more educational and interesting.

Parliamentary procedure

While I have no problem with them, I tend not to follow much of the traditional stylizations or formal elements of parliamentary practice: 1) I will likely just “take into consideration” points of order that identify “new” arguments in rebuttals, but you are more than welcome to make them if you feel they are warranted; 3) Just because I am not rapping on the table doesn’t mean I don’t like you or dig your arguments; 4) You don’t need to do the little tea pot dance to ask a question, just stand or raise your hand; 5) I don’t give the whole speaker of the house rap about recognizing speakers for a speech; you know the order, go ahead and speak; 6) I will include “thank yous” in speech time, but I do appreciate a clear, concise and non-timed roadmap beforehand.

I lean toward thinking that “splitting the block”, while perhaps theoretically defensible, is somewhat problematic in an activity with only two rebuttals and often only makes a round more messy.

TLDR: You do you. I do what you tell me.

Disclaimer

I strive to judge like a "blank slate" while recognizing that I will never actually be one. Keep this in mind as you read the rest of this paradigm.

Email

carterhenman@gmail.com

If there is an email chain I will want to be on it. I would be glad to answer any questions you have.

Accommodations

Disclose as much or as little as you want to me or anyone else in the room. Either way, I am committed to making the debate rounds I judge safe and accessible.

Experience

I competed in LD in high school (2009-2013) in Wyoming and northern Colorado with some national circuit exposure.

I competed in policy at the University of Wyoming (2013-2018) and qualified to the NDT twice. I loved reading complicated courts affirmatives, bold impact turns, and Ks with specific and nuanced justifications for why they are competitive with the aff. I wish I had had the courage to go for theory in the 2AR more often. I studied (mostly analytic) philosophy and some critical disability theory to earn my bachelor's degree.

Style: agnostic.

All debate is performative. I can be persuaded that one performance is contingently more valuable (ethically, aesthetically, educationally, etc.) than another, but it would be arbitrary and unethical on my part to categorically exclude any particular style.

That being said, I am not agnostic when it comes to form. An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I do not care how you give me those three things, but if you do not, then you have not made an argument and my RFD will probably reflect that. This cuts in many directions: I hate K overviews that make sweeping ontological claims and then describe implications for the case without explaining why the original claim might be true; I equally detest when anyone simply asserts that "uniqueness determines the direction of the link".

Organization matters. However, I do not think organization is synonymous with what a lot of people mean when they say "line by line". It means demonstrating a holistic awareness of the debate and effectively communicating how any given argument you are making interacts with your opponents'. Therefore, when adjudicating whether something is a "dropped argument" I will parse between (a) reasonably predictable and intelligibly executed cross-applications and (b) superficial line-by-line infractions. Giving conceptual labels to your arguments and using your opponents' language when addressing theirs can help you get on the right side of this distinction.

Evidence matters. A lot. Again, I do not mean what a lot of people mean when they talk about evidence in debate. It is about a lot more than cards. It is also about personal experience and preparation, historical consciousness, and even forcing your opponents to make a strategic concession (by the way, I flow cross-examination). I read cards only when I have to and tend to defer to what was said in the debate regarding how to interpret them and determine their quality. Thus, I will hold the 2NR/2AR to relatively high thresholds for explanation.

I flow on paper. This means I need pen time. It also magnifies the importance of organization since I cannot drag and drop cells on a spreadsheet. Because I flow the "internals" of evidence (cards or otherwise), you will benefit enormously from clarity if you are fast and will not necessarily be at a disadvantage against very fast teams if you are slow but efficient with your tag lines.

Substance: mostly agnostic.

Hate and disrespect are never conducive to education and growth. I presume that the need to disincentivize abusive speech and other behaviors overrides my desire to reward skill with a ballot, but it never hurts for debaters to remind me of why this is true if you are up to it. This includes card clipping and other ethics violations. In general, I will stop the round if I notice it on my own. Otherwise, you have two options: (1) stop the round, stake the debate on it (you may lose if you are wrong, but they will certainly lose and receive no speaker points if you are right), and let me be final arbiter or (2) keep the issue alive throughout the debate, but leave open the option to go for substance. I think this is the most fair way for me to address this as an educator, but please do not think option two gives you license to go for "a risk of an ethics violation" in the final rebuttals or to read a generic "clipping bad" shell in every one of your 1NC/2ACs. That's icky.

There is no right way to affirm the topic. There are wrong ways to affirm the topic. I can be sold on the notion that the aff did it the wrong way. I can also be convinced that the wrong way is better than the right way. It may yet be easiest to convince me that your counter-interpretation of the right way to affirm the topic is just as good as, or better than, theirs.

Theory is mis- and underutilized. You get to debate the very rules of your debate! Current conventions regarding negative fiat, for example, will inevitably make me smirk when you read "no neg fiat." Still, if you invest enough thought, before and during and after debates (not merely regurgitating somebody else's blocks at an unintelligible rate), into any theory argument I am going to be eager to vote on it.

laurenlucillejohnson@gmail.com

Director of Debate at Weber State University - presently

Assistant Coach at Western Washington University. 2020-2022

Graduate Assistant Coach at the University of Wyoming 2018-2020

I debated for Gonzaga University 2014-2018

Do what you do best and feel most comfortable and confident forwarding in the debate- I judge a myriad of styles and types of arguments in debates- while my paradigm gives you a sense of how I view decision-making calculus- I first and foremost view my role as a judge as an ethical educator.

Kritiks- I enjoy critical debates. Feel free to run them on both sides. I am well versed in feminist/queer, postmodern, and gender theory, although I am also familiar with other critical literature bases. The link debate is the most important part of a critique for me. Really good impact analysis does not matter if there is no link to the 1AC. I also think that performative links are valid arguments and can be used as reasons for why the permutation does not solve. I generally think the aff should get perms although can be persuaded otherwise in an instance where the aff is not about the resolution or in pure methods debates.

Role of the Ballot - I think the role of the ballot is to vote for who wins their arguments and does the better debating. If you have an argument otherwise, I will be more persuaded/default to a functionality/interpretation of how my vote works if both teams get a chance of receiving that vote. I do not find a "Role of the Ballot" claim that is to "vote for us" to be persuasive. I think it's dishonest and transparently one-sided to interpret the role of a ballot through one team's participation.

Aff framework versus the K- Your interpretation should probably say you should get to weigh your impacts vs. the K. I prefer debates about the substance of the arguments over debates that end up being exclusively about aff framework, if your framework argument ends up mooting the substance of both the aff and the K (aff solvency and alt solvency) then it becomes a messy debate that I will not enjoy adjudicating.

Performative/Non-Traditional Debates - I think the aff should be about something pertaining to the topic and recommend something be done that is different than the status quo (does NOT have to be a plan or involve the United States Federal Government). If the aff chooses to not do this, they'll have to win why the topical version of the aff can't solve for the performance/discussion that the aff began and win an impact turn to framework. In terms of impact analysis. You should be able to explain what reasonable neg ground exists versus your aff that is within the realm of topic-related research. That said, I'll still vote for an aff that is not about the topic if they win their impact turns to framework/accessibility questions.

Framework versus Performative/Non-Traditional Affs- I think that the negative either has to win that there is a ‘topical’ version of the aff that can solve for the substance and performance/discussion of the affirmative, or that their interpretation of debate can allow for better access to the solvency mechanism/ address the impacts of the affirmative. I say ‘topical’ because I am generally unpersuaded that the aff must defend the “hypothetical enactment of the plan by the USFG”, I think that the negative has to prove that the affirmative either justify an interpretation of the topic that makes it impossible to be prepared to debate this particular aff, or that the affirmative is not grounded in a methodology that changes something in the status quo or the lives/experiences of the debaters in the round. I think that the best deliberative model of debate is one in which the affirmative presents a strategy that can generate effective deliberation on a topic because it is something that is contestable and allows for a debate to occur regarding the desirability and effectiveness of two competing strategies/methods to address the affirmatives impacts/concerns.

Topicality- If the debate becomes a large T debate, please slow down so I can get the nuances and particularities of the arguments and debate. I flow on paper so keep that in mind. Limits and predictability are not impacts they are internal links. Discussing how limits and predictability impact debate/ research/ neg prep and what that means in terms of education etc. (This also goes for framework)

Theory- Generally, I think reasonable conditionality (example: 1 Kritik and 1 CP) is a good thing but conditionality bad arguments can be used strategically. I generally err neg on theory arguments that are not conditionality, but I am open to persuasion by either side of the debate.

Counterplans- I generally will vote on a counterplan if you win that you solve the aff, which means you don’t particularly need to win a big risk of your offense to win.

Disads- You need a good disad turns case argument or a case take out to be a round winning strategy. Most of the time I will filter my decision for case versus the disad debates through impact calculus.

Yes, email chain: sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom

PUBLIC FORUM JUDGING PHILOSOPHY IS HERE

Update:

- Probably not the best judge for the "Give us a 30!" approach unless it becomes an argument/point of contestation in the round. Chances are I'll just default to whatever I'd typically give. To me, these kind of things aren't arguments, but judge instructions that are external to making a decision regarding the debate occurring.

BIG PICTURE

- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner that inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Truth > Tech, but RELAX: All this means is that I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of argumentative preference - what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper - especially in K v K debates.
Don't fret: a dropped argument is still a concession. I likely have a higher threshold for the development of arguments that are more intrinsically dubious and lack warrants.

- As a former coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:

FORM

- All speech acts are performances, consequently, debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.

- Pathos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.

FUNCTION

- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. (*This means different things in different debate formats - I don't mean impact framing or LD-centric "value/value criterion" but rather a "You must read a plan" interpretation that's typically in response to K Affs)That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, a Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

- Framework is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- "Framework is how we frame our work" >>>>> "FrAmEwOrK mAkEs ThE gAmE wOrK"

-Presumption can be an option. In my estimation, the 2NR may go for Counterplan/Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both (the net-benefit for a CP/linear DA and impact for a K). I don't know if I really “judge kick” for you, instead, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that I wish would be established prior to the 2NR, but I know that's not gonna happen. I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR. The only times I can envision this is when the 2NR is going all-in on a CP.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not. Even more teams conflate a ROB with a Role of the Judge instruction and I'm just now making my peace with dealing with that reality.
If the ROB fails to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted, and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like it's interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments are not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial component of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...

KRITIKAL DEBATE

I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilise a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather than rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is a revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams than there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion has been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies require an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.

Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

Pronouns: She/her & They/them

Please add me to the chain if there is one. If there isn't one, I'll be giving any excessive evidence-indites some serious side-eye. larryfiggins8892@gmail.com

--CARD DEBATERS READ THIS--

For the nukes topic specifically: Please do impact calculus, because it's painfully hard to compare two nuclear wars. Timeframe, probability, magnitude are the spice of life. Please tell me about them before the debate is over. And please compare evidence, because a lot of the ev in nuke debates is a wash and while I can recognize that sometimes, I really do need a debater to say that the impact isn't nearly as bad as the author says to add it to my calculus. Unless y'all are straight up lying about what an author says. Don't do that. If they don't say extinction, it's kinda wild to say that they do when I can CTRL-F for that.

I can understand spreading, but I am not a big fan of it in this event and would prefer it get called out the second it gets exclusionary. Everyone reserves the right to tell a debater to slow down or clear up, and if that's not respected it's an easy ballot for me.

I'm really just looking for y'all to engage with the material in the packet, and having read through the majority of the articles, will notice when you're missing the point of one or talking out of your ass.

Other than that, all I want is a streamlined debate where both sides can condense down to the key issues of the debate in the final speeches, explain them clearly, and do impact calculus to tell me why the bad things they're talking about are of more consequence and can be solved despite complaints from the opposition.

--Public forum--

The drug topic is dope, in an almost literal sense. There's a lot of creative positions to be taken, and to be quite honest, creativity is what I yearn for in almost every debate. So try to drop some spice where you can.

I'm a current policy-debater with 8 years of debate experience, so I should be able to keep up with most of your arguments. My favorite arguments have been centered on queer theory, trans theory, settler-colonialism, and anti-capitalism, and I've seen both the best and the worst versions of these arguments run, so I tend to notice when debaters are trying to make sense from the senseless. Explain what's actually going on, what the harms are, why they matter, and how you're going to solve them. I want to see some serious impact comparison on both sides of this debate, and if you can convince me your impact is bigger and you can fix it, or at the very least that it makes things so broken that you shouldn't do whatever the other team is doing, there's a good chance I'll vote for you.

--Policy--

In general, my hearing has degraded the past couple of years and the online-format doesn't make that much better. So I ask kindly that you move 70%-80% of your full throttle of your full throttle to ensure everything actually gets on the flow to be judged. And for the love of hecc: please. put. me. on. the. email. chain.

-K affs-

I love these, and I run these whenever I get the chance. If you do so, I won't auto-vote for you, but there is a good chance that I'll be having a good time listening to your argument. I am most familiar with trans theory, queer theory, some shades of 'high theory' like deleuze & guattari, your general anti-capitalism arguments, and a good spread of SetCol knowledge, so if what I know changes how you tell me your theory of power - that's what I know. That being said, please explain your theory of power. I like it when debaters show me they know what they're talking about.

In the T debate, I find it hard to vote neg without a TVA, and I generally find affirmatives that move in the direction of the topic more persuasive (but can be persuaded the topic of the aff is more important than this year's topic). That being said, I do find 'T is an RVI' an uphill battle to vote on.

-Policy affs-

To keep it straight: I know very little about this year's topic, almost next to nothing. Being that we are pretty far into the year, I imagine people have gotten used to not having to explain certain things since they've spent so much time debating them. Explaining those things to me will make it easier for me to look at your link story, and consequently easier to vote for you.

-generally-

Weigh your stuff, explain your link out clearly, and explain how you can solve (or why the other team's solvency is less important than your impact).

I have a pretty high burden on impact turns to clearly bad things - death good, for instance. Run what you want, I will evaluate you based off what is said in the round by both teams, but bear in mind that it will be an uphill battle and I will probably remark on it in my RFD.

--LD--

I have never judged this format, neither have I debated in it. That being said, the standards given above likely apply. I would like to see impact calculus, clear link stories, and solvency pages that seem to solve.

CARD format update:

this is my first year involved in the card format of debate. I do have extensive experience in policy debate (see below). I will adhere to the CARD judge framework found here: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.westerndebateunion.org/_files/ugd/158ec9_4535861d5d2c464ab2caa38f5b7cef8b.pdf

Policy debate paradigm:

Background
I debated at Kapaun Mt. Carmel Catholic High School in Wichita, KS for 4 years, one year at Weber State and 3 years at Kansas State University. I have been coaching for Oregon this year doing CARD debate. I do not have many rounds in policy this year but have a decent amount of familiarity with the topic. However, I have been out of policy since 2019 so my knowledge of what has changed since then is limited. I am a current law student so most of my time is spent on policy making these days but I do still have all my old K knowledge buried somewhere in my mind. Just don't assume I know all of the new ev that's come out since 2019.

*ONLINE DEBATE* I did zero coaching or judging online during covid so I am just now getting use to it. I have hearing issues so speed can be difficult for me to follow online sometimes so please slow down. I do still flow on paper so please give me pen time.

General Comments

I default to an offense/defense paradigm if I am not given another framework for the debate
I do ask that you add me to the email chain. leybasam@gmail.com


T/Theory/FW

Topicality - robust T debates are some of my favorite debates to judge.

Framework - Ive come around a bit on the framework debate and find myself more willing to vote on it than I did when I was competing. I think the best framework arguments are centered around policy education. I will vote on fairness but have a pretty high threshold for it.

Theory - love it. dont be blippy.

DA

Do your thing but be specific. Please tell a compelling link and impact story.

CP

I don't have any biases against specific CP's. Smart but abusive counterpleas are fun but be careful because my threshold for it losing to a theory arg is lower. Just be able to defend the theory behind said counterplan.

K

Most (if not all) of my college debate experience was in debating the K against a variety of arguments. These are the debates that I found myself enjoying the most in college, however, I really do love a good policy debate these days. I have not kept up on what has come out in the lit since spring 2019 so if you have some new hot fire to read, please make sure to explain it a bit more since my conceptualization of things like set col and afropess might be stuck in the old days.

TL;DR: Don't be a dick, do whatever you want. I’ll evaluate the flow and I can hang.

Be respectful and don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Off time orders are preferred, don’t thank me before you speak or shake my hand. I will evaluate the flow with very few caveats. Pronouns: he/him/his.

I did policy in high school and NPDA at the University of Oregon. My partner, Gabe, and I won the NPTE in 2022.

Preferences that matter for my decision

1. Debate is a game
2. Hard debate is good debate
3. Lying won't get you very far, interpreting the truth will
4. You will be auto dropped if you defend a bona fide Nazi
5. Terminal no solvency is a voting issue, but takeouts are rarely terminal
6. Nonfalsifiable arguments are probably in bad faith
7. I default to magnitude first sans weighing
8. Spirit of the interp is not real, write a better interp
9. I default to competing interps but do not default to theory is a priori
10. Topicality violations are not derived from solvency
11. Collapsing is always better than not collapsing
12. For the love of god extend the aff
13. For the love of god answer the aff

Preferences that matter but less for my decision

1. Theory is a cop out - if you're winning theory and substance go for substance
2. Condo is good, PICs are justifiable if there are multiple topical affs, CP theory is far from a losing strat
3. Perms are defense, collapsing to defense is suboptimal
4. Going for RVIs is usually cowardice, cowardice is suboptimal
5. Links of omission are weak
6. Psychoanalysis is grounded in at best tautologies and at worst transphobia, you can win it but please be cautious
7. Decolonization is not a metaphor
8. Kritiks are a byproduct of good, nuanced, and educated debate; the existence of ks is good for the activity
9. I have yet to hear a compelling flow-based 'spreading bad' argument
10. Anthropogenic climate change is real as are extinction risks
11. Science is a very useful ideology
12. Lit based alts are better than alts you made up

HS Parli specific:

Spread if you can, don't if you can't. I will protect, but call POOs when you think necessary.

Parli is not a "common knowledge" format simply because of limited prep. I will not vote on something "germane" to the topic over something "not germane" to the topic absent an argument on the flow. I evaluate what is germane to the debate; if an impact stems from the action of an advocacy or the resolution, it is probably germane.

CARD specific:

CARD is a format built around accessibility and subject matter education. I will base my RFD on who wins the flow and all preferences above apply, but it is my job to ensure that cordiality, access, and educational value are maintained. In practice, this means I will be extra cognizant of proven abuse/reasonability, power tagging, overt rudeness in cross-x, and smart use of the evidence packet. It’s still debate – don’t pull punches, but at least make sure everyone in the room is having a good time.

Any questions about either my paradigm or my decision email me at skydivingsimians@gmail.com

TL;DR: Don't be a dick, do whatever you want. I’ll evaluate the flow and I can hang.

Be respectful and don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Off time orders are preferred, don’t thank me before you speak or shake my hand. I will evaluate the flow with very few caveats. Pronouns: he/him/his.

I did policy in high school and NPDA at the University of Oregon. My partner, Gabe, and I won the NPTE in 2022.

Preferences that matter for my decision

1. Debate is a game
2. Hard debate is good debate
3. Lying won't get you very far, interpreting the truth will
4. You will be auto dropped if you defend a bona fide Nazi
5. Terminal no solvency is a voting issue, but takeouts are rarely terminal
6. Nonfalsifiable arguments are probably in bad faith
7. I default to magnitude first sans weighing
8. Spirit of the interp is not real, write a better interp
9. I default to competing interps but do not default to theory is a priori
10. Topicality violations are not derived from solvency
11. Collapsing is always better than not collapsing
12. For the love of god extend the aff
13. For the love of god answer the aff

Preferences that matter but less for my decision

1. Theory is a cop out - if you're winning theory and substance go for substance
2. Condo is good, PICs are justifiable if there are multiple topical affs, CP theory is far from a losing strat
3. Perms are defense, collapsing to defense is suboptimal
4. Going for RVIs is usually cowardice, cowardice is suboptimal
5. Links of omission are weak
6. Psychoanalysis is grounded in at best tautologies and at worst transphobia, you can win it but please be cautious
7. Decolonization is not a metaphor
8. Kritiks are a byproduct of good, nuanced, and educated debate; the existence of ks is good for the activity
9. I have yet to hear a compelling flow-based 'spreading bad' argument
10. Anthropogenic climate change is real as are extinction risks
11. Science is a very useful ideology
12. Lit based alts are better than alts you made up

HS Parli specific:

Spread if you can, don't if you can't. I will protect, but call POOs when you think necessary.

Parli is not a "common knowledge" format simply because of limited prep. I will not vote on something "germane" to the topic over something "not germane" to the topic absent an argument on the flow. I evaluate what is germane to the debate; if an impact stems from the action of an advocacy or the resolution, it is probably germane.

CARD specific:

CARD is a format built around accessibility and subject matter education. I will base my RFD on who wins the flow and all preferences above apply, but it is my job to ensure that cordiality, access, and educational value are maintained. In practice, this means I will be extra cognizant of proven abuse/reasonability, power tagging, overt rudeness in cross-x, and smart use of the evidence packet. It’s still debate – don’t pull punches, but at least make sure everyone in the room is having a good time.

Any questions about either my paradigm or my decision email me at skydivingsimians@gmail.com

Matt Liu

University of Wyoming

Last updated: 9-12-22

Email chain: mattliu929@gmail.com

Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas.

If you want to read far more than necessary on my judging process: https://wyodebateroundup.weebly.com/blog/reflections-on-the-judging-process-inside-the-mind-of-a-judge

I put a pretty high premium on effective communication. Too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it’s awesome. You should make sure I know it’s awesome while you read it. I find many debaters over-estimate the amount of ideas they believe they communicate to the judge. Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, not just entering arguments into the record, will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot far more often than those who don’t. I have tended to draw a harder line on comprehensibility than the average judge. I won’t evaluate evidence I couldn’t understand. I also don’t call clear: if you’re unclear, or not loud enough, I won’t intervene and warn you, just like I wouldn't intervene and warn you that you are spending time on a bad argument. Am I flowing? You're clear.

Potential biases on theory: I will of course attempt to evaluate only the arguments in the round, however, I'll be up front about my otherwise hidden biases. Conditionality- I rarely find that debaters are able to articulate a credible and significant impact. International actor fiat seems suspect. Uniform 50 state fiat seems illogical. Various process counterplans are most often won as legitimate when the neg presents a depth of evidence that they are germane to the topic/plan. Reject the arg not the teams seems true of nearly all objections other than conditionality. I will default to evaluating the status quo even if there is a CP in the 2NR. Non-traditional affirmatives- I'll evaluate like any other argument. If you win it, you win it. I have yet to hear an explanation of procedural fairness as an impact that makes sense to me (as an internal link, yes). None of these biases are locked in; in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

Clock management: In practice I have let teams end prep when they begin the emailing/jumping process. Your general goal should be to be completely ready to talk when you say ‘end prep.’ No off-case counting, no flow shuffling, etc.

Cross-x is a speech. You get to try to make arguments (which I will flow) and set traps (which I will flow). Once cross-x is over I will stop listening. If you continue to try to ask questions it will annoy me- your speech time is up.

Pet-peeves: leaving the room while the other team is prepping for a final rebuttal, talking over your opponents. I get really annoyed at teams that talk loudly (I have a low threshold for what counts as loudly) during other teams speeches- especially when it’s derisive or mocking comments about the other team’s speech.

I am an old-school CEDA/NDT style policy debater, but I started in CEDA before it went policy. I coached at UO for 7 years after 4 years of competition, and was Associate Director when I left the program in 2002 to complete my doctoral research in sociology. I also debated Cross-X and LDP in high school in Oregon in the 80's. I prefer a policy perspective, where presumption shifts away from whomever proposes a policy change. I am not particularly interested in procedural debates, although I will listen. I lean pretty far to the left politically, but I try to evaluate all issues as objectively as possible.

My name is Jamie Maiers, and I am a teacher coach at Tartan High School and a PhD student at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities. I have been working with the MNUDL for three years and have been a staff member at MDAW at Augsburg University.

As a judge, I really like an organized debate. I want you to signpost and understand what it is you are actually saying. Spreading is fine, but if I can't understand you (either because you're mumbling OR you don't tell me what you're talking about) we're not going to have a good time. One of your jobs it to persuade me-- feel free to tell me why I should vote for you-- explain your reasonings for why I should give your team the RFD.

Debate is a team sport so treat your partner (and opponents) kindly. Additionally, I expect you to be a good sport.

I am a teacher first, debate coach second. This means I am more than happy to talk to you about ANYTHING you have questions about regarding the round. I leave lots of detailed feedback and am happy to respond to email. It is my goal for all debaters to get better, not just my own students. Feel free to reach out.

jmaiers@isd622.org; maier264@umn.edu

Experience:

• University of Wyoming policy debater & coach
• UC Berkeley policy coach
• Judging CARD for 3+ years (critic of the year in 2022)

CARD is not policy debate by design. I want to be moved and persuaded by your arguments, which you can't do if you are reading or speaking fast and using a bunch of technical jargon. Keep this activity accessible.

Read any style of arguments you want (kritical, policy, lived experience), but relate them to the topic. If you want to read an untopical affirmative then get ready to impact-turn and tell me why your arguments are important for this specific activity.

The 2NR and 2AR are for telling me exactly why you won the debate. A dropped argument is a true argument, but you need to tell me why that argument being true is important for your overall case (i.e. compare the quality of your arguments). Debate isn't just about winning individual arguments on the flow, but telling the judge a compelling story. An important part of telling the story is through impact calculus/comparison.

Flowing: I still prefer to flow CARD like a traditional policy round. I flow each argument on a separate page and I want to be able to line up the arguments to quickly compare them when rendering my decision. So, try to stay organized and answer the arguments in the order they were made.

Bottom line: Arguments need evidence and warrants. Keep it cute, don't post-round me.

Happy to answer any questions before the round begins.

Email: ema3osei@gmail.com

Pronouns: They/Them

Debated at University of Pittsburgh

I think about debate strategically primarily. Bad strategy => bad decision-making => bad comparison => bad debate. Lack of argument comparison also generally means more of a focus on skill than arguments which makes for less substantive feedback which has a negative feedback loop on the quality of judging experienced by debaters and the growth of teams themselves in my view. Substance is cool even when the substance is literally just about the meta-game.

I like judging different things, there are many different styles and many get overlooked or forgotten, so do your thing and do it well. I have a higher threshold for how you answer presumption in rounds without a plan and will filter a lot of the debate through solvency.

I'm typically more interested in a K that has offense either about the consequences of the plan or the consequences of the process but if you can win your overarching thesis claim outweighs plan/method focus, then go for it. The whole point of a K is to disagree with the assumptions of the affirmative so I don't understand the turn to agree with the affirmative's assumptions about how it should be evaluated vis-a-vis their various interps.

If you have a K that fundamentally disagrees with the epistemic starting point of the affirmative, then the latter part of the prior statement probably applies more than the former two even if you do have an embedded impact turn to the affirmative considering you likely have epistemic disagreements on starting points that inform what counts as an impact turn and also how to evaluate it comparative to other arguments on the level of uniqueness.

I don't have any specific feelings about framework as long as you're doing impact comparison. Regardless of whether you are winning a procedural or a terminal impact, it doesn’t really mean you auto win unless you have effectively zero’d/excluded all the opposing team’s offense, so offensive applications of impacts matter, if only from a strategic point of view.

Everything else is pretty round-by-round, please pic out of things, use theory intelligently and capitalize on mistakes and cross-examination early. Things may be unfair but unfairness can be justified or argued to not be unfair if a team lacks core justifications against competing claims to uniqueness/barriers to effective implementation. Same reason the neg gets to exclude the entire aff from evaluation if they win the procedural comes before aff offense.

Always keep in mind that just because you're right doesn't change the fact that you're still a debater doing debate. Every round is different and every debater debates/interprets arguments differently, so don’t switch up. Popular opinion (in debate) rarely matches reality anyway.

Please think about what is your strongest argument instead of ones that are superfluous, waste time, are unfamiliar to you, or otherwise have no strategic value. I try to give good speaks, but rarely super high. I prefer debates with fewer sheets. Don’t spread faster than is comprehensible and prioritize clarity. Make it make sense.

A dropped argument is not a true argument, though it may be persuasive. Micro-aggressions exist but so do mistakes. Your standard for how to engage them is likely biased and/or strategic. The easiest way to engage is to be a less than terrible person. If you have to worry about that you have more personal work to do.

Anyways, see ya~

I am not new to academic debate and have competed in a few forms and have judged a number of formats. For the tournament on 2/24-2/25: consider my paradigm for this tournament as "Lay Judge +." I know jargon, strats, k, etc, but I will appreciate the addition of ethos and pathos into your presentations rather than solely relying on logos. I can get pretty anxious. Please don't yell at me. Please make good faith efforts to not exclude competitors from the round. Enjoy yourselves if you can.

"CARD is not policy debate by design. I want to be moved and persuaded by your arguments, which you can't do if you are reading or speaking fast and using a bunch of technical jargon. Keep this activity accessible." - Hunter McFarland (used without permission)

Hi, all!

I know you’re probably reading my paradigm with specific questions, so I’ll break it down by subject for easier speed-reading ; )

My general philosophy:

I debated for eight years and have a background in team policy, Lincoln Douglas (NFA-LD), and NPDA/IPDA; I am very familiar with CARD. So, I tend to lean towards weighing standard stock-issues and clear impact calculus. I (like any person) have my favorite subjects and content I am most familiar with, so feel free to ask me before a round if you feel like that could affect what you want to run.

I would say I am a games judge: I won’t vote on something unless it’s presented in round, and I try my best to evaluate the debate by the flow. That means that you need me to flow what you want me to vote on or evaluate. I will vote on anything you tell me to (pretty much). I give debaters the power to decide how exactly they want the round to work. If you make the argument (and do it well), you could probably get me to vote on inherency just as much as a disadvantage. Debate is a game with strategy and rules, so play it as such. Feel free to run creative or wild arguments but be prepared to do them well.

Speed:

I generally do not have issues with speed, but I will indicate clear/speed if I need to in the round. Just be courteous and generally nice to your opponent(s).

Framework:

I think this gets overlooked a lot in many debates, and it has the potential to absolutely overpower any argument—as amazing as they may be. I will evaluate the clash on this portion of the round strongly since it’s pre-fiat, so pay attention in case your opponent puts ink in this section of the flow. If you don’t present me with a framework, I will default to net-benefits and big impacts.

Procedurals:

I am partial to the more traditional pre-fiat procedural approach/structure, but I could overlook that if the round takes that route. I would love you to have interpretations, violations, standards, and voters for each procedural. At the base level, I really need reasons to prefer interpretations/definitions/etc. Use these to tell a story; if you’re bringing one of these arguments into the rebuttals, I expect standards and voters as to why you win that argument and how it affects the round/why I should vote on it. That being said, I believe these can be dropped at any time by the team who presented it (…unless there’s offense from the other team. In that case, this is probably a super wacky round, but I’ll roll with it).

Disadvantages:

These are usually clear-cut, but I expect good links to the plan and fully fleshed-out stories. I do believe a disadvantage needs uniqueness, link(s), and impact(s). These are not just a way to put a case turn on another piece of paper. I think these are conditional unless otherwise specified (or have offense from opponent).

Counterplans:

I tend to believe counterplans are conditional unless otherwise specified, so feel free to run with that. Your counterplan should have a clear plan text and solvency/solvency advocate. I won’t list all my views on the different types of these arguments (for sake of everyone’s sanity), so ask me if you have specific questions.

Kritiks:

I confess: I was a kritikal debater for most of my career. I think they can be crazy fun to write and immerse yourself in. While I have familiarity with most content/authors/types of kritiks, I also hold them to very high expectations. You will not win my ballot just because you ran something philosophical. ….However, I do think these can make for super interesting arguments. If you want to test out a kritik, go for it. If you want my opinion on part of your kritik, go for it.

That being said, I expect to see alternatives with proper solvencies, good links to resolution/language/plan text/advantage, etc. I think pre and post fiat kritiks are both completely valid, and I am also completely okay with a team kicking the alternative and using the kritik as a non-UQ disadvantage (if done properly).

Ultimately, debate is a game. Have fun with it.

Wishing you the best,

Emma

eksanders120@gmail.com

I'll try to let the debaters drive the debate, be a friendly soundboard for you all to do some learning and growing. If you want me to do something, say so and I'll try to do it.

Personally I'm an early/mid 1990s CEDA guy, debated at Oregon & Alaska, and grew up in Spokane around the Zaga program. I've worked as an environmental attorney and activist most of my grownup life. So the craft of debate (rhetoric, communication, logic) is near and dear to my heart. I've been loving CARD debate, and am excited to see this new format taking shape. You all are building something here that is unique and valuable.

My favorite rounds see two teams meet one another with a strong clash of good ideas-- where people seem to care in some way about what they are saying, and everyone goes away at least a tiny bit smarter and closer to truth than we were before. I love it when someone has something they passionately want to communicate. And also when teams are authentically struggling to discover the truth about things, or the pure learning of how to stand up and deliver a persuasive argument.

Curiosity and openness tend to be more impressive to me than zealous advocacy.

I tend to appreciate arguments with connections with real lived life, versus those that are merely clever, or some kind of performative righteousness. Reality over ideas. In that vein, USE EVIDENCE. Engage with the research. I haven't read your packet at all. Educate me and I'll be impressed.

Clarity goes a long way. Good communication. I value all that old-school rhetoric stuff-- things like eye contact, primacy and recency, repetition, numbered organization, clear taglines, following the agreed formal rules (like time limits, speaking order, the topic), standing up, body language, that sort of thing. I don't want roadmaps or files sent. But I do like for speakers to organize things for me.

Matt Stannard

stannard67@gmail.com

Me: he/him, I participated in policy debate for West Jordan High School and Weber State University, I have coached multiple formats at Eastern Utah, Long Beach, Wyoming and Lewis & Clark, and have directed and/or taught at a vast multitude of institutes.

Delivery: I will, shockingly enough, miss your unclear analytics. Speak clearly no matter your rate of delivery. Over-enunciate. Don't leave comprehension to chance; control what I write down.

The (very important) game: all styles and formats of debate are good, policy/critical/procedural all valuable, I am not the state, topics and topic research are good, I vote for all kinds of arguments even when I intellectually disagree with them, debate should be both very accessible and very challenging.

Important needs and assumptions: besides clarity, I have these predispositions: (1) conditionality is fine until the 2NR; you need to explicitly tell me what advocacy you are kicking. (2) I seem to have a greater need than other judges for good solvency cards for affs, counterplans, and K alternatives. Many K alts I hear feel vague to me at the outset. Love voting for movements and don't think fiat is confined to the state, but the threshold is specific advocacy with solvency cards. (3) political and social implications of T and other procedural/framework interps can be reasons to prefer/reject them, weighable against other reasons. They aren't "genocide" per se, but they aren't ideologically neutral; debate it out. (4) aff should provide a clear statement of advocacy, neg should provide a clear reason to reject the aff.

Tech: I judge online a lot, please use the best mic tech you have and don't project your vocals directly into an internal laptop mic. Prep time ends when you say so and then IMMEDIATELY hit send, and in all debate tech scenarios if anything goes wrong don't panic, we'll be fine and figure out what to do.

Ethics: be chill to each other outside of your speeches (in your speeches you should feel free to be ruthless if that's your thing), don't cheat, let's all commit to dismantling classism, racism, sexism, heteronormativity, patriarchy, ageism and ableism, and to listen to those affected by exclusion--not just as debaters making arguments but as responsible and accountable human beings making our world. It's okay that debate is weird and different. Please make it a safe place for everyone.

symonds77@gmail.com

I'm judging more often and tabbing less these days, so I thought it was fair to have a little substance here. Anyway, this is how I judge:

(1) I have the speech doc open and I'm following along as you're reading cards

(2) I'm only ever listening to the speaker(s), I think it's really important not to be messing around with electronic media while judging.

(3) I'm constantly judging argument quality throughout the debate, so when the 2AR ends, 90% of the time I'm fairly certain who I am going to vote for. What time I spend looking over my flow and the evidence is used to think through the most likely questions from the losing team, to see if there's something that I might have missed.

(4) My general decision making process starts with impact calculus and impact comparison. If one side is decisively ahead here, this often controls my vote. 2NR and 2AR work here is vital.

(5) To decide key points of controversy in the debate, I identify each one from the final rebuttals, list them in the AFF or NEG column, then find the arguments from the responding team and line them up. Once I think the lists are complete, I choose which side persuaded me on each one.

(6) While I work hard to keep my (long list of) debate opinions out of debate in deference to the specific ways debaters make their arguments, I think it's only fair to list some of my abstract debate leanings so that you have more context/information:

--Everyone reading an aff related to the topic IS ideal for fairness, education, and research-based reasons, but simply listing off these buzzwords is not going to persuade me. And "related to the topic" is really case by case.
--On framework, education is more important than procedural claims - I regularly vote aff against framework bc the neg is overly fixated on "procedural fairness outweighs"
--Topical Versions of the Aff and Switch-Side debate arguments function like CPs that access AFF education and preserve fairness
--States CP is illegit bc it eliminates the literature-based debate over FG vs States
--CPs ought to be textually and functionally competitive
--Alts succeed by being deliberately vague and shifting later in the debate - especially "reject the aff" alts
--"Realism good" indicts virtually all affs on the Space Cooperation topic
--Both truth and techne matter

riley.rosalie@gmail.com ; 7 years of policy debate experience

Debated at the TOC level in high school for 4 years, debated at the University of Wyoming from 2017-2021

Judging 2021-Present (Policy, CARD, sometimes high school policy & LD)

Over the last few years of judging policy and CARD, I find myself being a big picture type judge. While I still believe that a dropped argument is true and I can follow tricky framing arguments on the flow, debaters need to provide clear judge direction in the rebuttals on what those arguments mean and how I should deal with them at the end of the round. I am most persuaded by teams that go for fewer arguments in the rebuttals, spend time impacting/fleshing them out, and telling me how it implicates the rest of the debate.

Impacts need to be fleshed out in the final speeches. I need to know what is triggering the impact, where some war is happening, why it's uniquely coming now, etc. I find myself voting for teams that spend a lot of time in the final rebuttal giving me specific details on their impacts, how they can be avoided, and doing impact comparison with the other team. Same goes for more structural impacts. Use your evidence! The details are there but they need to be brought into your analysis.

Case engagement is one of my favorite aspects of debate. I find the block not spending as much time on case, and it makes the debate a lot closer than it should be. If you read one off vs. a policy aff, reading impact defense, solvency take outs, and evidence indicts to these policy teams will go far in front of me. If you are aff, I am persuaded by teams that know their ev in/out and consistently talk about their aff (thorough impact explanations/comparison, drawing me a picture of what the aff world looks like, talking about the aff on other sheets, etc).

If you want me to vote on a role of the ballot/judge, there needs to be clear weighing and impact extension as to why this plays an important role in the debate. Evidence comparison and indicts are also great weighing mechanisms that I find are underutilized.

For kritiks v. policy affs, I prefer teams that give extensive analysis of their evidence and provide specific examples to contextualize their link with the aff, rather than dumping a bunch of cards or shadow extend arguments. If you read psychoanalysis or other high theory, I am going to need a lot of explanation on some basic concepts so please keep this in mind.

With counterplans, I default to judge kick unless told otherwise.

If you want to have some fun with what you read, I am all for it! I love impact turns including nuclear war good, untraditional styles where you’re playing games instead of debating with speech times, etc. – so long as there is a metric for how I as the judge evaluate the debate I am here for it.

--- LD ---

While I have not competed in LD, I have judged numerous varsity LD rounds from the local to national level. I do not have a preference to a style in which you debate the topic, i.e. philosophical, kritikal, traditional, etc., however, I do care that you debate the topic in some way.

Here are some thoughts that I have about particular arguments but also how I evaluate LD debates:

1. I view the value-criterion as the framing for the debate and typically go to that debate first so I can filter the rest of the debate through this framework. In some debates it matters, others it doesn't (especially if the teams agree on/have similar value-criterions).

2. I am going to take a bit from a former coach's paradigm because I believe this is something I encounter a lot in LD: "too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it's awesome. You should make sure I know it's awesome while you read it...Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, [by thoroughly explaining their evidence and why it matters in the debate], will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot."

3. I do not like when debaters will read/extend a bunch of arguments that do not provide a good warrant or reason why the argument matters. I would rather the 1NC read 1 less off case position in favor of more developed case analysis, impact calc, or fully complete arguments. I would rather the 1ar make 1 less theory argument in favor of actually explaining what the words "perm do both" mean, why the case outweighs, and sinking time in where it matters.

4. Impacting out your arguments and doing impact/evidence comparison in the final rebuttals is very important to me. Tell me why your arguments matters, why they are a priority, and overall why you won the debate. Ships passing in the night or blippy extensions are not advantageous for you.

5. Conditionality is probably bad in LD, but it's not that hard to defend condo good and I think most of these counterplan issues are best resolved at the level of how competitive they are with the aff, not theory. Again, sink time into arguments where you feel confident in going for them and explaining thoroughly in your final rebuttal.

6. I do not discriminate against certain arguments but if you read Kant, I am probably not the judge for you. I have judge a few of these debates and they are pretty confusing to me. If you are a Kant person who gets me as a judge, I need a lot more explanation on some of these buzzwords. I am also convinced that many students who read Kant don't really go for an impact or tell me how it relates back to the resolution so please do these things.

LINCOLN_DOUGLAS UPDATE 1/7/2023

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

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

UPDATED 1/31/2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jhyake@hotmail.com