e-mail chain: dondraper021@gmail.com

garfield ‘19, uw '24

coach for garfield. i debated locally and nationally for 3 years, winning state my senior year. i was a k and k aff leaning debater (including performance debate), but i've had my fair share of running 6 plank adv counterplans and econ disads.

general

run anything you want. i don't play favorites when it comes to judging. i lean tech > truth, but context could change that.

i don’t have much formal knowledge of the topic, so be careful when spreading jargon or specific details.

if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask before the round!

k aff + fw

absolutely go for it. with fw: impact turns, internal link turns, counter models of debate, f uck debate — u do u.

for framework, i tend to be more persuaded by arguments about skills and research than procedural fairness.

the k

if you wanna run the weirdest k in the world, go for it.

please don't have long overviews :( if you have to have them, just let me know before you start the speech.

theory

i'm open to any theory argument, but please explain why that should result in an L, no CP, etc. if it's in your 2ar/2nr, spend time on it please.

Former high school policy debater.

First time judging in over a decade.

Flow judge, I like clash.

Please do not run arguments you do not understand.

I’ll vote on what you tell me to vote on, weigh the impacts.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM (Policy Paradigm Below)

I AM A FLOW JUDGE. The Flow will Decide all things.

I was a policy debater in high school.
I have judged both policy debate and public forum debate at multiple tournaments.

Feel free to ask me anything before the round. I am open to all speaking styles and open minded about arguments. I try to keep my own bias out as much as possible.

Cross-X
I do not have strong opinions about cross.
This is a chance to clarify, question, and have direct interaction with your opponents.
I do not flow cross-X, but I do listen. Anything stated in cross-x only becomes binding if it's brought into the round via a speech.

GENERAL
If you are going to be jumping around it helps to tell me where to flow your arguments. Example "now go to their card/argument about x and my responses are as follows" I am also fine with off time road maps and sign posting as you go.

Make as many arguments as you like. I am not afraid of a bit of speed/spreading. However, keep it within reason. I feel most PF debate rounds would benefit from fewer arguments, replaced with better analysis and more clash. The more depth, the better.

Timeframe arguments and frameworks.

This keeps coming up. Please do not tell me to vote on timeframe unless your impacts come first and are more likely. If your impact is extinction, that is fine, but if it is an uncertain future impact, you really want me to weigh on something else, probably Magnitude.

Unless you tell me how to weigh arguments, I default to weighing Impacts on magnitude and scope above other considerations.

I take source and date into consideration when choosing between cards. Good analysis helps.

I won't call for cards unless there is significant disagreement on what the card says, and it factors into voting. NSDA evidence rules require authors' last name and the date (minimum) so you should do that if you want me to accept evidence as "legally presented"

Your evidence should agree with your tags. Mis-tagging, or power tagging makes me grumpy as a flow judge. I have seen a fair amount of this lately, though often it is unintentional.
Just remember, A good tag is taken from what the card actually says.

I prefer clash, but if your opponent refuses to address your arguments, please extend them. Tell me to pull arguments across. note why they matter and point out when they are dropped. If both teams completely drop arguments in rebuttal, I am less likely to resurrect them onto the flow in final focus.

Important for Public Forum, I am not keen on running Kritik's or other theory arguments. Those do not fit well in PF. Please save those for other formats like Policy.






POLICY DEBATE PARADIGM

General Note.
If you run your arguments in order down the flow top to bottom in the same order as they were originally presented, you do not need to sign post. Please Warn me with a road map if you are going to jump all over.

When you are refuting a specific argument or card from your opponent, I prefer you call it out as you go.
I don't want to make the mistake of flowing arguments unlinked or in the wrong place.

Prima Facie Stock Issues. If Aff meets their prima facie burden and avoids or defeats outweighing Dis-Ads, Counterplans, etc. Then Aff wins the ballot.

Neg needs to attack the Aff position with some real menace. I like on-case arguments from the Neg, but it is not mandatory to win. A single off case argument that links well to the Aff case and has heavy impacts can be enough to outweigh and win.

I will pull off case Neg arguments that are dropped by Aff and weigh them as voting issues if prompted. Aff - I need at least a blurb in defense for each off-case position, even if it is only summary. If neg claims your plan causes teddy bears to explode, thus impairing children while yelling "wont someone please think of the children!", spend the 10 seconds it takes to tell me there is no demonstrable link, or evidence for this. If you do not, I am automatically weighing explosive bears as an impact for the Neg.

Aff - Pull your Solvency and Impacts through to rebuttals. If something is clean dropped by Neg, I am happy to weigh it for you in voting so long as you tell me to. Please do not assume that I am going to weigh every piece of evidence presented in the 1AC if I never hear about it after that.

NEG - Beware of overly abusing the Neg block. I allow new argument and evidence in the 2NC. However, I prefer not to see 8 minutes of completely new evidence in the 2NC followed by 5-minutes of extensions in the 1NR.
If there is no way the 1AR can address the amount of bomb you drop on them in the Neg block, then there is no way I am going to punish them for it and will take it into account when voting.
AFF - if this happens, just cry abuse, point out the new stuff and then address what you have time for the best you can.

TOPICALITY Warning, I have big feels about T.

Neg - Do not run topicality arguments on clearly topical cases. I allow some flexibility for Aff in meeting the resolution.
If you run T for 30 seconds and then spend 7.5 minutes running through dozens of case-specific and off-case cards, you clearly have sufficient ground.
If I suspect this is simply a time suck mechanism that you just kick out of after being refuted, I'll be grumpy about it and will consider a Reverse Voting Issue argument from Aff.

Always run T on non-topical cases.
If a case is non-topical, commit to your topicality argument and give it some real care. I want to hear the contempt you hold for an Aff refusal to debate the resolution properly. You showed up ready to debate against the resolution and the Aff wants to talk about clowns on unicycles instead. Blast-em.
I like when you provide definitions for and underline words in the resolution you feel the Aff has neglected specifically.

K & THOERY

Everything is on the table. If you run an argument about how sock puppets help improve the educational side of debate and provide sock puppets for everyone to use while speaking, I am fine with it.

Two words of warning on K & Theory.

1. Please do not turn the entire debate into theory only. Let's at least have an attempt by both sides to debate the resolution.

2. Please do not run arguments about how debate is bad. We all showed up for just that purpose. It is tiresome to argue that the activity we are all engaged in voluntarily is somehow inappropriate. I do not like it, will not flow it, and will not vote on it.

Hello,

Thank you for participating in today's debates. I look for well-crafted arguments delivered at a reasonable speed.

Please limit spreading. Fully explain your thinking and reasoning. Slow down when making main points (contentions) or when making pointed critiques of your opponent’s argument.

All the best,

Kieran Jacobson

I’m the head coach of the Mount Vernon HS Debate Team (WA).

I did policy debate in HS very, very long ago - but I’m not a traditionalist. (Bring on the progressive LD arguments-- I will listen to them, unlike my daughter, Peri, who is such a traditional LD'er.)

Add me to the email chain: kkirkpatrick@mvsd320.org

Please don’t be racist, homophobic, etc. I like sassy, aggressive debaters who enjoy what they do but dislike sullen, mean students who don't really care-- an unpleasant attitude will damage your speaker points.

Generally,

Speed: Speed hasn't been a problem but I don't tell you if I need you to be more clear-- I feel it's your job to adapt. If you don't see me typing, you probably want to slow down. I work in tabroom in WA state an awful lot, so my flowing has slowed. Please take that into consideration.

Tech = Truth: I’ll probably end up leaning more tech, but I won’t vote for weak arguments that are just blatantly untrue in the round whether or not your opponents call it out.

Arguments:

I prefer a strong, developed NEG strategy instead of running a myriad of random positions.

I love it when debaters run unique arguments that they truly believe and offer really high speaker points for this. (I'm not inclined to give high speaks, though.)

Any arguments that aren’t on here, assume neutrality.

Do like and will vote on:

T - I love a well-developed T battle but rarely hear one. I don't like reasonability as a standard-- it's lazy, do the work.

Ks - I like debaters who truly believe in the positions they’re running. I like critical argumentation but if you choose to run an alt of "embrace poetry" or "reject all written text", you had better fully embrace it. I’m in touch with most literature, but I need a lot of explanation from either side as to why you should win it in the final rebuttals.

Don’t like but will vote on if won:

“Debate Bad” - I DO NOT LIKE "Debate is Futile" arguments. Please don't tell me what we are doing has no point. I will listen to your analysis. I may even have to vote for it once in a while. But, it is not my preference. Want a happy judge? Don't tell me that how we are spending another weekend of our lives is wasting our time.

Very, very, very... VERY traditional LD - if you are reading an essay case, I am not the judge for you.

Not a huge fan of disclosure theory-- best to skip this.

Don’t like and won’t vote on:

Tricks.

please include me on the email chain: lilarowland06@gmail.com

time yourselves for speeches and prep!

im good with most arguments, but if it’s something particularly niche or complicated please spend more time on it with a clear explanation

just as a silly preference: i like ks, i don’t love t (or any blocked out arguments that a team cannot independently articulate)

spreading is fine, some type of annunciation is appreciated though

quality of arguments > quantity

my computer is ANCIENT, please forgive me if it takes a little bit to download speech docs

please be a nice person throughout the round and have a jolly time

I have coached policy at Garfield High School since 2014. I have yet to encounter an argument I'm not OK with in a round; it's really about you and how well you explain your arguments and why they should win you the round. I think it's important to be responsive to the specific arguments in the round - don't just read your prewritten overview and assume it works for every debate. I enjoy both policy and critical arguments and have some background knowledge in theory, but don't assume I know your literature. In my opinion, it's your job to tell me how to vote in the round and why. If you leave it up to me, I tend to buy the argument that moral thinking is a prereq to policy making (but I can be convinced otherwise).

I am generally ok with most speed, but make sure I'm flowing if you're blazing through a bunch of analytics you don't want me to miss.

I don't know what "judge kicking" means - are you asking me to decide your strategy for you? I won't do that. Either go for the argument, or don't.

Bottom line: I'm a tabula rasa judge. Run whatever you would like to run, and tell me how you would like me to evaluate the round.

Email: jasoncxdebate@gmail.com

Experience:

I debated CX on the national circuit for 4 years in high school, did not debate in college. I've been coaching CX at Garfield HS since 2014. I judge ~50 rounds a year, split between the local and national circuit. We took a team to the TOC in 2021. My day job is as a social science researcher who does a lot of applied research with Indigenous, Black, and BIPOC communities. This keeps me pretty engaged with philosophical and critical theoretical literature, and very attendant to questions of power and equity. I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual male who was educated and socialized within a Western context, which undoubtedly shapes my epistemic view of the world.

Feelings about specific things:

T/FW: Excellent. Specific and creative violations are more fun to judge than generic ones
DA: Great.
CP: Awesome. Highly specific CP strategies (such as PICs) tend to produce more interesting debates than generic CPs, but they certainly both have their place.
Ks: Excellent. Especially if you can articulate specific links to the aff

Policy affs: Great
K affs: Awesome. I find that K vs K debates are often more interesting than K vs FW debates, but that isn't always the case

Theory: Good. If you want to win on theory, make it more substantive than a few warrantless blips
Disclosure Theory: Not very convincing for me. I think that the open source/disclosure movement within debate has been somewhat uncritically embraced in a way that doesn't fully consider how the open sourcing of knowledge reproduces new forms of inequity (often along neoliberal/service economy lines, wherein better resourced teams are better able to take advantage of the open knowledge economy).
New arguments in the rebuttals: Generally not a good idea. Completely new arguments should not be made in the rebuttals. I will strongly protect the negative team from new arguments in the 2AR.
Judge Kicking: Nope. Don't expect me to judge kick things for you. Make a strategic choice for yourself.
Overviews and impact calculus: Yes, please. Clearly frame my choice for me at the end of the round, and you are much more likely to get my ballot. Also, 'even if' statements can be super persuasive in the final rebuttals.
Backing up Claims with Warrants: Super important.
Impact Calculus and Overviews: Also super important - I like being told how I should vote, and why you think I should vote that way.
Clipping: Don't do it, I will vote you down for cheating.
Speaking: Please be clear! If you're clear, then I am fine with speed. Clarity is especially important in the online debate format.
Dropped arguments: These flow through as 'true' for the team making them.
Voting: I will vote for one team over the other. Don't ask for a double win (or loss).

At the end of the day, I believe that debate should be about the debaters and not about me. My job is to create a safe and educational space, and to do my best to decide the round based on the arguments rather than on my own beliefs. If you clearly tell me how you think I should be judging, then there shouldn't be any big surprises.