Former LD Debater for Okoboji High School. Dabbled in PF and Congress. I have experience with both circuit and trad/lay LD, but haven't been closely involved in the LD nat circuit since ~2020.

Debate background: I mostly read util in lay rounds, and was a tricks/theory/phil debater on the circuit. Despite reading util in lay rounds, I did not frequently read LARP/policy style arguments at a high level. I collapsed to a K maybe twice in actual rounds. I read a lot of 1ar theory and analytical phil, and am of the opinion that skep is an incredibly strong argument that is underutilized primarily because of hacking against it.

Non-debate background: I have a BBA in Finance with a minor in Philosophy. I work in the energy sector and as such have pretty good knowledge of things in that domain, specifically as they relate to financial markets. I also have a fair amount of knowledge regarding military doctrine/strategy, but do not have any formal background in this area. I am not particularly well read in most K lit and have practically no experience with most of the authors outside of the debate context.

For IHSSA: you can read whatever in front of me, but I would prefer you keep rounds somewhat inclusive of lay debaters. I won't vote you down for not doing this, but if you read shoes against someone who's never heard of theory you probably won't love your speaks. I will still vote on anything, and your speaks will be very good if you make the round particularly educational.

General

debate is a game

I will probably repeat this sentiment many times but unless I explicitly state otherwise, all the preferences/defaults listed in this paradigm are subject to change based on arguments made in round

I'll yell clear/slow; im not the best at flowing so I won't dock speaks unless it's particularly egregious

throw me on the email chain

If you have questions feel free to ask before round

flex prep - yeah im chill w it unless tourney rules explicitly prohibit it or something

cx is probably just constitutively binding in the same way speech times are, so if for whatever reason you're in a position where you need to argue otherwise that will be an uphill battle.

feel free to match the energy of your opponent/be more abrasive in but don't be mean to novices, lay debaters, etc (dont be mean to anyone - what I mean by this is that if you're in deep elims at some huge tournament and your opponent says "what's an a priori" in cx, you can be pretty confrontational)

I don't mind postrounding but keep it reasonable

PF

I competed in PF for like 1 tournament but I read plenty of lay util LD stuff (which is functionally the same aside from needing to win the framework). If you can win some offense and weigh it well you shouldn't have any issues. Never did circuit PF but my understanding is that it is less tech than LD; that might have changed to some degree, but anything resembling the LARP LD stuff is fine. I am probably marginally less tech judging PF than I am for LD, largely because I am highly unlikely to vote on LD style tricks in PF in a local.

I would recommend collapsing to one point of offense then winning the weighing, although this obviously varies greatly based on the circumstances.

LD

These are all preferences, it's your round, standard disclaimer or whatever.

Tech > Truth

Debate the way you want to with the understanding that there's a chance I might not understand your style as well and it will probably be harder to get a ballot from me depending on what you read. I wont activity hack for or against anything but there's a far higher chance I understand your theory args than your K.

Pref shortcut - Tricks/theory>Phil>LARP>K>performance/non T aff

A dropped argument is a true argument as long as it is pointed out that it is dropped. If you ignore it as well, don't expect it to be a factor in my decision

I default competing interps, drop the debater, and no rvis (THESE CAN CHANGE). I'm reasonably confident that there is no implication to a theory shell without paradigm issues, so I WILL NOT DEFAULT TO ANYTHING on drop the arg/drop the debater specifically. I suppose I don't have an issue "defaulting" no rvis and competing interps, but if you for some reason don't read no rvis on the shell and your opponent goes for it you're in a really bad spot. Paradigm issues seem to be underutilized in theory debate by a large number of debaters so I would enjoy seeing an actual debate on dtd/dta or something like that.

absent any argument from either side, i will assume the aff is whole res and defends implementation, and neg advocacies are condo.

absent another rotb i will default to truth testing

I have no problem with any position you run. I will try my best to ensure that my personal opinion has no influence on the round whatsoever.

NC AC makes me happy, especially if it's well thought out and interacts well with the ac

knowing the details on your advantage/offense also makes me happy

prewritten 1ars/2ns are meh, and nonresponsive prewritten stuff makes me sad

I know less about Ks, high theory/pomo and performance stuff. I'm still more than willing to vote on them, but make sure explanations (especially in the 2ar/nr) are understandable to someone who hasn't read your author.

I think tricks and frivolous theory are cool

*if they're actual tricks - tricks debaters need to step their game up, K debaters have the floating pik which is a top 3 trick for sure.

if something is legitimately not warranted I'm not going to vote on it. I would strongly prefer that you do not try to test the limits of what constitutes "legitimately warranted" as that will make me very sad. To clarify, the underviews of 2019 do typically meet this threshold, but saying "no neg args - they make me sad" is probably not a complete arg. Indexicles, condo logic, etc are things that are frequently underwarranted in my view. On the flip side, it is my view that a LOT of K/idpol positions are either underwarranted or lacking warrants altogether. None of this means I wont vote on any specific argument/position - a warrant need not be true (and can be incorrect/false) to be won.

I am increasingly finding myself holding the view that it is outright unstrategic to read an arg that you literally cant go for if it's responded to (think the a priori/paradox dump offs with 7 one sentence blips). This is due to the diminishing returns present when they're inevitably grouped, the sort of true combo shell that you open yourself up to, the inability to actually give a 2n on any of them, and the fact that the answers can be just as (or even more) incoherent than the args themselves and you can't exactly do much about it. TLDR it's just a lot easier to read something that isn't obviously wrong (shocking, i know).

Speed: I can flow about a 6/10, slow down on tags or anything that is absolutely critical. Ill should clear and slow as necessary.

Speaks: Ill probably average a 28.7-29.2. Higher for funny/creative args. strategy and speaking ability both go into speaker points imo. Reading something that I've never seen before/an arg that you created, very good cx (on both sides), and clever strategic choices are ways to get very good speaks.

Random stuff that seems worth mentioning

zero risk/terminal defense is probably a thing and can definitely be won in front of me - for example, 0 risk of a 2018 midterm DA

"converse of the interp" probably isn't a real counterinterp and i will be quite receptive to the (true) arg that there literally isn't an exact couterinterp to which standards can be applied. You might be able to win this arg if the interp is something like "aff may not read a prioris" and you say "converse of the interp", but there is literally no reason why you cant just say "aff may read a prioris" instead so just do that pls.

rotb and rotj are probably the same thing - if you expect me to evaluate these separately I would strongly prefer a reason as to why one comes first

***kicking a condo position needs to be explicit; not extending =/= kicking

***NSDA evidence ethics complaints supersede all in round arguments - you don't get to tech your way out of it

***I have never seen "gut checking" used in a way that is sufficient to constitute an argument (claim, warrant, impact). "It's obviously frivolous" IS NOT a sufficient response to a shell - you need to win why it is frivolous and why that matters. Going for reasonability is probably the best way to do this.

***Absent some reason to view them as such, "independent voters" don't magically operate on the highest level of the round. They can, but you do have to win that part of the argument. Just saying "independent voter for _" is almost certainly not sufficient.

I have no particular issue with any impact turns (death good, etc). I don't auto-require any sort of warnings or disclaimers, although if your opponent makes those arguments you still have to answer them.

I have debated through high school and in college for my experience in judging and competing

Now that all of that is established, you obviously want to know specifics on your event. Well, I've got you covered.

ALL DEBATE FORMATS:

Email Chain: I would like to be added if it is created, my email is ryan.corcoran@my.simpson.edu

Public Forum:

Philosophy: I will prioritize the flow for voting before all else, as I see it debate is a game and flow is the only fair way to keep my hands off the decision as much as possible

Tech>Truth, however the more shaky an argument is the less it takes to address it. (Ex. Cutting the NSA surveillance leads to the end of the world because of Swiss Physics)

Tabula rasa in round, but be aware I often know the literature on topics so I can better help you and your partner be better throughout the topic.

Speed: On a scale of 1-10 I'd say I can handle 8, but especially for comprehension sake and with online format issues, try to keep your speed at 5-6 for comprehension.

Crossfire: I will not weigh arguments made in cross unless they are brought up in a main speech.

Front lining: For the first speaking team this should be done in summary, the second rebuttal must frontline the first rebuttal, or else my ballot is written after that assuming they don't fumble the bag.

Weighing: It makes my decision so much easier if weighing starts at rebuttal. If you could tell me why even if all of their impacts come true we still win and be right, then carry that through each speech, you've won my ballot.

New Arguments in Summary: Don't do it :)

Final Focus: Really crystallize the round in this speech. You only have 2 minutes so don't panic to extend the whole flow, my ink is already placed. In this speech tell me the thing standing that without a doubt can't be objected to by anyone viewing the round's flow. The final focus gets overlooked far too much and I think that's a tragedy.

Judge Intervention: I won't interrupt or stop the debate unless serious problems arise. this is only like three things and it shouldn't be a worry

- Blatant Racism or Sexism

- Taking way, way too much time to find a card

- Technical difficulties over online

Off the Clock Roadmaps and Signposting: Please do this, it really helps me who has two separate papers to know where you are and if you do this your speaks will probably reflect my gratitude.

Plans/Counterplans: I will listen to them in the sense that I will not actively cover my ears or mute my computer, but just know that the pro doesn't need to have a defined plan and you can't propose a counterplan as the CON according to section 4 of the PF rulebook so, don't do it :)

Critiques/K arguments: I am not and will not claim to be familiar with the current literature surrounding K arguments. Unless a resolution is truly vile in nature, I will often default to not weighing the K argument at all.

Theory Arguments: Unless a serious violation has been perpetrated that inhibits debate, I won't weigh it at all. Granted, I am open-minded enough that you can roll the dice and then you leave it in my place to either interfere in the decision or rule on the flow, 9.9/10 times ill go with the ladder.

Here is a list of violations that if reasonably committed, would lead me to vote for theory

- Trigger Theory

Speaker Points: These generally stay high for me, if you really want a 30, adding personality to your speeches outside of the cards and the written words is the way.

Any other questions just ask at the beginning of round

LD:

Philosophy:

I will vote on the flow, tech>truth, and all that. Something to know, however, is the shakier an argument made is the easier it is for weak opposition to it being enough to make me look away from it.

Speed: On a scale of 1-10 I'd say I can handle 8, but especially for comprehension sake and with online format issues, try to keep your speed at 5-6 for comprehension.

Weighing: It makes my decision so much easier if weighing starts at 1NC and 2AR. If you could tell me why even if I buy their value and believe their impacts exist, that you would still win, it is an easy way to my ballot.

Judge Intervention: I won't interrupt or stop the debate unless serious problems arise. this is only like three things and it shouldn't be a worry

- Blatant Racism or Sexism

- Taking way, way too much time to find a card

- Technical difficulties over online

K Arguments: Sure, there aren't many rules barring this and while I won't claim to be constantly in the know on the climate and style of K debate, I think that especially in a format debating moral grounds that gives a platform for these arguments to be heard.

Theory Arguments: Unless a serious violation has been perpetrated that inhibits debate, I will be less likely to weigh as a priority. Granted, I am open-minded enough that you can roll the dice and then you leave it in my place to either interfere in the decision or rule on the flow, 9/10 times ill go with the ladder.

Here is a list of violations that if reasonably committed, would lead me to vote for theory

• Trigger Theory
• Speed

Off the Clock Roadmaps and Signposting: Please do this, it really helps me who has two separate papers to know where you are and if you do this your speaks will probably reflect my gratitude.

Speaker Points: These generally stay high for me, if you really want a 30, looking up from computer/papers is probably the way, or if that doesn't work, adding personality is huge

Big Questions:

Framing: I think one of the most important aspects of a format predicated on very broad questions is to give a starting ground and agree on what ground the debate is to be. Otherwise it's ships passing in the night and I have to put my opinion far more than you'd like. Defenition is also huge, and making sure in first CX the level of agreement on Defenitions should be prioritized.

Philosophy:Tech is still my main way to vote, however it is just as equivalent to the truth and coherence of the claims. Won arguments that are choppy w/ a not so consistent narrative are harder for me to hang a hat on.

Proving your side correct is just as important as proving the other side wrong. Many times I see particularly NEG teams place burdens and by consolidation say the other side hasn't met so we win. However the nature of inverse resolution also applies to burdens. Thus it may be true they didn't meet their burden, but also prove that you did meet your burden.

Weighing: It makes my decision so much easier if weighing starts at Rebuttal. If you could tell me why even if I buy their value and believe their impacts exist, that you would still win, it is an easy way to my ballot.

Speaker Points: These generally stay high for me, if you really want a 30, looking up from computer/papers is probably the way, or if that doesn't work, adding personality is huge

_________________

Speech/Interp:

I always found that speech paradigms were redundant because there isn't a way to cater your speech to me unless somehow you edit your intro or something. I will say this on the matter as my top 5 biggest things

Ennunciation

Characterization for Interp, Professionalism for speech

Use of Space/Blocking

Memorization

Cutting for Interp/Chosen Sources for speech

Interp Specific: Loud does not equal sad/emotion. Loud sometimes can equal funny, but please if at all possible have emotion be true to human nature. If I hear sad news I don't immediately grab a bullhorn and breakdown in hysteria, it is much more likely and relatable for any onlooker to your piece that emotion comes in subtle shades like the tone of the character's voice, the facial expressions, the body language, so many more things than the volume of the words being said.

If you ever have any questions or want further explanation of a decision I made or how to improve in your given category, just reach out to me at my email ryan.corcoran@my.simpson.edu

Hi y'all! I debated for Valley High School for seven years and graduated in 2020, qualifying to both NSDA Nationals and TOC.

Bronx 2022 Update: I haven't judged (or thought about) debate in a while, so just keep that in mind. Go a little bit slower please, but everything below still applies. 

Email: animeshjoshi9@gmail.com

I don't flow off the doc, just a heads up.

General:

Tech > Truth.

Do what you want to do.

Here are just some miscellaneous guidelines.

1. Explanation usually matters more than argument content. As long as I can get a coherent warrant for an argument, and it's not blatantly offensive, I'm willing to vote on it.

2. I'm good with any type of debate and will evaluate every argument to the best of my ability. I read a lot of analytic philosophy as a debater, so I'm probably most comfortable with that style and would likely enjoy it when executed correctly. That being said, don't read something you're bad at just because I read it--it leads to bad debates that will make me sad. Watching debaters do what they're good at is super cool, and I think I'm comfortable adjudicating any style of debate. The one exception is probably LARP v LARP; I'm not very well versed in that. Disclosure theory is fine, but I don't like it at all, especially super tiny violations, i.e. round reports, open-source in cite box, etc.

EDIT: Also, not the biggest fan of osource being read against full text disclosure, but you do you. Also pt2, reading some sort of framing mechanism, i.e. ANY framework, is probably in your best interest.

3. Despite being from Valley, I'm not the biggest fan of tricks. Watching a bad tricks debate makes my head hurt, and they often seem like cheap shots (the way they're currently used in debate, they aren't always bad arguments). However, I do understand their strategic value and, when executed correctly, can be really enjoyable to watch. Cool and nuanced topical tricks > resolved. I'd prefer to not hear a 2AR on a garbage a priori when there's a clear substantive route to the ballot--that's all.

4. Even if things are conceded, please extend them. I have a low threshold for extensions, but there still needs to be ink on my flow with something resembling a warrant. That is, a 2AR going for defense to a 2NR on theory STILL needs to say "extend aff offense, it was conceded."

5. Independent voters need to be warranted. Tossing out a claim without any reasoning attached to it is not a coherent argument.

6. Weigh between arguments, please. Every type of debate gets messy whether it be theory, framework, or clash of civs. Weighing really helps me resolve these rounds.

7. I dislike people prescripting every speech. It seems to be happening more and more--it irks me. I will reward debaters who actually generate arguments and think of responses on their feet.

8. Have fun! Debate is super stressful and rough. Try to lighten up and enjoy some of the experience! But don't be exclusionary to somebody who isn't versed in circuit norms, is a novice, etc. Let's try to keep the space inclusive :)

If you have any other questions, let me know before round!

I did LD for four years in high school for Dowling Catholic and graduated in 2015. Since then, I got my BFA in theater and MA in Performance Studies focusing on performance philosophy and theory. I've been mostly out of debate other than some sporadic judging since 2017, so please be extra clear and have a good ballot story for me in the rebuttals!

I primarily debated Ks, but am comfortable with most arguments. On shorter arguments of any kind, including but not limited to theory, please slow down. Not a huge fan of "tricky" debate, but please be sure to include and be clear on the warrants. Do as much work in evidence comparison and weighing as possible.

Ultimately - I'm open to whatever kind of debate the debaters bring to me, as long as it is not discriminatory in any way. No matter what kind of debate you want to have, just be sure to tell me how and why to vote for you.

email is catikalinoski@gmail.com

My name is Braedon Kirkpatrick (He/Him/His). I was an LD debater for 4 years at West Des Moines Valley High School and dabbled a bit into policy. I graduated from high school in 2019 and am currently in college. If you have any further questions regarding my paradigm, need to add me to the email chain, or just need to contact me for any reason, my email is braedon-kirkpatrick@uiowa.edu.

Notes on Speaker Points:

The easiest way to get good speaks out of me is to speak/spread as clearly as you possibly can and make good args that aren't just ctrl+c, ctrl+v -ed from a pre-written massive backfile. Managing to crystalize near the end of the round will also net you high speaks.

Also, if you are debating a novice or someone new to the circuit, please make the round as inclusive and as educational as possible, as we want to include people in this activity instead of scaring them off by being overly intimidating. I will reward high speaks if you do this.

I will plummet speaker points if there is any open hostility, bigotry, excessive rudeness, and/or aggression in the round. Just remember to be kind and we will get along just fine :)

Online Debate:

- I would appreciate it if you kept at a speed that is comprehensible on online debate, as the lack of audio quality can make it so when circuit debaters spread at top speeds half of the arguments are incomprehensible, and if I can't hear it I cannot vote on it. I would also appreciate you starting slow and ramping up speed for the first 10 seconds of your speech and slowing down on taglines and author names, as it makes it easier to engage with the case.

- If you know that you have tech issues, I would appreciate you keeping a local recording so if your speech cuts out, we can retrieve the arguments that were said, otherwise I will not be able to vote on what I did not hear.

- Signposting is really important for me especially in the online debate format as in order to flow your rebuttals and extensions I have to know where they are in the first place. If you don't do this it is likely I will miss an argument or 2 while I waste time attempting to find the argument, which may affect how I judge a decision.

-I really appreciate and your opponent appreciates it when you flash your case so please do it, especially in online debate.

The Core:

I believe that debate is, at its core, a game. I am willing to vote on pretty much everything (read my paradigm for exceptions) as long as the argument is explained well and it isn't offensive. All I require is for you to tell me why you deserve the ballot. In order for me to vote for an argument you make, however, I must be able to hear it. If you indecipherably mumble a turn in the 1NR that neither I nor your opponent can hear and then blow up on how it was conceded in the 2NR, I will be far less likely to vote for it than if you clearly and distinctly read the turn. If you have some reason why you cannot do so that's completely fine just notify me before the round starts so I can better flow your arguments. If you stand or sit, read from paper or computer, wear a suit or workout clothes, spread 350 wpm or speak like a political official, it doesn't matter. All that matters to me is the quality of your arguments.

For Prefs:

I'd consider myself to be a jack of all trades, master of none when it comes to familiarity with debate strategies, as I have a good level of exposure with Ks, Framework, Tricks, LARP, etc... but did not specialize in a single type during my time as a debater.

Specific Stances:

Defaults:

- If no ROB is provided, I will default to truth testing over comparative worlds

- I assume Tech > Truth unless proven otherwise

- I assume flex prep is A-OK

-I assume Theory > ROB > Framing unless weighed otherwise

-I assume all Plans, CPs, Ks, PICS, etc... to be unconditional unless specified otherwise

-I assume plans on the AFF to be whole-res unless specified otherwise

Framework: The only issue I normally have in framework rounds is a complete lack of clash. I really don't like to vote off of embedded clash arguments as I feel it opens up the door for a lot of judge interventions, so just be specific on how your cases interact.

K's: Don't have much to say on K's, other than please be explicit in your link and on what my role as a judge is. Also note that I have to understand something to vote off of it, and while I have some good experience with different types K literature, probably best to assume I have never heard of your lit before and I don't know what kind of arguments certain authors make.

NIB's: All I ask is that you clearly speak when reading NIBs so that it is possible for me to flow and for your opponent to have a chance to respond to them. Don't forget that arguments are claim, warrant, and impact, as I need NIBS to be arguments not just claims to be able to vote on them.

Spikes: Sometimes you need a good 4 min under view. Sometimes it isn't necessary. You do you. Your speaks won't suffer if you use them. Just as a good rule of thumb, list your spikes in some fashion so that your opponent and I will be able to write them down in some recognizable form and be able to engage with them. It helps us, makes it easier to signpost for you, and gives you more credence on the validity of the spike. The only spikes that I will not evaluate are in round spikes that affect speech and prep times and spikes that have "evaluate after the 1AR or 2NR", as I do not like spikes that attempt to alter the NSDA structure of debate especially since these specific spikes make the round super messy.

Disclosure: I hate disclosure arguments as I see them usually being used against new debaters and people just coming into the circuit, but I will vote on it if nothing is read against it and there is a particularly compelling case for why. For instance, if it is an elim round and you have screenshots of your opponent being shifty 15 minutes prior to the round and lying about their case, then I would consider a disclosure argument.

Theory/T: I have no specific paradigm issues with theory except I won't "gut check" against theory args. Got to provide an argument as to why the theory is frivolous and why that is bad. If a shell is extempt, please read it slower than you normally would, as it allows for both me and your opponent to be able to respond to the violation.

Evidence Ethics: I usually just default to tournament rules for this.

LARP: Please give me clear impact calc weighing with a clear link chain, that is all.

Kyle Kopf (He/Him/His)

West Des Moines Valley High School ‘18 || University of Iowa '22 || Iowa Law '26

I want to be on the email chain (but I do my best to not flow off of it): krkopf@gmail.com

Conflicts: Iowa City West High School, West Des Moines Valley High School

Bio: I coached Iowa City West LD for 5 years. I debated LD for Six Years. Received one bid my junior year and 3 my senior year.

I don't like long paradigms so I did my best to keep this as short as possible. My opinions on debate aren't what matters anymore. I try to be as tech as possible and not intervene.

OVERVIEW:

I won’t automatically ignore any style of argument (Phil, Theory, K, policy, T, etc), I will only drop you for offensive arguments within that style (for example, using a policy AC to say racism is good). That being said, I am more familiar with certain styles of arguments, but that does not mean I will hack for them. Shortcut for my familiarity with styles:

Phil – 1

Theory/T – 1

K - 1

Policy - 2

Tricks - 3

Online Debate:

-Please speak at like 70-80% of your top pace, I'll be much more likely to catch your arguments and therefore vote for you if you actually slow and don't rely on me shouting "slow" or "clear" a lot. Also, slow down extra on underviews, theory, and author names because I'm extra bad at flowing those.

-Please keep a local recording in case your speech cuts out to the point where I miss arguments. If you do not there is no way for me to recover what was missed.

-I find myself flowing off the doc more with online debate than I do normally

-If you think there are better norms for judging online I should consider, feel free to share before the round!

-I will always keep my camera on when debaters are speaking. Sometimes I turn my camera off during prep time. Feel free to ask me to turn my camera on if I forget.

SPEAKS:

Based on strategy, quality of discourse, fun, creativity etc. NOT based on speaking style. I will shout “clear” as needed without reducing speaks.

SPEED:

Don’t start speech at top speed, build up to it for like 10 seconds. Slow down significantly on author names and theory underviews.

IDENTITY AND SAFETY:

Firstly, I've stuttered for my entire life, including the 6 years I was in debate. Speech impediments will not impact speaks or my evaluation of the round whatsoever. I default shouting “clear” if needed (I always preferred being told to clear than losing because the judge didn’t understand me) so please tell me if you prefer otherwise.

Secondly, If there is anything else related to identity or anything else that might affect the round, please let me know if you feel comfortable doing so.

Ks:

This is what I primarily read in high school. I’m familiar with K strategy, K tricks (floating PICs need to be in some way hinted at in the 1N), etc.

Theory/T:

I read some theory although significantly less than Ks. Since I've started coaching I've become a lot more familiar with theory strategy. Assuming literally no argument is made either way, I default:

- No RVI

- Competing Interps

- Drop the debater on theory and T

- Text of interp

- Norms creation model

- “Converse of the interp/defending the violation” is sufficient

Phil:

I started reading phil in high school and I coach a lot of phil now. I'm comfortable in these debates.

Tricks:

I'll vote on just about anything with a claim warrant and impact.

Policy:

While I never debated policy arguments in high school, I've judged a lot of policy-style rounds and am much more comfortable with them now.

Postrounding:

I think post-rounding is a good norm for debate to encourage good judging, prevent hacking, etc. Always feel free to post-round me. I'll be VERY strict about starting the next flight/round, allowing debaters to be on time, etc but feel free to find me or email me later (email at top).

Misc:

*If you're kicking a CP or K, you need to explicitly say "kick the CP/K", not extending is not sufficient to kick

*All arguments must have some sort of warrant. The warrant doesn’t have to be good or true

*If an argument is new in the 2, I will disregard it even if it’s not pointed out. To clarify, you still should point it out in case I missed it.

Been involved in debate for over 20 years. Coached mostly PF and Congress, however have judged all events at just about every level.

Speed is fine in LD and policy, but in pf do not sacrifice clarity for speed.

Theory should ONLY ever be used if there is a real violation in the round that skews it greatly.

I like numbers, I will favor an economic impact over a general good of humanity argument. No warm fuzzies.

I HATE performance in any way shape or form. This will end the round for me. If you want to do a passion project go do OO.

Debate the topic. Tie your arguments to the topic. As long as you can establish a clear link we are good to go.

Mostly just ask what you want to know, I am pretty open and just like good debate.

Pronouns: She/her/hers

Pre-req: I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence, rape, or suicide/suicidal ideations that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll be very receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote against you based on the introduction of that issue.

I believe that problematic arguments are problematic whether the opposing team points them out or not. I believe that this is not a space where any argument can be made. Problematic arguments at minimum impact the people in the round and can impact discourse outside of the round. I want the opposing team to point out problematic arguments and abuse. However, arguments that promote sexism, racism, or other forms of hate will not be persuasive for me and are likely to result in a down ballot.

Style: I am one of those judges who responds very negatively to rudeness, disrespect, and offensive language

Speed: I don't like speed. Learning how to talk fast has no post-debate benefit, so I do not support it as a strategy in an educational debate round. I can follow fast talking, but if you are spreading, then I will put down my pen and stop flowing. If I stop flowing, it probably means I am confused; either because you are going too fast, or I don't understand what you are saying.

Style: I need to have a weighing mechanism in PF debate. I need to know how to decide who won the round, otherwise I will get very frustrated. I do not want to decide using my own metrics, I want YOU to tell me how to judge the round. I will be using this weighing mechanism as I look at my flow to decide who won the round.

I tend to be a flow a judge. By that I mean that I flow and will be following the flow to see who has the strongest arguments at the end of the round.

Evidence This is also very important to me. By that I mean that I need evidence that is clearly cited and explained. Actually READ me your evidence, don't just give me your summary of the evidence. Analytical arguments are great, and I will vote there, but when disagreement is happening about what may or may not be true about the topic, I would like to hear evidence. This should also connect back to your weighing mechanism.

I also like to hear evidence in the rebuttal. If you are responding with an analytical argument to an argument that has evidence, I need you to do the work of explaining to me why your analytical argument is sufficient to off-set the argument with evidence. You can do this by telling me that sense the argument doesn't make sense/has a fallacy, then it doesn't stand even with evidence. Or you can make an analytical argument about the evidence itself. Otherwise, I am likely going to still prefer the argument with evidence.

Please call for evidence in a timely manner. Please use an email chain or the evidence sharing that Tabroom provides. I want to be included on the email chain.

If there is conflict about evidence, I need you to do the work of telling me why I prefer your evidence over your opponent's evidence. Just telling me, "It post dates," is not sufficient. What has changed since that date? Why is your source more reliable? Otherwise, I will just get frustrated.

If your opponent asks for evidence, per the NSDA rules, you need to provide them with the cut card and the full article in a way that allows everyone to see and read the evidence. I expect to be included in any email chain, so I can also see the card that was called for. I also expect this exchange of evidence to happen promptly (less than 30 seconds) when asked.

If there are questions about the validity of the evidence or the way evidence is being used, you are likely to lose my ballot.

On a related note, I do not believe that everything needs to be quantified. Just because numbers cannot or are not put to an impact, does not mean that it cannot be weighed. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to impacts to human beings. I do not find the argument, "we don't know how many people will be impacted," persuasive.

Prep Time: I expect competitors to keep track of their own time. I will also be keeping track of prep time. This will be official time used. If you use all of your prep time before the end of the round, I expect you to start speaking promptly. That means you should take no more than 10 seconds to begin your next speech.

Background: I am a math teacher, so if you are going to throw around math terms and mathematics, you need to be certain that you know what you are talking about and are correct. As an example, there is a difference between exponential, linear, and geometric growth, so make sure you say the right one.

I have debated PF 4 years in high school, 4 years of college PF, 4 years of NPDA/parli in college.

I am not a LD debater, so I have minimal understanding of the theory and technical arguments that exist within LD. You can absolutely still make those arguments, but you need to make sure that you are explaining those terms, otherwise I will be lost and frustrated.

I am happy to give you feedback after the round, if you find me. :)

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

Hello! I am a former high school debater for Okoboji where I did LD all three years. Currently a high school science teacher and NSDA speech and debate coach for Waukee High School. This is my second year of coaching and judging. I frequently judge LD and IEs.

rowens@waukeeschools.org

DEBATE:

tldr: I flow and should hear clear extensions, turns, and weighing; Speed is fine, but check with your opponents before spreading; be thorough and respectful.

Flow: I will judge based on what I've flowed and what you tell me the voters are. Evidence should be prevalent and should also be clearly linked and explained. Don't just read a card without telling us why it's important. When extending, tell us what you're extending and why. You do not need to reread the entire card during your extension.

Speed: Speaking quickly is fine, but it should not come at the price of your clarity or depth of argument. I prefer not to flow spreading, especially on the local circuit. I will say "slow" or "clear". If myself AND your opponents are not able to keep up, you need to slow and speak clearer. Debate should still be accessible to all, so please check with your opponents on whether they are comfortable with spreading as well.

Weighing: Need to link to your framework; if what you're weighing doesn't match the value/criterion of the round, it won't have much strength.

Theory, Ks, etc: Have limited experience running and responding to these in LD. Generally not preferred in the local circuit. If you make a warranted argument, I will judge it. I will not automatically vote against you for running it, but these are not the preferred main arguments to be run.

Speaks: Generally give speaks between 26-29. Use your time, try to make solid arguments, respond to your opponents, be courteous during the round for higher speaks. Lower speaks if you are rude, make short speeches without addressing all relevant arguments, or are lying.

I am a fairly traditional judge but will listen to most any argument as long as it applies to the Resolution.

Please listen to your opponents arguments and have your rebuttal address their arguments.

I can listen to speed to a certain extent, but would rather not to have to tell you to slow down if I cannot hear the argument I cannot judge the argument.

I have coached and judged debate for 19 years.

I will not disclose in round unless told by the tournament to do so.

Hi, I'm Grady!

I started doing debate in middle school and competed in policy, LD, and public forum. I was away from debate for awhile and have gotten back into judging this year, primarily in PF and LD.

I prefer substantive engagement in whatever form you prefer. I prefer line by line argumentation and I look for some kind of framework by which to evaluate a round.

I have the most experience in framework-heavy debates. I am open to counterplans, DAs, etc. as long as you avoid overly-using debate jargon when explaining the structure of the args. I'll happily evaluate a critical round, but don't assume I have a background in the lit you're reading and make the clash explicit.

I don't take myself too seriously; if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them before the round. Run whatever you have prepared and be nice to your opponent.

Hi, I'm Quincy. I’m an assistant coach at Iowa City West, I am in college at the University of Iowa, I debated for 2 years and I have been judging LD for 4 years, PF for 3 years and speech events for 2 years. For the sake of transparency, I’ve only judged 4-5 bid tournaments, but again, I’ve been around the block.

Email Chain Format:

Tournament Name: School Name (Aff) vs. School Name (Neg)

My email: qat1@rice.edu.
Share a couple of minutes before round. My email has a spam blocker, so it WILL take at least 3 minutes before I receive any email you send.

1. Spreading: If I cannot understand you, I will say 'clear'. I expect to be on the e-mail chain. If I have to say ‘clear’ more than twice, I will stop flowing until your you achieve clarity again.

2. Speaks:

a) Strategy: Debate is an intellectual battle. Strategy shows that you are a good debater. Creativity in your arguments shows ingenuity, which will be rewarded. Unorthodox standards or contentions are encouraged.

b) Common Courtesy: Some simple things affect this, like whether or not you ask to see if your opponent is ready before a speech or before CX. Signposting is always good. Off-time road map, etc. DBAA- don’t be a jerk.

c) Presentation: This has everything to do with how you carry yourself. Wealth can’t buy class. You can look more presentable with a $3 t-shirt than in a rumpled $500 suit.

I will award speaker points based on these factors, and debaters that exhibit a good combination of both of these will be the only ones whom I will award 30 speaks. I will typically award 27-29 or so.

3. Norms Setting: I will harshly punish prejudice (ableism, sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.), evidence ethics violations, and other tomfoolery. I reserve the right to unilaterally drop you from the round if the violation is egregious enough. On the flip side, frivolous IVIs will not convince me.

Don't steal prep time, don't stall, and have your evidence and sources on hand in case your opponent asks about them.

4. Ks: I will give VERY low speaks if you run an identity K(e.g, afropess, queerpess, etc.) that doesn’t apply to you (e.g. afropess but you aren’t black).

5. tech > truth. Obviously. If you win K > theory, I’ll vote on that. If you do the opposite, I’ll vote on that too.

Lastly, if you have questions, or if anything is unclear, don't hesitate to ask. However, you should wait until your opponent is present to ask questions.

Good luck, and may the best debater win!

P.S. +0.1 speaks if you tastefully roast any (current) IC West Debater.

Badgerland Only: online tournaments often have audio issues. Please ensure your environment is clear of ambient noise. I’d hate to vote incorrectly because of audio interruptions.

Old paradigm, I will no longer give extra speaks for anything listed as extra speaks, but I think this paradigm is a classic: https://tinyurl.com/yyhknlsn

[Updated 3/3/2021] In fact, here is a list of things I dislike that I will probably not be giving good speaks for: https://tinyurl.com/55u4juwp

Email: conal.t.mcginnis@gmail.com

Tricks: 1*

Framework: 1

Theory: 1

K: 6

LARP: Strike

To clarify: I like K's and LARP the LEAST (as in, you should rate me a 6 if you like Ks and strike me if you LARP a lot) and I like Tricks, Framework, and Theory the MOST (you should rate me a 1 if you like Tricks, Framework, and Theory a lot).

Util is bad enough to be beaten by sneezing on it

Overall I am willing to vote on anything that isn't an instance of explicit isms (racism, sexism, etc.).

Other than that, here's a bunch of small things in a list. I add to this list as I encounter new stuff that warrants being added to the list based on having difficulty of decision in a particular round:

1. Part in parcel of me not being a great judge for LARP due to my low understanding of complex util scenarios is that I am not going to be doing a lot of work for y'all. I also will NOT be reading through a ton of cards for you after the round unless you specifically point out to me cards that I should be reading to evaluate the round properly.

2. I know it's nice to get to hide tricks in the walls of text but if you want to maximize the chances that I notice something extra special you should like slightly change the tone or speed of delivery on it or something.

3. If you have something extremely important for me to pay attention to in CX please say "Yo judge this is important" or something because I'm probably prepping or playing some dumbass game.

4. I will evaluate all speeches in a debate round.

"Evaluate after" arguments: If there are arguments that in order for me to evaluate after a certain speech I must intervene, I will do so. For example, if there is a 1N shell and a 1AR I-meet, I will have to intervene to see if the I-meet actually meets the shell.

Update: In order for me to evaluate "evaluate after" arguments, I will have to take the round at face value at the point that the speeches have stopped. However, as an extension of the paradigm item above, the issue is that many times in order for me to determine who has won at a particular point of speeches being over, I need to have some explanation of how the debaters thing those speeches play out. If either debater makes an argument for why, if the round were to stop at X speech, they would win the round (even if this argument is after X speech) I will treat it as a valid argument for clarifying how I make my decision. Assuming that the "evaluate after" argument is conceded/true, I won't allow debaters to insert arguments back in time but if they point out something like "judge, if you look at your flow for the round, if you only evaluate (for example) the AC and the NC, then the aff would win because X," then I will treat it as an argument.

Update P.S.: "Evaluate after" arguments are silly. I of course won't on face not vote on them, but please reconsider reading them.

Update P.S. 2: "Evaluate after" causes a grandfather paradox. Example: If "Evaluate after the 1NC" is read in the 1NC, it must be extended in the 2NR in order for me as the judge to recognize it as a won argument that changes the paradigmatic evaluation of the round. However, the moment that paradigmatic shift occurs, I no longer consider the 2NR to have happened or been evaluated for the purposes of the round, and thus the "Evaluate after the 1NC" argument was never extended and the paradigmatic evaluation shift never occurred.

5. "Independent voters" are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive. I expect independent voter arguments to have strong warrants as to why their micro-frameworks actually come first. Just saying "this is morally repugnant so it's an independent voter" is not a sufficient warrant.

Also - independent voters that come in the form of construing a framework to an implication requires that you actually demonstrate that it is correct that that implication is true. For example, if you say "Kant justifies racism" and your opponent warrants why their reading of the Kantian ethical theory doesn't justify racism, then you can't win the independent voter just because it is independent.

6. I will no longer field arguments that attempt to increase speaker points. I think they are enjoyable and fun but they likely are not good long term for the activity, given that when taken to their logical conclusion, each debater could allocate a small amount of time to a warranted argument for giving them a 30, and then simply concede each others argument to guarantee they both get maximal speaks (and at that point speaker points no longer serve a purpose).

7. My understanding of unconditional advocacies is that once you claim to defend an advocacy unconditionally you are bound to defending any disadvantages or turns to that advocacy. It does not mean you are bound to spend time extending the advocacy in the 2NR, but if the aff goes for offense in the 2AR that links to this unconditional advocacy and the neg never went for that advocacy, the aff's offense on that flow still stands.

Update: Role of the Ballots are frameworks and do not have a conditionality.

8. Don't like new 2AR theory arguments.

9. I don't time! Please time yourselves and time each other. I highly recommend that you personally use a TIMER as opposed to a STOPWATCH. This will prevent you from accidentally going over time! If your opponent is going over time, interrupt them! If your opponent goes over time and you don't interrupt them, then there's not much I can do. If you are certain they went over time and your opponent agrees to some other way to reconcile the fact that they went over time, like giving you more time as well, then go ahead. I do not have a pre-determined solution to this possibility. I only have this blurb here because it just happened in a round so this is for all of the future rounds where this may happen again.

10. If you do something really inventive and interesting and I find it genuinely funny or enjoyable to listen to and give good speaks for it, don't run around and tell any teammate or friend who has me as a judge to make the same arguments. If I see the exact same arguments I will probably consider the joke to be stale or re-used. Particularly funny things MIGHT fly but like, if I can tell it's just a ploy for speaks I will be sadge.

11. In general, for online events, say "Is anyone not ready" instead of "Is everyone ready" solely because my speaking is gated by pressing unmute, which is annoying when I have my excel sheet pulled up. I'll stop you if I'm not ready, and you can assume I'm ready otherwise. (However, for in person events, say "Is everyone ready" because I'm right there!)

12. I will not vote for you if you read "The neg may not make arguments" and the neg so much as sneezes a theory shell at you.

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

For traditional rounds: speak and argue however you want (bar racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism or phobia)

*WHEN YOU READ TRICKS: I PREFER BEING UP FRONT ABOUT THEM. Pretending you don't know what an a priori is is annoying. Honestly, just highlight every a priori and tell your opponent: "here are all the a prioris"**.

**Seriously, I have yet to see anyone do this. Do it, it would be funny, I think.

I've competed in public forum for 8 years in high school and college. I've also done college Parliamentary debate, IPDA, and TIPDA. I am a flow judge, so be sure to carry arguments throughout. I don't like speed.

Neglecting to use content warnings is cause enough to lose the ballot.

Big Questions:

I've read the rules of BQ, but I've never competed in it or watched it. Due to the rules on topicality, calling abuse is not as accessible in BQ as with other formats. To handle spreading issues/abuse/rule breaking from opponents, give it a sentence at the beginning of your speech or off the clock roadmap.

If you use an email chain, I'd like to be on it. Please use this email: waugh.anja@gmail.com