I am a former high school policy debater who judged a few tournaments after I graduated and got back into judging again this year. I don't mind speed and will flow all speeches. I do appreciate sign posting and numbering arguments. I will award the round to the team whose winning arguments have the greatest impact (based on the evidence and analysis they presented). For arguments that are contested, I'll decide who won based on the evidence and analysis that each team presents. Arguments that aren't contested are awarded to the presenting team as long as they are carried through rebuttals. I value the creativity/thoroughness of a speaker's arguments more than speaking style.

TL;DR:

I debated for Woodgrove High School for 4 years. I was a fairly policy-oriented debater, but I liked to incorporate critical theory into my affs and as such am familiar with some more common literature, but you'll need to really explain the nuance to your high theory K for me to want to vote for you.

Tech over Truth to an extent.

Long Version:

I always read a plan text as aff, but do not think you need to. As neg, I ran the Security K almost every round.

For the most part, I am tabula rasa, and as such your first priority should be to run what you're good at, used to, and comfortable with; not what you think fits my paradigm. But if you don't tell me otherwise, I will evaluate debate as a game and compare the world of the aff and the neg and decide which is better based on the debate's framework.

I am fairly up to date with politics and fairly well read when it comes to this year's topic, but please educate me about things I may not be familiar with.

I will not flow what I cannot hear, and what I don't flow didn't happen. I will say clear once and then I'll stop flowing. (AGAIN, tech over truth)

Speaker Points:

Stolen from Isaac Brown who stole it from Patrick McCleary

“I give speaker points based on how effectively students articulate their arguments, regardless of the type of argument. Above a 29.5 deserves to contend for top speaker, 29-29.5 is a speaker award, 28.5-29 is good/should be clearing, 28.1-28.5 is on the cusp of clearing, 28 is average, 27.5 is below average, 27 needs work. Any lower and you are probably either in the wrong division or did something offensive. Given what I've seen from people who compile the data on this stuff, this seems to be somewhat close to the community norm.”

T:

I have a fairly low threshold on T and I ran it almost every debate senior year. If you can win a link I will evaluate this the same way I evaluate a disad.

You must extend an impact and tell me exactly why what the Aff did is bad and why I should vote them down for it. Although I suppose this is good practice for all arguments.

K/FW:

I am familiar with some more common literature, but you'll need to really explain the nuance to your high theory K for me to want to vote for you. You should go slow on some of the details of your K to make sure I get it. I think K overviews are dumb usually and a huge waste of time.

I am not partial toward the neg on FW but I do have more experience in that position. I think the AFF must defend something but it doesn't need to be a plan text.

Misc:

Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. or I will vote you down and give you an automatic 15 speaker points.

I love jokes and have a robust sense of humor and if you make me laugh I will likely give you anywhere from a 0.5 to 1.0 speaker point boost.

Assume best intent and BE NICE! Remember outside the round these are real people with real feelings and possibly different opinions

Hello, I'm a parent judge and am excited to be judging! I don't have much experience in policy debate, which means my preferences might be slightly different than what you're used to:

• Please try to speak at a slower, more reasonable pace and speak clearly. If you are trying to overwhelm your opponent, you will most likely also overwhelm me. If I can understand you, I will be able to understand your arguments much better as well.
• Please avoid debate lingo as much as possible. Since I don't have much experience in policy debate, I will not be able to follow the lingo. If you feel the need to use it, make sure to clearly explain it in terms that I could understand.
• Be kind and professional! At the end of the day, we're all here to learn and have fun.

Good Luck!

Debate CV:

HS Debate- Cedar Cliff HS in Camp Hill, PA (2006-2009)
College Debate- George Mason (2009-2010)
Coaching- Currently at Sidwell Friends in Washington, DC. Previously at James Madison HS in Vienna, VA.

POLICY PARADIGM

Add me to the email chain plz: rfgarvey4@gmail.com
I promise I do not care where you sit in the room. Just make sure I can hear you

My positions on a lot these issues have changed dramatically in my time in this activity. I went from a HS circuit in Central PA that was solely Stock Issues, to coaching a team that relied pretty heavily on the K.

At the end of the day, I like to watch a round with a lot of clear and concise arguments. I don't have a lot of pre-dispositions about what constitutes "real" debate.

I truly believe that is an activity that you as debaters get to make your own. And as an Old, I don't think I get much of a say in the matter anymore.

My one caveat to this: I'd really rather see depth instead of breadth. I'm not a big fan of rounds that are 10-off with blippy nonsense args

Some other notes:

Speed: Millennial that I am, my hearing isn't great because of how much music I listened to at a loud volume when I was your age. If you can be clear when you spread, more power to you. But if I can't understand what you're saying, I can't flow it.

That being said, please don't spread through your tags.

K: I love 'em, I think they're fun and good for education. I'll vote on framework if you can make it a compelling argument though.
I also don't have as good of a grasp at the K lit as some judges, so you might have to do some explaining for me. Also, please make sure that your link story is good. K's that don't link or K's with a super generic link are a travesty.

K Affs: I think you should have some type of advocacy statement. I personally think it should have something to do with the Resolution, but I'll hear other things. You should also see the above under "K," about K lit. You're gonna need to explain it to me like I'm in the 4th Grade.

T: I love a good T debate, and I always think it's a voter/gateway issue. Just make sure that you understand the blocks you're reading. "Voter for fairness" and "clash checks abuse" aren't just buzzwords, they're actually arguments that mean something. I do think reasonability is trash though.

Theory: Same as T.

Meme Args: If you have to ask you should probably just strike me. I grew up in the age of the WGLF, none of you will ever compare.

2023-24 Update:

In my day job I work at a homeless shelter in Northern Virginia. I've worked in politics/non-profit human services for, well, let's just say, awhile. I also have my Masters in Public Administration, so you should just assume that I'm pretty well-versed on topic knowledge.

PF Paradigm

I gotta be honest here, I've never participated in PF. I have some experience coaching and judging, but significantly less than what I have in policy.

That being said, I also believe that PF is Policy's kid sibling that's trying really, really hard to copy what Policy does (but in like a cool and edgy way to be a little different). So I do think I can get the basics.

All I ask are the following:

1. Please don't let Crossfire devolve into a shouting match. I genuinely believe that the cable news show it was named after has done significant psychic damage to our nation, and I don't want to watch a live reenactment with children.
2. If you're gonna run policy-esque arguments, ask yourself, "Do I really understand how to do this in a way that articulates what I want it to say, or am I running this to sandbag my opponent and I'm hoping this judge is gonna do a lot of work on the flow for me?" If it's the former, go for it. If it's the latter, you're just gonna make me sad, and sad judges give lower speaks.

Judging Philosophy: I do not judge based on my personal position on a matter before me. I judge on whether the arguments are supported and defended between the teams or individuals.

Background: I am experienced Circuit and Classic judge having judged local, regional, and national tournaments for the past twenty years. Recently judged all preliminary 2024 NCFL Grand National Policy Preliminary and the Octo-Final Rounds. and was the 2024 Grand Nationals Parliamentarian for Student Congress in Chicago, Illinois. Judged the 2023 NCFL Grand National Policy Rounds and the Octo, Quarters, and Semi-Final Rounds. I was the 2022 NCFL Grand Nationals Parliamentarian for Student Congress (Semi-Finals) in Washington, DC; 2022 NSDA Parliamentarian for Student Congress; 2022 NSDA National Tournament Supplemental Congress Parliamentarian (Finals); 2022 WACFL Student Congress Metrofinals; 2021 NSDA Policy Finals; 2021 Parliamentarian for Student Congress; 2020, 2019 NSDA Policy Finals (including qualifying rounds); 2018 NSDA Policy Rounds; 2017 National Qualifiers for NSDA Speech; 2016 NSDA Nationals for Congress (Parliamentarian); 2016 NCFL Grand Nationals (Policy Debate); 2016 Congress WACFL Metrofinals (Parliamentarian); 2015 NSDA CX Policy Semi-Finals; the 2015 NCFL CX Quarterfinals; 2014 NCFL LD Finals.

For Policy and Public Forum: I judge as a policy maker and not truly on a line by line (but will evaluate all arguments in the context of a policy making decision). Better debaters analyze the opponents' case/points and prove why their opponents' case is either without foundation or weak and the policy position should not be adopted.

Able to judge Circuit style policy arguments. However, to prevail with Circuit style arguments, the debaters must still ensure they meet their prima facie obligations. See Unusual Points No. 1 below as an example.

Speed is an issue if the speaker is unintelligible and the speaker points will reflect that problem. What I don't understand, I can't flow, and if it is not on my flow, I cannot evaluate. Clarity is the name of the game. Teams should properly provide clear "taglines" for their arguments in order for me to follow (I will not accept flash drives or links to arguments).

For LD: I judge on the basis of cogent and clear arguments without reaching the value and value criterion debate. The better debaters, however, will incorporate the philosophical rationale in their arguments. Unless both cases are weighted equally in terms of argumentation, do I then go to the value criterion debate. The better debater demonstrates that his value is met using his/her value criterion. If the debater does not have a value criterion, I will weigh that debater's value against his/her opponent's value criterion.

For Congress Debate: (1) As a Parliamentarian, I rank and judge the PO based on his/her effective control of the Chamber, fairness to the Representatives or Senators on recency, and understanding and implementing the Tournament Rules and Roberts Rules of Order when necessary. (2) As a Judge, I rank and judge a speaker on clarity of his/her argument for or against a Bill or Resolution along with appropriate evidence following Tournament evidentiary rules; the better speaker is one who does not read a speech and who rebuts another Representative's or Senator's points. I do not appreciate form (sounding good) over substance. I give less points and ranking for consistent "rehash" throughout the Session. The effective Congressor is one who blends persuasive speaking with substance and debates the other speakers.

For Speech: Speech is not "acting", it is interpretation of an event, a person's situation, or a story-line that is impactful. The use of one's voice, body, and facial expression all play into the scoring of an individual's performance. I am not a fan of "popping" to delineate characters, but do not take any points off for using that method.

Each event has particular rules that must be followed. For example, in prose and poetry, the individual uses a binder and must appear to be reading it to the audience. In duo, the partners must not look at each other nor touch. In dramatic interp, if you have multiple characters, your characters must be distinct by voice characterization or body language.

Now with Extemporaneous Speaking, I look to the speaker's ability to explain and answer a domestic or international question with poise and understanding of the topic question. I am not a true fan of the "Unified Analysis" ("UA") approach, but it is the standard in HS Speech. I coach a hybrid UA approach that stresses persuasive argumentation and analysis. I do not appreciate the "extemp walk", which is very stilted and not natural.

Impromptu Speaking, the ability to tell a story with an impactful meaning is what I look for between the competitors. Using the UA approach is fine, but any way of telling an impactful story or narrative will do.

Unusual points.

1. Burden of proof for all forms of debate. Because the AFF has the burden of proof of presenting a prima facie case, so too the NEG has the burden of proof when presenting its case. For example, if the NEG argues a Kritik without providing an alternative, it has failed, in the classic sense, to meet its burden of proof and I have the ability as a judge to mark down the argument as carrying little weight. A NEG Kritik without an alternative is nothing more than a non-unique disadvantage. To that end, the same goes with the AFF in terms of its failure to provide a Plan Text and Inherency if it is running an AFF K.

2. Kritik for all forms of debate. A Kritik as an AFF case in Policy can be run. However, be warned that as a classic judge, you must present the Kritik as an AFF by presenting a prima facie case and solvency through a detailed Plan. Failure to do that most likely will result, as in any case not meeting the burden of proof, a loss. The team must provide a Plan or Solution that solves the underlying Kritik whether it be Capitalism, Racism, Sexism, or any other "ism".

Although not favored by some, a Kritik can be argued in LD as a "classic" counterargument to realism or rationalism. To get around the prohibition, a creative student will argue that if the Affirmative fails to address the underlying "ism", the Affirmative Case in support of the Resolution cannot be accomplished because there will be more harm than good.

3. Cross-Ex for all forms of debate. Cross-examination information will be used in the decision making process. As in real life, cross and direct examination are oftentimes the key to resolving issues and the answers can and will be held for and against a team. In "Open CX", if one debater is answering all the questions, the one who should be answering will have a lower speaker point.

4. Topicality for Policy. If the Case and Plan directly link to the Resolution and appropriate definitions are provided to clearly establish that link, topicality is generally not a voter. However, this does not mean that I will not entertain all T arguments. As previously stated, the NEG has the burden of proof of demonstrating a violation.

5. Counterplans. If the Negative runs a counterplan, it must not be topical (i.e., using a federal government agency). Otherwise the Negative concedes that the Resolution should be upheld. In order to win a counterplan you must show that it is better than the Affirmative Plan and that it is net-beneficial to do only the counterplan as compared to the Affirmative Plan.

6. Document Share. I do not partake in document sharing. This is a communications event, not reading event, which requires the debaters to inform the judge of their arguments. However, when required, I do ask for evidence that has been challenged as incorrect or improperly cited for the position it advanced.

Qualifications.

1. Assistant Coach for Dominion HS, Sterling VA, for all Debate and Speech Events since its opening in 2003. Total time as a judge commenced in 2002.

2. Former HS policy debater at the Championship Level (dating myself) and Forensics (Dramatic Interp and Declamation).

3. Former HS Model United Nations Third Place North American Invitational Model United Nations winner (representing Belarus).

4. Former Judicial Clerk to the Honorable Roger J. Miner, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, former Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, former USAF JAG Civilian Attorney, and former Assistant General Counsel for a Global IT Company. Current Legal Counsel to R&D IT Engineering Firm specializing in AI, AIOPS, ML, Cybersecurity, and Secured Cloud Operations.

I did 4 years of policy in high school and one year in college. I also did Congress, HI, Duo, Oral Interp of Lit, and both Domestic and Foreign Extemp in high school. I have coached speech, policy, and LD for 3 years in Virginia.

In debate, I enjoy a fast clip, but cannot keep up with a super-fast round the way I once could. Think a 7 on a 1-10 scale. I love a good T debate. I will listen to kritiks, but prefer to keep things on a policy level.

I'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm new to judging.

Hey friends!
TLDR; 10+ years of experience coaching and competing in all formats of debate and all styles (traditional and progressive). I'm fairly open-minded to any argument that is well justified and I'm going to vote for the team that paints the best picture via their impact comparison. I want you to write my ballot for me in your closing arguments. Also please note I will not vote on any argument that isn't extended in your final speeches. If you want me to vote on something you need to extend it and tell me why I'm voting for it. Other than that, just have fun, debate is your space.

*Speaker points are arbitrary but here’s something that isn’t: If you give all of your speeches without reading cards, I’ll give you a 30 as a baseline (may still deduct a bit from this for certain things). Of course, please refer to cards and summarize your them in your own words. Evidence debate has led to people not listening to each other’s arguments and IMO it’s net worse for debate. Constant powertagging means paraphrasing theory is probably irrelevant (but I’m very open to criticisms that a team said that a card said something that it didn’t)

Here are just a few specifics about my philosophy, feel free to ask about more:

On Evidence:
I believe there is far too much emphasis on evidence in many rounds of LD and CX as of late. Cards are important for backing up a claim which specifically needs evidence (think statistics, quotes, etc). Some folks are quick to dismiss their opponent's arguments by saying "no evidence" without actually responding to the merit of the argument. Conversely, the overemphasis on evidence has made some students afraid to get up and make an argument simply because they don't have a card on it. Perhaps it is because of my background in NPDA, but I strongly believe that many claims can be made and warranted via analytics and in fact that these arguments are even preferable because they demand that debaters think on their feet and respond to the argument specifically instead of searching desperately for a card that may or may not actually verify the claim they want to make. An argument has 3 parts: Claim, Warrant, Impact. A card is one type of warrant but historical and or/material analysis is another which is just as valid and I encourage debaters to make whatever argument occurs to them so long as they can warrant said argument.

On Strategy:
In general, I don't care what you read. Debaters should make their own strategy and use whatever they think is competitive. That said, I am of the opinion that "6 off" strategies tend to be uncompetitive because no arguments are really developed and I will lean towards skepticism of neg blocks which develop a lot of new arguments because their initial constructives refused to engage the debate in depth. Quality tends to prevail strategically over quantity but I won't impose this belief onto you, if you think 6 off is more strategic, then prove it and I'll vote for it if you win. There is no K, CP, or theoretical argument I will reject outright on principle. Some arguments are likely more theoretically legitimate than others (An uncondo K is probably pretty alright and 8 condo delay CPs may not be) and some arguments are certainly more true than others but what I think is irrelevant in context of what is said in the round. Whatever it is you decide to go for, I do believe "collapsing" is good and makes debates simpler and also that arguments should be explained in context of one another. That's to say, how does "straight-up" make sense of the K, how does theory make sense (or not make sense) of the Aff, so on and so forth. Framework is the most important aspect of debate (followed by links). Tell me what my role as a judge is or the role of my ballot is and precisely how I ought to use it. I want to do as little as possible when writing my ballot and want as much of the argument as possible to be framed and explained for me. You should understand the difference between defense and offense and recognize that defense does not independently win rounds. Defense can empower offense but is not sufficient in and of itself to overcome any offense which improves upon the status quo.

*As an updated addendum to this, I would strongly prefer not to vote on violations that are alleged to occur outside of a debate round.
** A second addendum on theory - in light of some rounds that have occurred in early 2023, I'm realizing that in a debate that collapses to theory where theory truly feels like a wash, I think I'm preferring to flip to the team that didn't go for theory. This means you should use theory with me in instances that truly feel abusive. This is not to say that I won't vote on potential abuse, but it is to say you better win your shell convincingly if you intend to collapse on potential abuse

On Speed:

In general, I don't mind speed. I used to debate quite quickly, I listen to every podcast in the world on 2.0, and one of my previous partners was probably one of the fastest there ever was. That said I don't think speed should be a tool of exclusion and I do think there is a point at which speed is used (especially in evidence style debates) as a tool to lazily "warrant" an argument by reading cards that don't say what you say they say in the tagline and just hoping no one notices. Obviously, you should slow down to read taglines but even when you're "spewing" out the actual card, it should be comprehensible. This is especially true in a world of online debate which can become particularly hard to understand. I've watched some judges in a panel be too afraid to clear/slow when no one can understand a word someone is saying (especially in online debate). To be clear: I am not afraid to clear/slow you. Clear means speak more clearly, slow means I need you to slow down. I'm much more likely to say clear than I am slow as I want to hear the merits of your cards so if the card becomes an issue in a debate I can actually hear what you read. I don't mind going back to read a card that is contested but I also think that as soon as I start spending time outside the round reading, I'm now being asked to input my interpretation of what I read and apply it to what the debaters said. This quickly begins to violate the so-called "path of least resistance" that most judges are looking for. As such, my preference is to evaluate what I understood and hopefully not have to go back and read. It's the responsibility of debaters to make sure that what they're arguing is understood by the judges to the maximum extent possible. Spewing out a card at a speed you can't handle without slurring your words does not accomplish this goal. You'll get a lot further spending your time making coherent arguments everyone can understand than you will spitting nonsense to make fake claims.

*As an addendum to this, this issue has gotten a lot worse since I first wrote my paradigm. And frankly, at the highest levels (CEDA), we now see debate starting to slow back down. Honestly, I'm starting to feel like this is my preference. I'm not going to punish anyone for spreading, and I don't need you to speak your case at 2mph, "2.0 podcast" is a pretty good speed. My highest priority is understanding. Look, we are talking about some really in-the-weeds ideas in some of these debates. Debate will inevitably bastardize almost any philosophy, but I think you're going to do a lot more just interpretation of it when you slow down enough to actually explain your position and how you resolve the issues in and out of round.


If you ask me for prep, I'm just going to run your time, it's up to you to keep track of how much you're using. Flex prep is fine, but if you're going to do it, please ask your opponent and establish it at the beginning of the round. I've had some debaters ask me if flex is OK after their opponent already used some or all of their prep and this seems unfair to me. If you make an argument in CX, make sure you actually put it on the flow during your speech time.

PLEASE provide me a copy of all texts (Plans, counterplans, perms, alts, interpretations, etc)

I competed on the national policy debate circuit for four years at Thomas Jefferson HSST ('19). Now, I coach middle school public forum debate and middle school parliamentary debate. I love debate: it's the single most impactful activity I've done, and I will give you my 100% as a judge.

WACFL Metrofinals 2024

Here's some feedback I find myself regularly giving debaters at WACFL.

1. Engage with your opponents' arguments directly. A good way to do this is: "They say XYZ. But, actually,
2. Respond to all of your opponent's arguments, especially in the constructive speeches. If the 1NC has a Politics DA and a Wages DA, the 2AC should refute both the the Politics DA and the Wages DA. If you "drop an argument" (don't respond to an opponent's argument), the round becomes much more difficult for you to win.
3. Compare your evidence to your opponents'. If you have evidence saying one thing and your opponent has evidence saying the opposite, tell me why I should believe yours. Here are some ways to compare evidence: recency, author qualifications, rigor of research, relevance of research.
4. Do impact calculus. You probably won't win every impact. If you win one impact and your opponents win another, explain why your impact is more important. Let's say that the NEG wins that their Politics DA will lead to war, and the AFF wins that the 1AC plan will stave off an economic recession. Which of those impacts is more important? Here are some ways to compare impacts: magnitude, timeframe, probability
5. Give off time roadmaps. Your roadmap should be a list of the high-level arguments you will be addressing, in the order you are addressing them. A sample 2AC roadmap might be: "Contention 1, Contention 2, Wages DA, Politics DA." These make it substantially easier to follow along with your speech.
6. Flow the debate. Every round is unique, and the speech docs you use in another round may not be applicable to this one. Flowing (ideally on paper) is essential.
7. CP's should have a net benefit. If you are running/refuting a CP, check this out: https://thedebateguru.weebly.com/counterplans.html
8. If you are running/refuting a DA, check this out: https://thedebateguru.weebly.com/disadvantages.html

Top Level

Please do not read cards that are powertagged, lack warrants, or are underhighlighted to the point where you are not reading the warrants. If you see your opponents doing this, call it out during your speeches: I'm 100% willing to throw out "evidence" that doesn't say what the tagline claims it does.

Relatedly, smart analytics are fantastic and will easily overcome a barrage of subpar cards.

Spreading is fine, but slow down on tags and speak clearly. I'll say "clear" once if I can't understand you. After that, if I look lost, it's because I am. Please slow down.

I have little experience with the topic – if an acronym or complex policy change is going to be a big focus of the debate, please explain it early on in the round.

Run what you’re best at and prioritize technical execution: do line-by-line, number your arguments, and give organized speeches. No matter the type of argument, good debate is good debate.

Arguments can have zero risk.

Strategic Affs/Negative Strategy

The most strategic affirmatives are both sufficient and necessary to solve the impacts of the 1AC. Most 1ACs are not both sufficient and necessary, and negative teams should use that to their advantage.

If the 1AC can’t solve its own impacts, then is voting AFF really try-or-die?

If the 1AC isn’t the only way to solve its impacts, then can an advantage counterplan solve instead?

Case debate is underrated: I'm happy to give a 1AC that's predicated on suspect internal link chains zero risk if you make (and win) that argument.

K Affs vs. Framework

Negative teams are best positioned going for limits/fairness. Why does the affirmative’s model of debate wreck limits/fairness, and why is that bad? TVAs and switch-side are useful arguments for subsuming affirmative offense.

Affirmative teams are best positioned going for a counter-interpretation. Why is the affirmative’s model of debate better than the negative’s? Counter-define words in the resolution to explain why your counter-interpretation is predictable, maintains limits, and includes a role for the negative to subsume negative offense.

Ks

I prefer Ks with specific links to the 1AC and clear explanations of the alt. If you are reading a K about how the world is structured, a brief overview in the block would be great. The rest of the debating should be done on the line-by-line.

DAs

Specific links are best. Try to supplement the impact debate with turns case arguments, whether carded or analytical.

CPs

I prefer CPs that are functionally and textually competitive, but I know that sometimes Process CPs are the only option. Be ready for a theory debate.

Misc.

Please time your own speeches.

Prep time ends once the email has been sent.