Experience: My event of specialty is World Schools Debate, and I compete in the format domestically for Westchester Academy and internationally for USA Debate. I have also competed in Big Questions, Impromptu, and Senate Congressional Debate over the course of my high school forensics career and earned a variety of accolades including reaching octafinals at 2023 TFA State, finaling at Bluebonnet in the same year, and advancing to eliminations rounds at Greenhill and the Winter Holidays Open as a senior. I am also among the top 20 World Schools debaters ranked nationwide.

WSD Paradigms: True debate can only occur with engagement, that is, valuable engagement. However skewed a motion may seem, never opt for an abusive characterization or stance that offers your opponents minimal ground because that makes for an uncharitable and uninteresting debate. Characterization should neither take precedence over your argumentation nor be neglected, and framing debates are not the most enjoyable. In the event that you face a team that has made such a blunder, clarify the error succinctly and do not spend an unnecessary amount of time proving why your opponents got the definition of a motion term wrong. Time is especially valuable, so always use those 8 minutes to your best advantage.

Remember to never assume anything in a debate, and always provide warrants and mechanization explaining why an argument is true. Weighing should not be limited to the 3rd/whip speech, but used down the bench when interacting with the opposing team's content.

Style is also very important because debate is ultimately a game of persuasion. The PM/LO speeches are meant to be more than dramatic readings of case material and refutation. Purposeful inflection, eye contact, hand gestures, and rhetoric all contribute to whether the path to the ballot is yours. When talking about big impacts, you always want your tone to reflect the magnitude of those ideas. Make sure to always regard your opponents with respect and leave ad hominem remarks out of the debate.

This is my 3rd year competing with Westchester Academy and in WSD. I'm a two time NSDA National and TFA State qualifier, and am ranked both Nationally and in Texas.

When judging a round, I enjoy seeing engagement, warranting, mechanization, and impacts from both sides. Engagement is especially important because that's what the debate is all about. It becomes very difficult to vote when both sides only defend themselves and don't prove why the other side is worse. It's also important to not just argue against your opponents, but convince me, Your Judge, why I should be voting for you. Don't just say an argument is important or true, give me an explanation as to why. Weighing should be down the bench as well.

As for style, be confident but not aggressive. Spreading and/or yelling will lose you style points. Make sure your speech is engaging by using rhetoric and inflection to help me understand your arguments in a way that helps your side.

Be kind and respectful to your competitors. Attack their arguments, not the debaters themselves. It's important to be charitable when interacting with your opponents arguments. You will not win by being mean or condescending.

Overall, I would want to reward teams that present a logically coherent and well-supported case, communicate it persuasively, identify and engage with crucial issues, and employ an intelligent overarching strategy - all while exhibiting strong teamwork. One person won't be able to carry the team.

Per the Worlds School Debate Rule, I will be awarding the winner based on Content, Style, and Strategy. I find these to be equally important to the round.

Content:

• Have you provided logically sound arguments with solid reasoning?
• Have you substantiated your arguments with well-researched facts and evidence and considered what the motion asked for?
• Have you effectively engaged with and rebutted the opposing team's arguments?
• Does your case tell a coherent and compelling overarching narrative?

Strategy:

• Have you prioritized the most important issues and made wise choices on what to concede?
• Have you clearly identified and tackled the key points from the judge's instructions?
• Have you used your limited speaking time judiciously and managed it well?
• Have you been able to adapt your strategy in response to your opponents' arguments?
• Have you made intelligent strategic decisions on where to expend effort?

Style:

• Have your speeches been clear, structured and easy for the audience to follow?
• Have you used persuasive rhetoric and impactful language in your delivery?
• Have you delivered your arguments in an engaging and adaptive manner?
• Have you and your partner exhibited effective teamwork and division of roles?

Email Chain: megan.butt@charlottelatin.org

Charlotte Latin School (2022-), formerly at Providence (2014-22).

Trad debate coach -- I flow, but people read that sometimes and think they don't need to read actual warrants? And can just stand up and scream jargon like "they concede our delink on the innovation turn so vote for us" instead of actually explaining how the arguments interact? I can't do all that work for you.

GENERAL:

COMPARATIVELY weigh ("prefer our interp/evidence because...") and IMPLICATE your arguments ("this is important because...") so that I don't have to intervene and do it for you. Clear round narrative is key!

If you present a framework/ROB, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it. Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card).

I vote off the flow, so cross is binding, but needs clean extension in a speech.

I do see debate as a "game," but a game is only fun if we all understand and play by the same rules. We have to acknowledge that this has tangible impacts for those of us in the debate space -- especially when the game harms competitors with fewer resources. You can win my ballot just as easily without having to talk down to a debater with less experience, run six off-case arguments against a trad debater, or spread on a novice debater who clearly isn't able to spread. The best (and most educational) rounds are inclusive and respectful. Adapt.

Not a fan of tricks.

LD:

Run what you want and I'll be open to it. I tend to be more traditional, but can judge "prog lite" LD -- willing to entertain theory, non-topical K's, phil, LARP, etc. Explanation/narrative/context is still key, since these are not regularly run in my regional circuit and I am for sure not as well-read as you. Please make extra clear what the role of the ballot is, and give me clear judge instruction in the round (the trad rounds I judge have much fewer win conditions, so explain to me why your arguments should trigger my ballot. If I can't understand what exactly your advocacy is, I can't vote on it.)

PF:

Please collapse the round!

I will consider theory, but it's risky to make it your all-in strategy -- I have a really high threshold in PF, and because of the time skew, it's pretty easy to get me to vote for an RVI. It's annoying when poorly constructed shells get used as a "cheat code" to avoid actually debating substance.

CONGRESS:

Argument quality and evidence are more important to me than pure speaking skills & polish.

Show me that you're multifaceted -- quality over quantity. I'll always rank someone who can pull off an early speech and mid-cycle ref or late-cycle crystal over someone who gives three first negations in a row.

I reward flexibility/leadership in chamber: be willing to preside, switch sides on an uneven bill, etc.

WORLDS:

Generally looking for you to follow the norms of the event: prop sets the framework for the round (unless abusive), clear intros in every speech, take 1-2 points each, keep content and rhetoric balanced.

House prop should be attentive to motion types -- offer clear framing on value/fact motions, and a clear model on policy motions.

On argument strategy: I'm looking for the classic principled & practical layers of analysis. I place more value on global evidence & examples.

My debate experience primarily consists of World School's debate. I've competed both domestically and internationally in the format and am willing to hear most interpretations of it. That is to say, I don't believe there's one set way to give a 2 or 3. If you are having fun and doing it well, I'll listen and weigh appropriately for the context of the round.

Debate is about having fun and trying to learn something. Do that, and we will have a great round!

Former National Qualifier in LD; Head Coach; Senior Debate Instructor for Capitol Debate

General: No spreading, no K's

Lincoln-Douglas

I am an old school LD'er. I want a lot of value clash. Your case should be supported by philosophy. I think evidence cards are important but I don't believe that you have to be doing evidence clash the entire round to win. Usually, the person who wins the value debate wins the round.

Every contention should tie back to your value and criterion. Bringing up cross examination in your rebuttals is a plus.

The NR should just be 3 minutes of defense, and 3 minutes of voting issues. The 2AR should only be voting issues.

Public Forum

Have a weighing mechanism. Definitions and Observations are good if applicable to the resolution, and I do want you to revisit them in Summary and Final Focus. Rebuttal should include evidence clash. I may call for cards if I question the validity of the evidence.

In Crossfire, please be polite. While I don't flow crossfire, I do consider it in my final decision.

Summary - go over main points from rebuttal, collapse on main issues

Final Focus - voting issues only.

World Schools

I'm very big on framework. Definitions and burdens will be very important. If it's an esoteric resolution, it would be nice to get some history/background info before delving into your argumentation.

I like hearing arguments that can tie into the real world - per the NSDA, Prop and Opp teams should engage with the debate on a principled level and a pragmatic level. While evidence is good, it's also good to be able to argue your position on a logical level.

I don't really like it when teams reject every single POI. While you don't have to answer every one, you should be able to answer at least one per speech. Answering POI's can strengthen your argument if you are prepared.

The reply speech should just be voters/crystallization.

Finally, I really value clear, succinct speaking without too much repetition.

0. tl;dr - read this before rounds

"takes his job seriously, but not himself." i judge an extremely large volume of debates every year. these days, it's mostly an even mix of very dense disad, case, and counterplan debates and the more technical side of K debates, but in years past i would likely have best been described as a professional clash judge. i get substantially fewer performance debates and LD "phil" rounds, so i lack comparative experience in those areas, but i am still probably better for them than an average judge, and i enjoy them when executed well. i read policy strategies in high school and the K in college, so i enjoy judging both and am loyal to voting for neither. i evaluate debates as offense/defense, but risk calculus still matters a lot to me and i am (semi-)willing to pull the trigger on zero risk. i try to be very flow-centric and value "technical" execution and direct refutation above "truth", but i don't think that means bad arguments aren't still bad. i don't flow off the doc, so you can go as fast as you want but i will be unforgiving of low clarity. while i did most of our aff writing in college, i am, at my core, a die-hard 2N. that probably tells you more useful info about my debate views than anything else in this paradigm, but you can scroll down to the specifics section regarding arguments in the round you're expecting to have - most of the meat of this paradigm is here for doing prefs. i'm very expressive, but probably overall a bit grumpy for reasons unrelated to you. Wheaton's law is axiomatic, so please be kind, and show me you're having fun. please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir" - patrick, pat, fox, or p.fox are fine. "act like you've been here."

I. operating procedure + non-negotiables

1. he/him/his - you should not misgender people.

2. pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com -

a. I strongly prefer email chains. Please have the doc sent before start time. If the round starts at 2:00, I expect the 1AC email at 1:58 so we can start at start time. Every minute the chain is late after start time is -0.1 speaks for the 1A – things are getting ridiculous. You should avoid any risk of any of this by just setting up the email chain when you do disclosure at the pairing. Format subject lines for email chains as "Tournament Round - Aff Entry vs Neg Entry" (e.g: "NDT 2019 Octos - Wake EF vs Bing AY").

b. Prep ends when the doc is sent. It is 2023, you should know how to compile and send a speech document efficiently, stop stealing prep. If you are having difficulty, I suggest Verbatim drills. No, that is not a joke.

3. I flow on my laptop. I have hearing damage in my left ear, so ideally I am positioned to the right of whoever is speaking. I sometimes get sensory overload issues, so I may close my eyes/put my head down/stare off into the distance during speeches - I promise I'm not sleeping or zoned out, and even if not looking at my screen, I will definitely still be flowing.

4. i will make minimal eye contact during any given debate, and will likely have a resting grumpy face, so don’t worry much about those specific things. That said, I'm comically expressive. It's not on purpose, and I've tried to stop it with no luck - I just have a truly terrible poker face. I shake my head and scowl at nonsense, I grin and nod when I think you're doing the right thing, I shrug when I am lukewarm on an argument, I cock my head and raise my eyebrows if I am confused, and I chuckle if you make reference to any of these reactions in the speech (which I am fine with).

5. the safety of students is my utmost concern above the content of any debate. crossing this line is the only way you can legitimately piss me off. Avoid it. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. will not be tolerated under any circumstances, and I am more willing to act on this on my own accord than most judges you have had (i.e: I have submitted a ballot mid-1AR before due to egregious misconduct). You should not attempt to toe this line.

6. entirely uninterested in adjudicating the character of minors i don't know. there are channels for these issues and mechanisms to resolve them, but debates and ballots are not among them. if you have genuine concerns about safety regarding the person you are debating, i am happy to be an advocate for you and get you in touch with the appropriate tournament tab staff to resolve the issue. if you genuinely feel this way, please take me up on this offer - just let me know discreetly via email, messenger, etc. keep in mind, as an employee of a state institution, i am a mandatory reporter.

- people seem to think they're smart in saying that this means "you can't vote on disclosure" - this is false for two reasons: a. i can vote on anything i want, and b. round starts at the pairing, not just the 1AC.

II. core principles

1. debate is a competitive activity centered around research and persuasion, one winner and loser, no outside participation, nothing worse than PG13, the usual.

2. debated for Kealing, Jack C Hays, and University of Houston. if i were to describe my career with a word, it would be "unremarkable". if i get five words, i'd add "irrelevant to this paradigm". i coach HS policy at Dulles, HSLD at a few different places, and help out Houston. former coaches include J.D. Sanford, Richard Garner, Rob Glass, James Allan, and Michael Wimsatt. favorite judges included Alex McVey, DML, Devane Murphy, Scott Harris, and David Kilpatrick. colleagues (and former students) i likely align with include Eric Schwerdtfeger, David Bernstein, Ali Abdulla, Sean Wallace. of all these people, i align particularly closely with Garner, Bernstein, and Abdulla.

3. i think the ethos of judging is best distilled by Yao Yao: "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck". That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster. The most important factor in my own growth as a debater and the most helpful info as a coach has always been well-thought judge feedback, and I think – especially during and post-eDebate – the attention span and work ethic of the average judge has massively declined. I refuse to contribute to what I find to be an alarming trend in many people shirking their responsibility to the community to adjudicate even "boring" or "low-level" debates to the best of their ability. I fundamentally believe no debate is any less or more important than any other, so expect me to judge NCX R1 as if it was TOC finals. i judge a lot - in for ~100 debates a season - for three reasons: a. I think judging is a skill, and requires practice to maintain, b. judging makes me better at coaching and strategically benefits my students, and c. I love debate. some judges seem to have lost the zeal by now, but i still get excited about novel critical affs, interesting disads and turn case arguments, and dense competition debates. I am at a tournament almost every weekend, so I am reasonably aware of community norms and have decent experience with the techne of judging. Just focus on executing, and don't be afraid to take risks.

4. i get my core ideology for judging from Richard Garner: "I try to evaluate the round via the concepts the debaters in the round deploy (immanent construction) and I try to check my personal beliefs at the door (impersonality). These principles structure all other positions herein." "non-interventionist" is silly, because intervention is inevitable. everyone has a different threshold on "too new", "unpredictable cross-applications", "good evidence", because we all resolve implicit questions differently due to prior knowledge and personal affinities. if debaters instruct us to resolve those questions explicitly, it saves me the effort of doing my own evaluations, which means less work for me, which is indicative of better debating by you. I care much less about ideological alignment than a consistent threshold of quality at the level of form (clear claim, sufficient warrant, complete implication). overall, i try to be a good judge for any research-heavy strategy, and I think the best rounds are small, vertically dense debates over a stable controversy. i have voted on "killing all white people good", heg good, "Kant's humanist ethics solves all of racism", death good, the Tetlock counterplan, and even condo bad (twice, wholly dropped). each of these arguments is worse than the last, but i voted on all of them. take this as you will.

5. even with the above, probably not a true blank slate – I would consider myself a worse judge than average for theory arguments as reasons to drop the debater, "tricks", counterplans that fiat actors not used by the 1AC or lack germane net benefits, "clash" impacts, the "ballot PIK", the politics disad, condo bad, "RVIs", and “1% risk of extinction”, and much better for skills impacts and fairness, critical affirmatives that counterdefine words, “uniqueness controls the link”, counterplanning in/out of offense and general “negative terrorism”, presumption against critical affs, framework arguments that “delete the plan”, and extra-topical plans. I tend to have a high threshold for a warrant, a low threshold to punish bad-faith practices, and I value quality evidence highly. This is not exhaustive, and may indicate my inclinations to reward or penalize with speaker points. However, if any of these views kick in during my decision, the debating at play was either very lacking or absolutely perfect. Short of a few very baseline things (offense/defense, flowing, decision times, Toulmin model, etc), any of these predispositions can be reversed. if i were coaching someone to win in front of me, my principal advice would be to be as explicit about how I should piece the debate together as humanly possible, so as to minimize the risk of any of my predispositions coming into play.

III. topic thoughts

this section is under construction - you can check back after policy camp!

IV. specifics

1. disads + case

a. evidence: this applies to everything, but putting it in this section since it's first and i'm grumpy about it. generally agree with Dallas Perkins: “if you can’t find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me.” how i conclude on the quality of evidence relates to its production (authors, methodologies), its context (specificity, recency), and it's presentation (spin, highlighting/cutting). lots of old heads are signaling concerns about the third lately, which i enthusiastically co-sign - i am unsure why debater getting faster than ever correlates to cards being highlighted to say less, not more, but i would like it to stop. also agree very much with David Bernstein: “Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue.” generally think that lots of advantages, disads, and counterplans lose to 10 seconds internal link and solvency takeouts, but teams are too scared to make arguments without cards. i think this is due to the assumption that all cards are of sufficient quality to meet the standard of "evidence" - i think many (possibly most, these days) do not. I try to restrain my natural ev hack tendencies, but will take any opportunity given to exercise them - this means that while i will reward good and punish bad evidence, the onus is on the debaters to tell me what lens i should read cards through to make that happen.

b. most of what i judge these days and read in high school lives here. “turns case/disad” usually path to victory. dense engagement with internal links and close readings of evidence usually path to “turns case/disad”. ideally, these args are carded, but maybe not necessary if straightforward. good debating is comparative here, i.e: impact calc isn't "yes/no impact" but "higher/lower risk bc..." - anything else is fundamentally inconsistent with the basis of offense/defense.

c. uq probably controls link, but care less about this in the abstract and more when debated relative to specific scenarios – large enough link might overwhelm small uq (econ disad), but maybe uq/link are just yes no (agenda politics).

d. straight turning the case likely all-time favorite thing to judge. uniqueness good, might not be necessary with sufficiently comparative evidence.

e. politics disad legitimacy negatively correlates to stupidness of arg. agenda or court capital kinda dumb but probably allowed, but rider disad = total non-starter. can conceivably vote aff on intrinsicness/theory vs agenda politics, but unsure theory is worth effort vs just beating them, they're bad args. teams should include args in 2ACs to elections about the fact that American voters are often dumber than rocks.

f. inserting rehighlighting fine for “concludes neg”, “concedes thumpers”, etc, but offensive/new arguments should probably be read aloud. debaters likely need to put ink on this for me to disregard insertions of the latter kind, but particularly egregious instances may warrant intervention on my part. i think a lot of old heads' gripes with this practice is that debaters tend to not actually debate rehighlightings as evidence and explain what they mean, they just use them as a "gotcha" and never implicate it, which encourages laziness. don't do this.

2. counterplans

a. comfortable. i think about these debates for fun the most. state of counterplan (and plan) texts + solvency advocates is an atrocity. this should implicate more debates than it does. my favorite debates to judge are likely old-school advantage counterplan debates, but i am not a priori bad for process/competition strategies.

b. most modern process counterplans have large disconnects between solvency and impact evidence for the net benefit and, if thought about for all of three seconds, are patently insane ideas that would likely collapse basic principles of government and be perceived as such by anyone watching (this is a subtweet of uncooperative federalism - all 50 states immediately ending all cooperation with the fed over a super niche issue would set the economy, our alliances, legal precedent, and basically everything else on fire). both of these issues should be the primary basis of 2AC deficits and defense.

c. competition is fully yes/no, because it's a procedural question. other than that, offense/defense - 2N/ARs should frame my ballot in terms of the impact to the risk of a deficit vs the risk of a net benefit. i care a lot about arguments like sufficiency framing, uniqueness, and try-or-die here.

d. more 2ARs should go for perm shields link/counterplan links to net benefit. most counterplans are kind of stupid and fiat more sweeping things than solvency advocates actually assume (i.e: states, concon). teams seem to be scared of having these debates absent evidence, but shouldn't be.

e. “do both” and “do counterplan” are not arguments, they are taglines. if said with no further analysis, they will be evaluated as such. permutations other than "do both" or "do counterplan" require precise texts (inserting it in the doc is fine, but function should be explained fully during the speech).

f. functional competition is good, important in real-world decisions, and i am comfortable with these debates. textual competition bad, largely irrelevant, and has never made sense to me. positional competition induces feelings in me too dark and evil to name here. "normal means" is just the most likely process by which the mandate of the plan brings about its effects. quality of evidence for both definitions and normal means determines ability to win counterplan competition/legitimacy.

g. unsure why debaters seem to think "certainty" or "immediacy" are key to neg ground/legitimate basis for competition, when zero neg literature ever assumes either because that's not how real world policy works. also unsure why the mandate of the plan being immediate/certain means the effects must also be. more aff teams should point both these things out in competition debates.

h. default no judge kick. can be compelled to do so, but have yet to judge a single debate in my many years where me kicking the counterplan has helped the negative. probably more worth it to just actually pick a 2NR and either go all in on the counterplan or case.

3. kritik

a. familiar (understatement). most of what i coach and read in college lives here. best advice for neg debaters is for the love of god, delete your overview. just start on the line by line, your speeches will be so much better. best advice for aff debaters is use the aff more, and probably read fewer cards. i care substantially less about a2 afropessimism card #9 compared to evidence or explanations about how 1AC internal links interact with/disprove the K. while i personally agree with the K's politics more of the time, in my heart and soul i think about debate like a policy 2N - the best versions of these debates play out as aggressive, detailed disagreements about the value of the aff backed by lots of cards. as such, i tend to vote neg when the K team precludes the 2AR on "case o/w" through some combination of framework, turning the case, detailed alternative debating, and having a real impact, and i vote aff when the policy team has robustly defended their aff and internal links as both a counterexample to and offense against the K through some combination of framework, impact or link turns, serious objections to the alternative, and impact comparison. the less that one side does this (i.e: the fiat K, brute forcing heg with the card dump and nothing else, etc) the more i start thinking about voting the other way.

b. framework debating often frustratingly shallow. often unsure what win conditions are under neg models of debate or how winning it actually changes how i evaluate the round. often unsure what terminal to aff offense is and how it interacts with neg args about scholarship. refuse to do the “middle ground” thing if nobody tells me to, though, and generally think you’re better off just saying “delete the plan” or “plan focus” anyways. compromise is cowardly in these debates.

c. K 2NRs tend to be too wide and not deep. extend fewer arguments, do more analysis and answer more aff args. link/impact turns case is good, but framework or alt solves case might make it unnecessary, so why do all three?

d. aff teams link turn and impact turn in the 2AC and pretend it’s coherent. Neg teams should punish this more. aff teams should defend what their aff is equipped to defend and not pretend it can or will do anything else. permutations are overrated. Case outweighs + deficit + framework usually easier and better. most perms are just do both wearing different silly hats and glasses. perm double bind stupid argument.

e. “extinction first” can be a great asset, but it’s not the end all be all, and most teams forget that even if extinction isn’t automatically first, their impact is still probably bad. similarly, care less about “extinction focus bad” than “the way the aff deploys extinction in their scenario is bad bc”. “alt can’t solve case” is usually true, but not relevant if they win turns case/K o/w. “alt can’t solve links/impacts” is much more interesting and persuasive. Root cause args are often stupid.

4. critical affirmatives/framework

ADDENDUM - February '24: i find myself voting affirmative in framework debates more often than i used to. i am not worse for framework - i still think debates are likely on-balance better when the aff is constrained by a plan (despite my reputation for thinking otherwise), so i suspect this is due to two reasons: a. neg teams are getting sloppier at actually line-by-lining or responding to aff arguments (bad), while aff teams are getting more technical and comparative (good), and b. neg teams are not answering case or extending an external impact, they're just rambling about "clash" and have no offense beyond a vague turns case arg without uniqueness. I suspect this is caused by teams being so terrified by the word "subjectivity" that they are unwilling to actually say "yes, debate changes you, and we think the way our model changes you is good and outweighs the aff's offense". this is both unstrategic and cowardly, and the 2AC is going to say that stuff anyways, even if you try to dodge the link.

So, I think there are two solutions to this problem:

1. Make neg teams read real impacts again. Big skills impacts with cards are valuable because they are always external to the case and usually much larger, and give you access to the same genre of turns case arguments as "clash", but also let you have something that outweighs the aff.
   
2. Debate case more. Neg teams need to directly answer 1AC thesis arguments about things like affect/desire/ontology/scholarship/etc to preclude the 2AR from (smartly) weaponizing conceded thesis args as uniqueness/solvency for their offense.
   

if you extended the econ disad against the econ aff, but forgot to extend a uniqueness argument or answer aff internal links, you would not be surprised when you lost. Unsure why people are surprised in this context when it's the exact same issue. tl;dr - "clash" is stupid, read a real skills impact, preferably with cards. rant end.

a. good for both sides of clash debates, but i have judged (too) many, so lots of things about them annoy me. on balance, i am inclined to think debate is a game, and like any game it's benefits and incentives are inevitably structured to reward playing for keeps, but it should probably be worth playing for more than it's own sake, and can be played in more than one way. i am not a priori bad for planless affs, but i think a model of debate that doesn't force some constraints on aff creativity and some degree of side-switching seems to lack both competitive viability and intellectual interest. full disclosure: i am likely to give lower speaks in framework debates than other debates of similar quality, due to constant déjà vu robbing any joy from the content. speaks go back up when debaters stay organized and do deep engagement instead of just dueling with blocks.

b. neg teams historically win my ballot in framework debates more because they tend to do more judge instruction and stay organized.aff pet peeves are 1ACs that say and do nothing, very amenable to presumption. aff teams also tend to grandstand too much in rebuttals and not give organized speeches - don't do that. neg pet peeves are taking begged questions as self-evident, usually makes link to aff offense better. neg teams tend to not contextualize arguments to 1AC theories and also forget to explain an impact - do that stuff. i think both 2N/ARs would be better served doing more work with the language of impact calculus, i.e: "turns case/turns framework", "outweighs", "uniqueness controls direction of offense", etc - teams are generally okay at warranting their impact but bad at implicating it.

c. debates are cleaner the earlier the neg picks one single impact and sits on it. "clash" is kind of fake and never amounts to more than a case turn, skills arguments are criminally underrated, and nobody seems to explain fairness particularly well. ssd and tva are often overprioritized over smarter defense to aff args, but also underutilized as offensive arguments in their own right - i actually think the most interesting part of debate is the way being aff or neg on a given topic force you to apply research and theories to the specifics of a topical advocacy or a link argument, and tend to think models that don't make debaters do these things end up robbing debate of most of it's intellectual rigor.

d. people forget K affs are affs. this means normal arguments about functional competition probably apply to silly PICs ("frame subtraction"), and also means solvency and impact debates are fair game. if evenly debated, i think turning the case is likely always harder to answer and more interesting to judge than framework, given that the aff has way more practice. seems weird we all agree topicality against every policy aff would be an insane neg prep regimen, even if it's occasionally strategic, but we do this for K affs. the 2N in me truly thinks there's always a best answer to every aff, and while sometimes that answer is indeed topicality, it's not nearly the answer as often as round reports would lead you to believe.

e. idk why the neg gets counterplans if the aff doesn’t read a plan. if the basis of neg fiat is that counterplans present an opportunity cost, the only non-arbitrary actor the negative gets to fiat is the aff one, which means if the aff doesn’t fiat government policy, seems weird we think the neg gets to just because. makes more sense to read “policy engagement good, k2 check populism/’cede the political’/etc” as a disad or alternative argument vs these affs.

f. i would very much like to judge more critical affs with plans. i think most neg teams are much worse at justifying utilitarianism and liberal policy-making than they should be, and would consider myself to be extremely good for teams that contest extinction first, consequentialism, and the like. a team that executed this well in front of me would get speaker points bordering on stupidly high.

g. K v K debates live and die by the quality of negative link args and net benefits for the permutation. i always went for the cap K in these debates in college because i found most 2ACs to it to be sloppy and easily answered by a robust knowledge of marxism and history, and think this also applies to most other Ks you can read in these debates, but lots of these debates suck because 2Ns explain links and alternatives badly, which lets the 2AR get away with murder. lots of these rounds collapse into who can shout "root cause" louder, but i usually care much more about impact calculus and the direction of turns case and solvency (and these args are usually much truer anyways). 2A/NC framework arguments are usually missing and missed in these debates. i definitely live on the more technical side of K debate, but i'm not anti-performance-y stuff at all, and enjoy those debates a lot when i get them.

5. topicality

a. better than average for it, most likely. evidence matters a lot – i would say inasmuch as i am an "ev hack", it's most likely to matter in these debates. in the absence of good evidence on either side (most debates these days), i will likely lean affirmative, but few things are of such beauty as sniping an aff on a well-carded T violation that has clearly been thought through. predictability and topic controversies matter much more to me than limits as an intrinsic good, which makes me worse but gettable for args about "its", "in", etc, and probably bad for args solely about grammar.

b. lots of negative evidence is abhorrent in terms of actually establishing a violation (i.e: intent to exclude), lots of aff evidence is trash at actually defining things how the aff claims (i.e: intent to include). reubttals should make this matter more, either to make we-meets/violations more compelling or magnify links to precision/limits.

c. PTIV is possibly not the greatest model, but alternatives are usually badly explained in ways that devolve into positional competition which is godless.

d. violations are yes/no, and so we meets do not require external offense or defense. other than that, offense/defense means i value impact calculus and comparative analysis (caselists, etc) highly. reasonability is a question of the aff interpretation, and not just the specific 1AC. it can be extremely powerful and very viable, but has to be framed offensively beyond just "you get politics, we promise".

6. theory

a. generally, very neg leaning, but neg teams need to answer warranted arguments. very good for “negative terrorism”. condo good most likely my strongest personal conviction, followed by RVIs being nonsense. fine for counterplanning out of straight turns, fine for lots of kickable planks, don’t care about “performative contradictions”, anything is a "PIC" or can "result in the aff", etc. “infinite prep time + only neg burden is rejoinder + arbitrary” is mostly unbeatable vs these flavor of objections.

b. counterpoint is that i'm also great for affirmative counter-terror. big fan of intrinsic perms and theory against suspect counterplans, etc. reasonability is powerful when framed offensively. if evenly debated, i will likely never conclude the states counterplan (or any counterplan that fiats a different actor) is legitimate (but also likely not a reason to reject the team). neg theory args usually amount to pure laziness and are solved by “make 2Ns work for it”.

c. restating for emphasis: condo good, RVIs bad. unless truly and wholly conceded when properly warranted at first introduction, consider these arguments unworkable with me. Most 2ACs are blips that lack warrants, which often makes it moot when conceded anyways.

d. would be very interested to see theory arguments impacted out beyond drop the arg/debater. if states counterplan fiats uniformity, might be reasonable to say aff should get to fiat out of circumvention args about sub-federal actors. if aff fiats through an enforcement question, neg might get to fiat out of related deficits, etc. nobody's done this yet, but seems very worth exploring.

7. LD things

a. better than you'd think for phil, but likely not your best pref. hand-holding is likely required for anything more complicated than kant, but i vote for these positions more often than you’d expect and am familiar with them in a non-debate context. the blippier and less cohesive the framework, the more likely you are to lose me. i am barely old enough to remember when phil and tricks debate weren't synonymous, and miss it. i actually think phil affs are insanely strategic against lots of Ks, so these interactions interest me the most.

b. lots of policy judges tend to cop out and use modesty or other things by default to avoid having to actually judge phil debates - i promise to not do this, as i think it encourages debaters to just be bad at answering phil. that being said, i'm bad for truth testing - it's never made sense to me, offense/defense is kind of just fundamental to how i was taught debate and these arguments contradict a few fundamental assumptions i have about how debate works. it is likely difficult to get me to vote solely on skep, permissibility, etc. as these just kind of seem like purely defensive arguments.

c. bad pref for tricks. consider this both a plea and a warning.

V. misc

- If I want a card doc, I'll ask, usually for the relevant cards by name. Otherwise, assume I'm good.

- COVID things: I am vaccinated and boosted, and I take COVID tests before traveling to any given tournament. Put on masks if asked. I will have extra. not negotiable conduct.

- CX is a speech, my favorite part of the debate when done well, and a lost art. i flow it (albeit not as closely), its probably binding, and it impacts evaluation of the debate and speaker points. one debater from each team should be the primary speaker in each CX - some interjections, elaborations, or clarifications are obviously fine, but while excessive tag teaming will not be disallowed, it may impact speaks and perception negatively.

- flowing is good, and "flow clarification" is not a timeslot in the debate - questions such as "did you read X card/arg in the doc" are for CX. If you ask this and you haven't started a timer for it yet, i will start one for you. if you ask "can you send a doc without all the cards you didn't read", the other team does not have to do that, because that is not what a marked doc is. if you answer arguments that were not read, but were in the doc, you are getting a 27.5.

- Ethics challenges/cheating – this one is longer because people seem to care more about this these days. I have a high bar for voting on it. I do not think power-tagging evidence, cutting an article that concludes the other way later on, etc. are voting issues - you should simply say "this card is bad/concludes neg" as an argument. If you are making the accusation that your opponent has fabricated, miscut, or improperly cited evidence, I will evaluate it with the presumption of good-faith error by the accused. I do not think skipping portions of tags or analytics counts as clipping. Those things are not evidence, so I do not know why they require being held to the standard of evidence ethics. If you are accusing the other team of clipping the highlighted text of evidence, you need a recording to prove it - I will never notice this myself because I will not have docs open during speeches, and I think that if the debate comes down to this debaters have a right to some proof. I will also apply the same standard of good-faith error. This means barring something particularly egregious as to reasonably suggest the criminal negligence if not malicious intent, I will probably err towards not punishing debaters, as I think anything else incentivizes cheap shot wins on dead links in citations, leaving out the last word of a paragraph that was OCR'd badly, or skipping two words in a card on accident. If you read any of these things as a theory argument, I will not flow it, and I will ask after the speech if you are staking the debate on it - if not, I will happily inform your opponent they do not need to answer it. I am open to being asked if I consider certain accusations to meet the threshold of ending the debate on it - my answers will not be negotiable, but they will be honest. I am also willing (I would actually encourage it) to entertain debaters negotiating proportional responses to violations outside of me ending the debate, as I think my role as educator ideally precedes my role as a referee - I'd much rather we all agree to scratch a card that can't be accessed online anymore or that was accidentally clipped than just not have a debate. Otherwise, the party found to be at fault (either the guilty or an incorrect accuser) will receive a loss and the lowest speaks allowed. The other party will get a win and a 28.5/6. All of this goes out the window if the tabroom tells me to do a different thing than what I've outlined above, as their authority obviously supersedes mine.

- speaks are largely arbitrary, but I try to start at 28.4 for a team I'd expect to go 3-3, and i try and keep it relative to the tournament pool. below 28 and I think you are in the wrong division, below 27.5 and you have likely done something bad in a moral sense. I tend to reward quality evidence and good argument choice, well-organized speeches, smart strategic choices, and debating with character. I tend to penalize unnecessary meanness, bad arguments and cowardice, and sloppy debating. i am, at my core, white trash, so i tend to enjoy some friendly trash talk more than the average judge - i stop enjoying it when it strays from the topic of debate and/or becomes overly mean spirited. Not a big believer in low-point wins - if the 2NR makes a dumb decision, but the 2AR doesn't capitalize on it, the 2AR is probably dumber for fumbling a bag. I will not "disclose speaks".

- i tend to give long RFDs because i think most decisions have a tendency to hand-wave details and i'd rather be thorough. that said, there's a point of diminishing returns and i usually overshoot it. will not be offended if you just pack up and dip while i'm yapping. i welcome post-round questions

Good luck, thanks for letting me judge, and see you in round!

- pat

Please add me to the email chain: gutierrv@southwestern.edu. I'd prefer an email chain over speech drop.

I recently graduated with a BA in political science and Latin American and border studies. As a debater, I went to a small school in Dallas and made it to outrounds at a couple TFA/NSDA tournaments in policy and LD. I currently coach for Irma Rangel YWLS.

TLDR:

I will evaluate any argument in the round, meaning you should take the notes below as standards that I tend to learn towards in debate, and possible ways to heighten a strat, instead of it limiting what type of arguments you go for in a round. If you go for 14 off is good and win that debate, even if I don't think that's a good model of debate, I will still vote for that regardless of my personal beliefs.

General notes:

• Please don’t abbreviate topic-specific terms, I don't judge every topic and I probably won't know what you mean.

• I’m very persuaded by an overview or a story of the link chain.

• Simply saying they dropped something without explaining the impact of the dropped arg won't get you far. Same as "extend __ arg." I grant you some leeway with the extensions but you still have to implicate the effects it has on the round and/or under a fw.

Logistics:

Speed - I don't have an issue with spreading, but be clear. (Read the T/Theory above for specifics here). I'll say clear once to let you know I can’t understand. Ultimately, not being clear results in me having to stop flowing because I can't understand.

Timing- if you prep while they're sending docs (during non-prep time), I will ask you to stop. If I have to repeat, I'll dock speaks for the sake of fairness.

In case you have questions about a specific type of argument:

Framework - I have no predisposition about what the framework of a debate should be, however, (aside from t/theory, or nontraditional K/performance debates in policy and LD) I weigh framework as the highest layer in a debate. I think that some variation of a complete fw debate articulates what the fw means, how the impacts in the round are weighed under the fw and why your fw comes first. If I'm unsure how to weigh these, I'll try to minimize intervention as much as possible. Winning the framework/role of the ballot is not a reason alone to win a round- you should explain how your form of debate and/or impact scenario comes first in accordance with the winning framework.

Policy- if you’re doing traditional policy debate, I believe the aff has to defend the resolution/prove its desirability. As a neg I believe that you get to test the competitiveness of the aff and/or negate the resolution. Just be reasonable here. This allows you to run disasds and cps/pics, but please make it clear what the competition is and how it functions, whether that be the DA or independent offensive arguments.Even if an impact outweighs there still has to be a clear link story as to how an advocacy causes/solves that impact.

Criticisms - know what the alt and story of the K is. Re-reading tags and simply extending cards will not work for me. Tell me what the alt means and how the criticism links. Most importantly, tell me how the alt solves your criticism.

Performance - The performance needs to function as offense in the debate, especially how it functions under a rob/fw. If you perform in the 1AC or 1NC, and don't do it in the following speeches, I will likely not be as persuaded by any real offense coming from the performance of your speech.

Theory/ T - I am least comfortable judging a theory/T round. With that being said, if you run theory you should have a complete shell (interp, violation, standards and voters), a clear violation and abuse story. I am not compelled by frivolous theory and I usually tend to lean towards a reasonability claim if made.

hi! my name is mariska haddock, my pronouns are she/her, and i’m a junior varsity debater at cabot high school.

TLDR: -read if you're short on time!

be kind people! discrimination of any type is not tolerated and will result in an automatic loss.

include me in email chain -mariskahaddock@gmail.com

tech > truth

i choose the winner based on my flow- be clear about kicks, don’t drop anything

focus on impacts!

flex prep is okay! i prefer cross but if you want to use flex prep it won’t affect my decision

don’t steal prep - its unethical

off-time roadmaps are recommended (unless it’s worlds lol)

number your arguments it makes flowing easier

world schools:

the big thing i’ve learned from wsd (done it since freshman year) is COMMUNICATION!! make sure that you’re on the same page with your teammates throughout the debate. you don’t get prep, but you are allowed to talk with your teammates. use that to your advantage. however, don’t be disruptive. the opponents and i should not be able to hear you

remember that worlds is about respect to your opponents- hold them at their highest ground and be respectful

content:

be consistent, but don’t just restate what previous speakers said. expand on it and give thorough analysis of WHY it’s important.in prepared motions, i expect quality examples with good analysis that ties them back to the thesis of the argument. in impromptu rounds, try to be as thorough as possible and offer quality analysis. don’t be abusive with burdens and definitions

style:

be persuasive, be engaging, be creative. worlds speeches are similar to oratory’s: each speech is a performance. make eye contact, use body gestures, use vocal inflections, speak at a conversational speed, use humor (but don’t be condescending)

strategy:

be strategic with both asking and taking poi’s. you don’t have to accept every one, but at least acknowledge the person asking (ex. wave them down, verbal “no thank you”). try to take at least 2 though.

be smart with how you allocate your time to cover the most important issues in the debate. try not to spend too much time on one singular issue.

again, BE CONSISTENT. debate like a team, not 3 debaters.

be organized. speeches should be easy to follow.

public forum:

i do PF, so i focus heavily on argumentation and how strong the arguments presented are and the weight of their impacts

i love framework debate

weigh impacts!!!

don’t forget to extend your arguments

try to keep your rebuttals in a line-by-line format

2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal

in summary speech, extend terminal defense and offense; extend anything you want to mention in final focus

don’t be overbearing in cross

final focus should provide clear weighing ground- lay out my ballot for me.

don't skew evidence

congress:

speak fluently and make eye contact with the judges

have credible evidence and clear impacts

do not attack other reps or senators, only attack their arguments. it’s okay to reference other delegates as long as it’s in a respectful manner

ask questions!

don’t be repetitive with arguments- reply speeches help the flow of the round

be familiar with robert’s rules of order- i don’t expect perfect knowledge but be familiar with it and try to only make correct/germane motions

IPDA:

make sure arguments are clear and concise

extend your arguments!

weigh impacts! make sure that it’s clear to the judge why your impacts are more important than your opponents

lincoln-douglas:

framework is important and should be clearly articulated

make sure arguments are clear and concise

extend your arguments!

weigh impacts!

any argument is fine- i can flow prog

speech:

try to be reasonably within time

don’t freak out if you stutter once or twice- it’s normal

i generally do bnb events but throw in the occasional oo

make blocking effective and not flashy

i love good cutting- the debate kid in me comes out when pieces are cut effectively and efficiently

drive your point home- similar to debate, make sure your message is clear and impactful.

please be kind people :)

Basic Info: I am a high school senior and mostly do speech/congress with experience in worlds and am new to judging. I will try my best to flow rounds.

Stylistic preferences: Don't spread or use too much jargon. Make sure you are clear in what you mean. Big words don't mean better chances.

Impacts are everything: I will vote on the big picture of the debate, not splitting hairs on technicalities. Keep your links solid. I will prefer smaller impacts with stronger links over extinction with weak links. Compare worlds and prove why your side's world is comparatively better than the other side's.

All arguments can be valid: I think that any argument can be valid so long as you can link it back to the debate. If you want to make an argument about the color of my wall go ahead, but don't expect it to flow through without really solid links and warranting

Answer your opponent: I want to see clashing with your opponent's points and cards. Don't just reread your case; that isn't a rebuttal. Simply saying your opponent's points are non-unique or unwarranted isn't enough. Warrant why you win.

Be respectful: Don't be rude in CX or say outright offensive stuff in speeches. Similarly, don't try to tempt your opponent into doing so.

Disclosure and Feedback:Tournament policy takes priority. If tournament rules say don't disclose or offer feedback, I won't and you can expect to see it in Tabroom. If I am allowed, I may stay a little longer to offer feedback without disclosing.

My debate knowledge is strictly in World Schools. I was a national runner-up in 2023, a state champion in 2024, and a national octafinalist in 2024. You don't have to worry about other debate conventions messing with the way I judge the WSD round.

In terms of speed, I am okay with fast talking as long as it isn't excessive. I shouldn't hear you gasping for breath. At the same time, overly slow speaking is a red flag for me--it makes me think that you don't have enough substantive material to fill the time.

Make sure that you are being charitable in regard to POIs. I would like to see you take at least two. There's not much you can do if the other team doesn't give them, but you can always offer to take any points if they stand (I won't condemn you for not doing this though).

Don't bring up entirely new arguments or important clash points during protected time. It's unfair. In a similar vein, don't completely change arguments or bring up a new one in your third speech. Regardless of how good the argument is, it's far too late in the debate for me to care about it.

I will be flowing the entire round. Good luck!

I am the parent of a debater. I also competed in policy debate in high school in California, where I was a finalist at the Tournament of Champions in 1989, and in college at the University of Michigan, where I was a National Debate Tournament finalist in 1991. I taught at numerous summer debate institutes in the 1990s and 2000s and coached college debate at the University of Michigan from 1998 to 2000. I have judged hundreds of debate rounds, but I have not judged much over the past decade or so. I currently teach political science and international relations at Stanford University, and I have served in several national security positions in the U.S. government.

Although these experiences undoubtedly shape my outlook on the world, as a judge I make every effort to be neutral and unbiased. I do not have a rigid judging paradigm and will take my cues from the debaters regarding the framework I should use to evaluate the debate. In the absence of a framework provided by the debaters, however, I will default to a policy making approach that weighs the advantages and disadvantages of proposed ideas relative to the alternatives.

Just to give some background on me. I was a Speech and Debate competitor for 2 years in middle school and 4 years in high school including 3 years of World Schools Debate. I am also an up incoming debate coach.

To give information on what I look at, I have experience in World Schools so I look at World Schools Norms. Which means I expect World Schools terminology. ( I.E Substantive instead of contention, Prop/Opp not Aff/Neg)

I look for a casual debate with good clash. I strongly discourage spreading.

Respect is also key. Be respectful and mindful of your opponents as it is conversational.

“Going down the flow” is important to start but I expect the debate to narrow into key points towards the end.

Impact weighing is important and I also frown upon definition or framework debates.

I look forward to Judging you all and good luck!

Style:

1. A clear and loud volume is nice

2. Remember to maintain a constant and timely speed without spreading

3. Use different tones/ranges for emphasis

Content:

1. Good roadmap, what can I expect from you?
2. Examples are fine but tell me WHY they matter and analyze their relevance in the case
3. Make sure that clarifications are made when they need to be
4. Make sure that your arguments have are warranted, have impact, and are WEIGHED

Strategy:

1. Set your frame work according to the action the motion is implying (ex: regrets should have comparatives)
2. Make sure that EACH speaker is doing their designated job (ex: second extends and third weighs)
3. I VALUE overall team effort than individual reliance meaning that all members should be trying their best and not expect to win based on a singular members performance
4. Identify the main point of clash and make it CLEAR to me what I should be prioritizing and WHY you win
5. Take 2 POI's AT LEAST!!

Debate:

• Don't commit any of the "ism's" or "ist's" in your round otherwise you will be docked
• Be respectful (you're representing your school so do it properly)
• Make sure to sign-post
• Be organized and concise so if you're speaking too fast I will stop typing until you slow down
• Work as a team!
• Have fun!
• If I’m judging you it’s most likely WSD, since all of my background is in WSD I expect the round to run like a worlds round. This simply means that I want a STORY, put me in YOUR WORLD. Too frequently, I judge a lot of event hoppers (especially ones from LD and PF) that come to worlds and bring their forms with them, this simply shouldn’t be. I’m not here to judge a round that isn’t specifically the one your in, so act like it. Give me your best story and put me in your world.

Speech:

• Be clear when talking
• If you need to take a pause do so
• Try your best not to make up lines because I can tell and it will effect your score
• Have fun!

I have been coaching speech and debate since 2000.

First of all, I believe that debate is a communication activity. Consequently, I will be looking for effective communication that includes effective eye contact, diction, inflection, projection, and gesturing.

Furthermore, I expect debaters to speak at a normal rate. If you spread, I will vote for your opponent. My reasoning:

• People do not spread in the real world.
• When you speak at a normal rate, you are forced to prioritize your arguments. Choosing arguments is part of the learning experience in debate.
• When people spread, their syntax frequently suffers.

Finally, I will not fill in the blanks for you. Even if I understand what you are trying to say, it is your job to say it effectively. Likewise, I expect debaters to clearly connect their evidence to the points they are trying to make. Be creative with your arguments, but it is your job to help me understand your arguments.

One last thing: I don't mind esoteric arguments, but I put a high value on practicality, especially when discussing real-world issues and policies. Sometimes, debate can seem disconnected from reality, and it shouldn't be.

In LD I am a tabula rossa traditional judge that decides on values, criterion, solid contentions, and warranting. Spreading and aggressiveness will lose speaker points.

In WSD, I am a tabula rossa judge in terms of reasoning. Spreading and aggressiveness will lose style points. RFDs are based on principle and practical substantives, reasoning, examples, evidence (where appropriate), models (where appropriate), burdens, weighing and clash.

In PF, I am a tabula rossa judge that decides on contentions that are brought through the round and contentions that are dropped (You have to argue whether they are critical or not). Rounds are based on reasoning and relevance of the evidence presented.

PF Judging,
I score the speaker points according to the outlines by the tournament and the debater performance.

Most of time, speaker points are between 24 and 30.