Hi! I’m a senior and I'm in my third year of LD at Midtown High School.

General

I prefer speech drop but put me on the email chain fionabray06@gmail.com

I've competed both on the GA circuit and national circuit, and broken at tournaments for both. I'm fine with progressive or trad, just do what you want in the round. Generally, I would say don't change your style for your opponent but also don't beat up on traditional debaters with jargon. Some exposure to the circuit is good but 7 off for an easy ballot is not. I think a good traditional debater should be able to effectively counter progressive argumentation without compromising their style. I did a lot of K debate my second year but I'm almost entirely a policy debater now.

Tech over truth, CX is binding, I presume neg but I’ll listen to arguments from either side

Give a roadmap before your speech. Signpost if you deviate from that but you should signpost anyway

I'm probably a 9/10 for speed, just be clear on analytics. I'll say clear three times then just ignore you.

I don't usually flow until the 1NC on case so I can read evidence

No you cannot insert rehighlighting???? I'm not flowing it unless you say it

Use trigger warnings if you're discussing sensitive stuff (on this, I'll evaluate arguments like neg util/death good and I've run them before but make sure to do it appropriately)

Don't violate accommodations and don't be exclusionary/ad hominem/discriminatory (no sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.; I'll give you the lowest speaks, drop you, and if necessary let your coach know)

Prefs Cheat Sheet:

Policy, K - 1

Trad - 2

Phil, Theory/T - 3

Tricks, Friv Theory - 4/5

Policy (LARP)

Pretty easy for me to resolve, and one of my favorites to judge. Please collapse in the 2nr, you probably shouldn’t be going for all 6 off. The aff should read a plan for this (even if its whole res), and should probably mention util/SV once in the 1ac for framing.

I’m so tired of having tags with just the word extinction and the card just says we have a couple energy shortages with no major implications. Read your evidence, cut better evidence, and don’t lie in your tags.

Explain the perm. I need more than perm do both with nothing else.

Counterplans are cool but make sure there’s a net benefit. I usually go for 3-4 counterplans in the 1NC and I don't buy condo bad in pretty much every instance unless it's like over 6 counterplans. I think rehighlights as adv counterplans are so good and the more planks, the better. Good counterplan debate>>>

Politics DAs are cool, just please have recent evidence and understand the position. I don’t want a card from 2021 saying Biden can’t win independents.

I love impact turns. The crazier, the better. I like debaters taking risks and I’m open to voting on literally anything. Spark is probably my favorite.

K

Good K debates are the best types of rounds, but bad K debates are frustratingly difficult to resolve (pre-scripted 2NRs loaded with buzz terms that don’t frame anything for my ballot)—know your lit base (theory of power, topic links, etc), make it meaningful. Also please have a clear link to the aff. A generic “the aff has the state” link is annoying.

I prefer alts that are more than just "reject the aff". I want to know what the alt actually looks like. And see some kind of material change. Refusal can be good but you have to do the work to explain what this actually looks like and why it matters. I’m familiar with most literature bases, but the more obscure, the more you're going to have to explain it. Some of my favorites are cap, set col, post colonialism, fem and Virilio. I'm probably a lot better than most for afropess. I have an unusually large amount of experience hitting afropess, so I have a really good understanding of the K. This means I'm also pretty good for other types of pess Ks.

K Affs

Love them. I think topical k affs are great, but non topical are too. If you’re going to be non topical, be prepared for generic responses (tfw). Once again, I want to see that the aff actually does something. I don’t care what it is, I just want to know that the aff does something. My personal favorite k aff is fem killjoy. If you’re going for an identity argument or anything debate bad, know the literature and the movement. Rambling about something to confuse your opponent is not fun. Performances are also cool, just bring them up throughout the round and use it. A poem just to confuse your opponent with no later mention is a waste of time.

K v K

A good K v. K round is great to watch, but this does take work on your part. I need some level of effort to evaluate. Please interact with one another, explain the perm, explain the alt, weigh between methods, etc. Absent this, I think it gets really messy for me to resolve.

Phil

Honestly, I’m probably not the best to evaluate these kinds of cases, but I have a fair amount of experience hitting them. I’d prefer a genuine phil position and not 3 min of spikes. I’m most familiar with Korsgaard/Kant, Virtue Ethics, Levinas, Heidegger, and Deleuze. I’m not a huge fan when there’s only a single card of offense. 2-4 is probably better. TJFs seem silly. AFC and ACC are bad arguments, the threshold for response is so low.

Theory/T

Not the best for this either, just because I find it difficult to resolve if the debate comes down to just multiplate friv shells. I don’t apply defaults in theory rounds. PLEASE WEIGH BETWEEN SHELLS. I don’t want to have to do this work for you. The sillier the shell, the lower threshold for response. PICs and condo are a good thing for debate, and probably not abusive.

Reasonability is always an option – similarly, I think it’s actually quite strategic to read reasonability as a paradigm issue for accessibility-type theory

Reading more than 2 shells in-round (on either side) will usually lead me to question your strategic decisions.

A lot of IVIs just aren't IVIs, please warrant how it is one and why it matters.

I think RVIs can be valid. I also think they can be stupid. Give good warranting to why you get one.

T is cool. I like shells a little more fleshed out than generic tfw or nebel. Running a tfw shell beyond just “aff must defend a policy” and going for it in the 2nr properly will give you high speaks. RVIs for T are not real.

Tricks

Not my favorite. Just explain why they actually mean you win. Honestly I have a low threshold for response because I don’t like them, but I won’t automatically vote against it. That being said, I think the grain paradox is super duper silly and I’d love to hear it.

If you're going to go for it, I understand ethical paradoxes within the time constraints of a debate round much better than logical formulae/dense logic equations—blitzing through a paragraph of “if p then q” will probably give me a headache.

Truth testing against Ks and K affs is not my favorite and a very uphill battle.

Disclosure

Disclosure is good for debate, but beating up on novices or trad debaters because they don’t know what the wiki is is not good for debate. I think the aff should be sent 30 min before the round (unless it's new) and your wiki should disclose positions from any bid tournament. This excludes novices or someone who doesn’t understand disclosure norms. Someone not disclosing their random Georgia local lay case is not abusive, and I’ll have a low threshold for theory. If they don’t have a wiki and clearly don’t understand disclosure norms, don’t run theory. It’s exclusive.

Trad

I mainly did this my novice and some of my second year. These debates are usually simple for me to resolve.

Please provide a coherent framework, with a v/vc structure. Freedom as a value and autonomy as a value criterion means nothing to me. I need to understand how your value connects to the resolution, and how the criterion actually provides a weighing mechanism. I think criterions that are “consistency with the constitution” are probably bad and problematic. Favorite trad frameworks are Rawls, util, and korsgaard. Winning framework doesn’t win the round. Engage with your opponents framework, but literally just agree they’re the same if they are similar. Use your time debating impacts, not whether maximizing well being or increasing pleasure is better. The impacts are going to win the debate here, not quality of life versus wellbeing.

I think link chains are really important here and proper warranting. A lot of evidence in trad rounds that I’ve seen has been horribly miscut or bracketed, with limited author credibility. I don’t want to hear your right wing think tank evidence. Please read the author last name and year before your card so I can flow it. The aff also needs some sort of solvency, implied solvency is not real.

Counterplans are fine in trad debate, but please have a counterplan text (what the cp advocates for). Also make sure the counterplan makes sense. For example, a multiplayer universal healthcare system as a counterplan to single payer universal healthcare makes sense. Solving all global poverty instead of doing the aff is silly.

Traditional rounds are easier to evaluate if you weigh, have clash, and give voters at the end, but are more difficult to resolve in the absence of crystallization in later speeches. Just engage with your opponent please. Weigh as early as possible to make this an easy round (1ac excluded). Tell me how to evaluate the round and vote.

Speaks

I don't listen to requests for speaks generally. If it's a good reason I might be persuaded.

I try and average a 28.5 with a scale of 27 to 30 for most normal rounds. I adjust my speaks based off of the pool.

Things I'll boost speaks for:

• If you commit to a traditional style and execute it well.

• If you run unique arguments and explain them well

• Using cross ex effectively (gain something, I don’t want 3 minutes of “what was your first contention again?”)

• Good rehighlights of 1AC/1NC evidence

Things I'll drop speaks for:

• Being a doc bot
• Clearly stealing something off the wiki and not understanding it (If it's someone else's rehighlights and it still says their name in the tag, I'll take off a speaker point)
• If you're obviously spreading analytics off a doc at full speed and not sending the doc
• Sending the 1NC before the 1AC starts

(recently updated)

Email: danidosch@gmail.com

I am an assistant coach for Immaculate Heart High School. I debated for Immaculate Heart for four years. I am now a 4th year philosophy student at UC Berkeley.

Most important stuff:

I try my best to not let my argument preferences influence my decision in a debate; I have no problem voting for arguments that I disagree with. That said, I will only vote on arguments — that is, claims with warrants — and I have no problem not voting for an "argument" because it is not properly warranted.

I will not vote on arguments that I don't understand or didn't have flowed. I do not flow from the doc; I think the increasing tendency of judges to do this is abetting the issue of students being literally incomprehensible. I will occasionally say clear, but I think the onus is on you to be comprehensible.

You must send to your opponent whatever evidence you plan to read before you begin your speech; you do not need to send analytics. If you mark cards during a speech — that is, if you begin reading a card but do not finish reading that card — then you must indicate where in the card you stopped, and you should send a marked doc immediately after your speech. You do not need to send a document excluding cards that were not at all read.

If you want to ask your opponent what was read/not read, or what arguments were made on a certain page, you of course may, but you must do it in CX or prep. There is no flow clarification time slot in a debate!

The upshot of the last few comments is that I think flowing is a very important skill, and we should endorse practices that cultivate that skill.

You will auto-lose the debate if you clip cards. Prep ends once the speech doc has been sent. If you want to advance an evidence ethics violation, you must stake the debate on it.

Be respectful to your opponent. This is a community.

Other stuff:

Above all, I like clash-heavy debates between well-researched positions.

My favorite negative strategies include impact turns, counterplans, and NCs. My favorite affirmative strategies are plans with “big-stick” or “soft-left” advantages.

I don't really like "tricks" of any genre because I think overwhelmingly they simply lack warrants.

I don't like strategies that depend entirely on framework or framing arguments to exclude your opponent's offense. You should always answer the case even if you are reading a framework/impact framing argument that explains why I should prioritize your offense over your opponent's.

As I said, I will never not vote on an argument simply because I disagree with it. I will, however, ignore arguments that are not warranted, and I think certain claims are very difficult, if not impossible, to provide a warrant for.

Here are some examples of claims that I think are very difficult to provide a warrant for:

• It would be better if debates lacked a point of stasis.

• The outcome of a given debate is capable of changing people's minds/preferences.

• It would be better if the negative could not read advocacies conditionally.

• I should win the debate solely because I, in fact, did not do anything that was unfair or uneducational.

• There is a time skew between the aff and neg in a debate.

• A 100% risk of extinction does not matter under my non-utilitarian/non-consequentialist framework.

• My 1ar theory argument should come procedurally prior to the negative's topicality argument.

• There is something paradoxical about our understanding of space/time, so you should vote for me.

Here are some claims that I will never vote on, whether you try to warrant them or not:

• That which is morally repugnant

• This debate should be about the moral character of my opponent

• X is a voting issue simply because I labeled it as such.

I am the Director of Debate at Immaculate Heart High School. I am a conflict for any competitors on this list.

General:

1. I will vote on nearly any argument that is well explained and compared to the arguments your opponent has made.

2. Accusing your opponent of an evidence ethics or clipping violation requires you to stake the debate on said allegation. If such an allegation is made, I will stop the debate, determine who I think is in the wrong, and vote against that person and give them the lowest speaker points allowed by the tournament.

3. I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand or that I don’t have flowed. I have been involved in circuit LD for almost ten years now and consider myself very good at flowing, so if I missed an argument it is likely because you were incomprehensible.

4. I am a strong proponent of disclosure, and I consider failing to disclose/incorrect disclosure a voting issue, though I am growing weary of nit-picky disclosure arguments that I don’t think are being read in good faith.

5. For online debate, please keep a local recording of your speech so that you can continue your speech and share it with your opponent and me in the event of a disconnect.

6. Weighing arguments are not new even if introduced in the final rebuttal speech. The Affirmative should not be expected to weigh their advantage against five DAs before the Negative has collapsed.

7. You need to use CX to ask which cards were read and which were skipped.

Some thoughts of mine:

1. I dislike arguments about individual debaters' personal identities. Though I have voted for these arguments plenty of times, I think I would vote against them the majority of the time in an evenly matched debate.

2. I am increasingly disinterested in voting for topicality arguments about bare plurals or theory arguments suggesting that either debater should take a stance on some random thing. No topic is infinitely large and voting for these arguments discourages topic research. I do however enjoy substantive topicality debates about meaningful interpretive disagreements regarding terms of art used in the resolution.

3. “Jurisdiction” and “resolvability” standards for theory arguments make little sense to me. Unless you can point out a debate from 2013 that is still in progress because somebody read a case that lacked an explicit weighing mechanism, I will have a very low threshold for responses to these arguments.

4. I dislike critiques that rely exclusively on framework arguments to make the Aff irrelevant. The critique alternative is one of the debate arguments I'm most skeptical of. I think it is best understood as a “counter-idea” that avoids the problematic assumptions identified by the link arguments, but this also means that “alt solves” the case arguments are misguided because the alternative is not something that the Negative typically claims is fiated. If the Negative does claim that the alternative is fiated, then I think they should lose to perm do both shields the link. With that said, I still vote on critiques plenty and will evaluate these debates as per your instructions.

5. Despite what you may have heard, I enjoy philosophy arguments quite a bit and have grown nostalgic for them as LD increasingly becomes indistinct from policy. What I dislike is when debaters try to fashion non-normative philosophy arguments about epistemology, metaphysics, or aesthetics into NCs that purport to justify a prescriptive standard. I find philosophy heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing side’s contention or advantage to be unpersuasive.

6. “Negate” is not a word that has been used in any resolution to date so frameworks that rely on a definition of this word will have close to no impact on my assessment of the debate.

Updated January 2024 for Barkley Forum

Dr. Brice Ezell – Debate Coach, The Lovett School

Speechdrop is preferred, but if it's email do add me to the chain -- my email is brice.ezell@lovett.org

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate in California and nationally for my four years in high school, and another four years in the WUDC format at George Fox University. My PhD, though in English, centered on philosophy, so I’m comfortable and familiar with much of the critical/theoretical literature used in theory-heavy LD cases. At Lovett, I coach LD and PF, though I mostly judge the former. (For Public Forum debaters: scroll to the second-to-last section of this paradigm for PF stuff, though note that a lot of my thinking in the bulk of the paradigm applies to PF as well.)

The TL;DR below should honestly suffice for most folks. The page below is long, I know, but I treat this paradigm like a running document where I put out answers to questions I get more than once, so that hopefully this page gets to a place where it'd answer basically any question before the debate happens, to save the debaters any time in asking me questions before the round. My general tip would be if your question boils down to one debate jargon term (e.g. "skep" or "RVI"), search that term on the page and -- ideally -- I'll have something written.

TL;DR Summary of Everything in this Paradigm: In general, I will vote on whatever is most successfully warranted, weighed, and impacted in the round. Arguments can have all sorts of impacts: to the fairness of the debating activity, to the possibility of nuclear war, to violating a universal ethical principle, etc. However you impact your arguments, you also need to sell me on some kind of standard by which I am to evaluate the in-round impacts. This doesn’t mean you have to use the old-school value/criterion structure, but rather that you as part of your weighing need to tell me the yardstick by which to measure all the in-round impacts. Absent any clear standard from the debaters I will default to a post-AC utility calculus (meaning: I assume the AFF happens, and then I weigh the impacts claimed in the round by both sides) – though, hopefully, my judging doesn’t get to that point.

Tech > Truth?: Yes, though when I'm listening to and flowing your arguments, they need to, at some level, make sense, i.e. tags need to be clearly articulated and internally incoherent. So, for example, if you're running a really out-there K or otherwise philosophically inclined argument, explain what key terms mean and what they look like applied to the debate at hand, even if you think I know the body of literature from which you're drawing. To give one example, run a psychoanalysis K in front of me, but if you read some tagline that's like "The alternative is to run towards the Real," like... I'll flow it, but I don't know what "run towards the real" means unless your tag or card gives me some explanation of what that would look like. You shouldn't be clarifying key claims of a case only in the rebuttals.

Speed?: Yes, I’m fine with it. My main request, though, is that you slow down and are very clear when reading your contention taglines and names/dates of your cards. If, however, one competitor in a round is fine with speed and the other isn't, I'd prefer that speed not be used.

Performance Cases: As it happens, my PhD specialty was in drama/theatre, so in a very real sense performance cases are, in theory, a perfect intersection of my interests. With that said, I definitely hold performance cases to a higher standard than most lines of argumentation one could take in an LD round, even the more out-there Ks. This is a category where I like to be surprised -- hell, that's part of the value of performance cases in general -- but the main thing I would stress is that a performance case should be delivered from a position of genuine and substantial critique, not merely the novelty of the performance itself. I remember back in my debating days that when people would talk about performance cases, it was almost like the critical-intellectual equivalent of shock jockery: "Oh, they'll never see this coming!" And sure, there is a surprise-based strategic value to performance argumentation, but considering the causes to which performances cases are so often put in service -- e.g. feminism, Queer rights, combating anti-Blackness, etc -- taking a performance strategy that feels solely motivated by how "surprising" it, to me, feels like a disservice to how important those causes are. So, put simply: if you want to run a performance case in front of me, you better deliver it like you're living the truth of what you're saying, not simply that you're picking something because of how avant-garde it is. A performance case should feel like a unique approach to persuasion, not an evasion of it for the sake of leaving your opponent befuddled.

Also, just a general note for those running performance cases: make sure you understand what the word "performative" means.

What Do I Not Like? (Really: What Arguments am I Skeptical Of?)

Like any judge I’m not bias-free, but I do try to keep myself as open as possible to learning new things from the debaters I judge, so I don’t really feel comfortable drawing a hard line excluding classes of arguments. That said, in the spirit of honesty, I’ll list some categories of argument for which I have a higher degree of skepticism:

*RVIs: Have never voted on one. Doesn’t mean I couldn’t vote on one, but in general I find the ones I have heard thin on face, and I tend to buy the “you don’t vote AFF based on the mere fact of their fairness” response.

*Disclosure theory arguments: This take may be a product of my debate experience, back when disclosure was less common and/or rarely practiced: I have yet to be sold on the claim that not disclosing cases withholds debate to such a pernicious degree that I’m meant to vote against the non-disclosing debater. Doesn’t mean that a particularly persuasive debater couldn’t sell me otherwise, but I think of all the theory arguments out there, disclosure’s the one where I have the highest threshold.

*Extinction:The old cliche of debate. You can run extinction in front of me, but just know that any debater with good analytic skills to sever the link chain connection between event X and extinction will probably do a good enough job to make me, at very minimum, skeptical of an extinction scenario, and most likely just not buy it. Most cards used to make the extinction claim aren't actually saying what debaters think they say, and I think the desire to try to boil down rounds to "who can save us from the end of the world?" creates a real race to the bottom argumentatively, frankly. And I just don't understand why certain impacts that could more plausibly follow from typical LD topics "aren't good enough" for the weighing: war, genocide, environmental degradation... these are all really bad things! Nuke war isn't quite as far fetched as extinction, but note that nuclear war doesn't *automatically* mean that the whole species goes extinct. Again, even in the hypothetical case of a localized nuclear conflict (i.e. between two neighboring countries), preventing that alone would be a really good impact, even if the conflict wouldn't spill over! I am more likely to buy a less "world-ending disaster" impact that's well-linked than a weaker-linked, far-fetched impact even if it's more disastrous.

*"Util because pleasure/pain are inherent" (AKA: "Moen 16: doesn't say what you think it does"): I am not anti-util – it’d be pretty hard to be in competitive debating, where utility is such a natural (and good!) weighing mechanism. But I will say I find most presentations of util by LD debaters very unsophisticated. Util comes in many shapes and sizes, and in running a util framework you should specify the type of util to which one is committing themselves, and explain why said framework makes sense for your case/the topic. (E.g. act util or rule util; specifying if your calculus is “maximizing pleasure/minimizing pain” or “greatest good for the greatest number” – these are all different things, and come with different commitments). I find the prevalence of the pleasure/pain binary in framework cards very odd; if you’re arguing, say, that China should maximize its environmental policy, “pleasure” and “pain” are weird metrics to use. Long and short of it: if you naturally default to a utilitarian-style calculus in your case writing, that’s fine, but put some actual work into it. I’ve heard so many shallow util frameworks to the point that now I’m somewhat numb to them.

*"Death good": An unusual number of debaters have asked me about this line of reasoning lately. I suppose I could vote for this argument, but just know that different kinds of arguments have different sorts of evidentiary burdens baked into them. Meaning: while I am open to most arguments one could make in a round, I do not have to treat “actually, death good” as equally plausible a line of reasoning as, “We should pass single-payer healthcare so that we can increase the number of insured people.” “Death good” or “actually we’re in the matrix” are bolder arguments to make, and bolder arguments require more robust proofs. That doesn’t mean I dislike these arguments; far from it, I really enjoy it when debaters take big swings, especially in out-rounds. But just know that ambitious cases require a higher degree of intellectual sophistication to run, meaning you can’t just cut the “death good” case the way you would, say, a stock plan-based case.

*Time skew arguments: In contrast to my generally "I'll vote on whatever's warranted" stance, here's maybe one place I'll be curmudgeonly: time skew arguments (e.g. "1AR's only four minutes!" "As the NEG I only speak twice!") are incredibly corny, and I can basically imagine no case where I'd vote on one. To be fair to the people who have run this in front of me, most of the time this is just an additional piece of warranting under a theory arg, so it's not as if this line of thinking is replete in most cases I'm hearing now. But this kind of complaint, to me, is pretty whiny. Debate, like any game, has rules and regulations, and the trade-off in LD's pretty basic: AFF gets more speeches, but NEG's speeches are longer. Given how many people continue to participate in this activity, I find it pretty dubious to say that the speech times are so unfair as to be a theoretical warrant in-round, especially given spreading.

*Presumption: In keeping with time skew, since that's so often used in this line of argument: I do not have a default presumption standard. I'm willing to hear arguments about presumption, but I'm of the belief that these are unnecessarily defensive arguments to include in constructive speeches, as they signal to me, "Judge, if this round is a total mess, and you can't possibly adjudicate what you have on the flow, vote AFF/NEG for x, y, and z reasons." Rhetorically, this does not instill much confidence in what you're doing with the constructive. Where I could see presumption making more sense is in refutation, if clash between arguments has reached a point of total murkiness. With that said, though, I'd rather there be big, clearly defined clash rather than pre-fiat discussions of the positionality of the AFF and NEG in an LD round. Put more directly, if it seems like your strategy is first and foremost togo for presumption, I'm definitely going to be annoyed.

A Note on "Tricks"

I am not entirely clear on what constitutes a "trick"; the contents of that set are somewhat ambiguous to me. (A consequence, perhaps, of never having gone to debate camp.) I've heard ordinary truth-testing cases described as "tricks" even though they strike me as just normal truth-testing-style cases. Same for some skep arguments as well; depending on how one runs it, I don't automatically see skep as inherently abusive/"tricksy," but when people have described tricks to me skep often features. (As someone who very much enjoys reading skeptical philosophy, I'd like to think that skep, run well in the right context, might actually be rewarding.)

If by "tricks," however, you mean "some ultra-fine technicality argument that squirrels the round to the point that my definitions basically say it's impossible for the other side of the debate to win categorically," then I will say: yes, I find such strategy annoying. As a comment about debate more broadly rather than just about tricks specifically: I reward debaters for going toward the debate, rather than running away from it. Debates, almost by definition, are best when two robustly presented sides clash with/weigh against each other, so any move to make the debate hopelessly stacked for one side will put you on my bad side.

This doesn't mean that I prefer, say, whole-res affs uniformly, as I also am likely to give high speaks to debaters who showcase quality topic research, which very often involves degrees of narrowing for case-writing (especially on Policy-esque topics like the 2024 Jan/Feb topic on West Asia/North Africa). To shamelessly plagiarize Potter Stewart, when it comes to cases that narrow for the sake of a richer debate versus narrowing to give the opposing side as little ground as possible, "I know it when I see it."

Evidence/A Brief “Old Man Yells at Cloud” Rant on Case Writing

My general policy is that unless I know a card that's being used and it sounds off in the round, or if the evidence is cut in such a way as to be unclear, I won't comb through all the evidence when making my RFD, barring a dispute in-round about a piece of evidence's validity or cutting. Put shortly, unless you give me reasons to doubt your handling of your evidence, I will honor the arguments in-round as presented. I ask to be added to the chain/Speechdrop just so that I have a record in case of such an aforementioned dispute.

There has long been a trend in debate of treating a cut card as automatic "evidence" for something. The important thing to remember is that the cards are not your case; your case should be making its own argument(s), for which the cards are support. I would hope that in constructing cases that debaters are taking as much time on their contention taglines, framework warrants, and overall structure as they are cutting their evidence. Thin case-writing (that is, little time on contention/subpoint tags and overall argument structure) has been a problem for as long as I’ve been in debate, but it does seem to have gotten worse. The framework, contentions, plan texts, etc – meaning, all the stuff that the debater themselves creates – should shine, as that’s where the debater’s personality can most come through. The cards just demonstrate how well you do (or don’t) make the argument that you yourself are writing.

Stray Things

*I prefer immediate post-round disclosure of result if possible. If for some reason it isn't depending on tournament rules (thankfully these instances seem rare now), know you can find me after the round to ask about an RFD, but if you wish to do so, make sure you find me ASAP, as I'll be less detailed if I'm several rounds removed from your debate. Should you want an oral RFD post-round in the event where I can't give one immediately, find your opponent from the round so I can speak to you both at the same time.

*I don't disclose speaks. Do not ask in-round for higher speaks for doing X, Y, Z, etc. Speaks are my own consideration.

*I expect that debaters keep their own time, but I will time during the round to ensure everyone's honest.

*I'm cool with flex prep.

*I am not anti-theory by any means -- some people really do be breaking the rules (such as the "rules" are) -- but I would call myself a "minimum theory" judge, meaning that the theory should not come across as a way of avoiding the resolutional debate. I know debate topics can be imperfect (no disrepect, NSDA), but theory, to me, exists to ensure debaters are being truly fair and educational. An overabundance of theory, to me, can often come across as a refusal to engage with the substance afforded by the resolution.

*I am not a fan of the strategy wherein a debater takes a stray line from an AC or NC card and tries to blow it up in the rebuttals if it isn't directly refuted by the opposing speaker. Even if I can technically flow it as a drop, I'm generally of the belief that if you're going to make a big deal out of a specific argument/detail, you need to flag it as such in your constructive. I like clash between clearly presented, bold arguments; I'm less inclined to trickery for trickery's sake, even if you're technically extending arguments fairly.

*Don't just say "my opponent dropped this argument, so extend it"; impact all arguments, even drops. I do not immediately think to myself, "By gum, they've given up the debate!" the moment I hear that an argument has been dropped.

*Cross-x is binding. Use it well.

*Nothing is more boring than a debate that collapses into the most generic version of the "utilitarianism/consequentialism vs. deontology/principles" discussion. Avoid these, please. If a framework debate gets into this territory naturally, try to make a case for why your specific version of util or deontology holds up best, rather than relitigate the broad debate that we all know and hate.

*I am not terribly persuaded by arguments that feel so stock/generic that you have no investment in them. Even conventional T shells should be presented like they are specially applicable to the debate that's happening in the room.

*The only things that will make me drop you outright are things like: egregious card-cutting which leads to misrepresentation/distortion of sources (having competed myself, I know what some will try to get away with) and morally outrageous arguments like "genocide/racism/sexism/homophobia good." Even though debate is about clash, it is an activity that must include all, so I view any arguments that aim to exclude people from the activity as a massive problem.

What About Public Forum? I am generally of the belief that PF should be insulated from the "circuit-ification" that's endemic to the other major debating formats. A PF round really should be viewable by all, including the mythical "average person on the street." This isn't because I'm a "PF originalist," or am against spread/circuit debate -- far from it. Rather, I just think the strictures of the form (four minute speeches max, topics that change every month) make "circuit PF" a kind of contradiction in terms. PF should be about a clearly defined and persuasively delivered (in the traditional sense) clash on a current events topic with which a parent uninitiated to debating could follow. Though PF doesn't have the value framework of LD, your weighing mechanism for my decision in the round -- these are often called "voters" or "voting issues" -- should still be clear by the time you get to the Final Focus speeches.

And to reiterate something I said above, but in a PF-specific fashion: the crossfires, especially the grand crossfires, should be the most electric part of the round. Please don't turn cross-x into a back-and-forth of basic fact-finding questions: really get into the debate there!

One specific note on the rules of PF debating, since this issue has come up in some rounds for my debaters: the CON is not required to defend the status quo. Though plan texts are verboten in this format (for the PRO and CON), the CON is allowed to advocate (without a specific plan-text) alternatives to the PRO advocacy. For example, with the recent student loans topic ("The United States federal government should forgive all federal student loan debt"): the CON, in that instance, is not required to defend a world with no student loan forgiveness or only the types of forgiveness that exist in the status quo; they could say, as a generalized claim, "We support some targeted means-testing style forgiveness programs, those that target historically disenfranchised groups in America." There couldn't be, however, a specific plan iterating the details of that advocacy. I'm not sure why so many people think PF would be set up to where all debates are "X or the status quo," and in any event there's certainly nothing in the rulebook for PF to suggest that the CON can't offer alternatives in the same generalized way that the PRO advocates for a given case.

Note on Speaks: Unless a specific tournament specifies a house preference for its speaker point allocations, here's how I award speaks:

30: You changed my mind about what's possible in the activity of debating, or did something truly revelatory with the topic. Your speaking style exhibits a sophistication that would get an attention of a full theatre.

29-29.9: You're a top-tier speaker and thinker, one I'd expect to be in late elims at the tournament. You are thinking about the topic at a very high level.

28-28.9: You gave a speech that put considerably more thought into the topic than the stock cases I'm likely to hear on any given topic. Your speaking style shows confidence and elegance.

27-27.9: This is what I call the "perfect average;" to be specific, perfectly average for me is 27.5. You did good work in presenting and constructing your case, even if the presentation wasn't particularly flashy.

26-26.9: You generally presented a coherent case, but with not much sophistication either in delivery or in quality of argumentation.

25-25.9: Your case and/or delivery were unclear, and your arguments poorly warranted.

Under 25: You did something profoundly offensive.

Things that Help or Harm Speaks

Things that Help Speaks

*Confidence! Especially in CX. Using CX to put your opponent on the defensive is a must.
*Knowing your case. You should be able to state the warrants/theses of your cards as if they were your own words.
*Using really good analytics arguments in rebuttals. Debate shouldn't just be "AFF reads card, NEG reads card to counter."
*Eye contact. Doesn't need to be constant, of course, but it should feel like you're addressing a person, not a computer screen.
*Writing a case where your words principally, not your sources, do the talking.
*Tasteful use of humor that rhetorically enhances your argument.
*Coming up with angles on the topic that are unique and genuinely thoughtful (meaning: not novel for novelty's sake).
*Similarly: a really well-written and detailed "stock" case can be just as impressive depending on how it's wielded. To give one example: for me, at tournaments at the highest level, a really artful whole-res AFF done well is arguably more impressive than a more niche plan AFF, as it shows the debater's willingness to take on a bigger burden and do so persuasively.
*Rebuttal that shows that you have done topic research outside of just your immediate casework.

Things that Harm Speaks

*Using cross-x solely for fact-finding (e.g. "What was your contention 1 again?")
*In rebuttal, saying "I have a card" or "my card says so" when your opponent challenges the claim being made in a card. (Meaning: the fact that you have a card is not automatically proof of the card's rightness.)
*Rudeness/condescension, especially if it is unearned.
*Contention taglines that are barely developed, no matter how good the cards below them are. (E.g. Just saying "Nuke war" for a tag.)
*Running an argument that it feels like you haven't put any thought behind. (Classic example: the NEG running T just because you can. If you kick out of it under the lightest pressure [or none at all] in the 1NR, I will probably roll my eyes.)
*While I am not opposed to speed, if you spread for the purpose of a bunch of thin argumentation, I'm going to be less inclined to give high speaks. To put it simply: justify your speed.
*Unironically saying "market solves" with no elaboration or evidence.

Background

First, and most importantly, I am a Black man. I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018 and the Criminal Justice paper in 2019) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way. I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge. Summer '22 I chaired the Wording Committee for NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection; do with this information what you want.

Include me on all email chains, at bothcgdebate1906@gmail.comandlrchdebatedocs@gmail.com,please and thank you

Randoms

I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole

I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just run them.

I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim. I flow on a computer so I need typing time. Your speed will always outpace my ability to type; please be conscious of this.

Intentionally saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me. That being said, I’m sure most people would prefer to win straight up and not because a person was rhetorically problematic, in round.

Update for Online Debate

Asking "is anyone not ready" before an online speech an excise in futility; if someone's computer is glitching they have no way of telling you they aren’t ready. Wait for verbal/nonverbal confirmation that all individuals are ready before beginning your speech, please. If my camera is off, I am not ready for your speech. Online debate makes speed a problem for all of us. Anything above 75% of your top speed ensures I will miss something; govern yourselves accordingly.

Please make sure I can see your face/mouth when you are speaking if at all possible. I would really prefer that you kept your camera on. I understand how invasive of an ask this is. If you CANNOT for reasons (tech, personal reasons, etc.) I am completely ok with going on with the camera off. Debate is inherently an exclusive activity, if the camera on is a problem I would rather not even broach the issue.

I would strongly suggest recording your own speeches in case someone's internet cuts out. When this issue arises, a local recording is a life saver. Do not record other people's speeches without their consent; that is a quick way to earn a one-way trip to L town sponsored by my ballot.

Lastly, if the round is scheduled to start at 2, don’t show up to the room asking for my email at 1:58. Be in the room by tech time (it’s there for a reason) so that you can take care of everything in preparation for the round. 2 o’clock start time means the 1ac is being read at 2, not the email chain being set up at 2. Timeliness, or lack thereof, is one of my BIGGEST pet peeves. Too often debaters are too cavalier with time. Two things to keep in mind: 1) it shortens my decision time and 2) it’s a quick way to short yourself on speaks (I’m real get-off-my-lawn about this).

Short Version

My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated, I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author(s) use.

I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.

T-USfg

Yes I coach primarily K teams but I have voted for T/framework quite often; win the argument and you have won my ballot. Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.

I am less and less persuaded by fairness arguments; I think fairness is more of an internal link to a more concrete impact (e.g., truth testing, argument refinement). Affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.

When aff teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they neglect to articulate why the claims they make in the 1ac implicate/inform the neg’s interp and impacts here. A lot of times they go for a poorly explained, barely extended impact turn without doing the necessary work of using the aff to implicate the neg’s standards.

When neg teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they don’t engage the aff. Often times, I find myself having a low bar for presumption when the aff is poorly explained (both in speeches and CX) yet neg teams rarely use this to their advantage. A good framework-centered 2NR versus most k affs involves some type of engagement on case (solvency deficit, presumption, case turn, etc.) and your framework claims; I think too often the neg gives the aff full risk of their aff and solvency which gives them more weight on impact turns than they should have. If you don’t answer the aff AT ALL in the 2NR I will have a hard time voting for you; 2AR’s would be smart to point this out and leverage this on the impact debate.

If you want toread a kritik of debate,I have no problems with that. While, in a vacuum, I think debate is an intrinsic good, we too often forget we exist in a bubble. We must be introspective (as an activity) about the part(s) we like and the part(s) we don't like; if that starts with this prelim round or elim debate then so be it. As structured, debate is super exclusionary if we don't allow internal criticism, we risk extinction in such a fragile world.

LD

If you don't read a "plan" then all the neg has to do is win a link to the resolution. For instance, if you read an aff that's 6 minutes of “whole rez” but you don't defend a specific action then the neg just needs to win a link based on the resolution OR your impact scenario(s). If you don't like it then write better affs that FORCE the neg to get more creative on the link debate.

If theory is your go-to strategy, on either side, please strike me. I am sick and tired debaters refusing to engage substance and only read frivolous theory arguments you barely understand. If you spend your time in the 1AR going for theory don’t you dare fix your lips to go for substance over theory and expect my ballot in the 2AR. LD, in its current state, is violent, racist, and upholds white supremacy; if you disagree do us both a favor and strike me (see above). Always expecting people to open source disclose is what is driving a lot of non-white people from the activity. I spend most of my time judging policy so an LD round that mimics a policy debate is what I would prefer to hear.

I’m sick of debaters not flowing then thinking they can ask what was read “before” CX starts. Once you start asking questions, THAT IS CX TIME. I have gotten to the point that I WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS if you do this; I keep an exceptional flow and you should as well. If you go over time, I will stop you and your opponent will not be required to answer questions. You are eating into decision time but not only that it shows a blatant lack of respect for the "rules" of activity. If this happens and you go for some kind of "fairness good" claim I'm not voting for it; enjoy your Hot L (shoutout to Chris Randall and Shunta Jordan). Lastly, most of these philosophers y’all love quoting were violently racist to minorities. If you want me (a black man) to pick you up while you defend a racist you be better be very compelling and leave no room for misunderstandings.

Parting Thoughts

I came into this activity as a fierce competitor, at this juncture in my life I’m in it solely for the education of the debaters involved; I am less concerned with who I am judging and more concerned with the content of what I debate. I am an educator and a lover of learning things; what I say is how I view debate and not a roadmap to my ballot. Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.

If you're running an email chain, please add me: Andrewgollner@gmail.com

he/him

About me: I debated one year of PF and three years of policy at Sequoyah High, and I debated three year of college policy at the University of Georgia. I was a 2N that generally runs policy offcase positions but, especially earlier in my debate career, I ran many critical positions. I'll try to be expressive during the round so that you can discern how I am receiving your arguments.

Judge Preferences: On a personal level, please be kind to your opponents. I dislike it when a team is unnecessarily rude or unsportsmanlike. I am completely willing to discuss my decision about a round in between rounds, so please ask me if you want me to clarify my decision or would like advice. You can email me any questions you have.

FOR PF/LD:

I am primarily a policy judge. This means

1. I am more comfortable with a faster pace. While I don't like the idea of spreading in PF and LD I can handle a faster pace.

2. I am decently technical. If an argument is dropped point it out, make sure I can draw a clean line through your speeches.

3. I am less used to theory backgrounds in your form of debate, slow down and explain these.

4. Ask me any specific questions you have.

FOR POLICY:

I recognize that my role is to serve as a neutral arbiter without predispositions towards certain arguments, but as this goal is elusive the following are my gut reactions to positions. I strive to ensure that any position (within reason, obviously not obscene or offensive) is a possible path to victory in front of myself.

CP: I love a well written CP which is tailored to your opponent's solvency advocate and that can be clearly explained and is substantiated by credible evidence. If your CP is supported by 1AC solvency evidence, I will be very impressed. Generic CPs are fine, I've read a ton of them, but the more you can at least explain your CP in the context of the affirmative's advantages the more likely you are to solve for their impact scenarios.

DA: Make sure to give a quick overview of the story during the neg block to clarify the intricacies of your position. If, instead of vaguely tagline making a turns case arg like "climate turns econ, resource shortages", you either read and later extend a piece of evidence or spend 10 to 15 seconds analytically creating a story of how climate change exasperates resource shortages and causes mass migrations which strain nation's financial systems, then I will lend far more risk to the disadvantage turning the case. Obviously the same goes for Aff turns the DA. I will also weigh smart analytical arguments on the disad if the negative fails to contest it properly. I'm also very persuaded when teams contest the warrants of their opponents evidence or point out flaws within their opponents evidence, whether it's a hidden contradiction or an unqualified author.

T: I've rarely gone for topicality but I have become increasingly cognizant of incidents in which I likely should have. My gut reaction is that competing interpretations can be a race to the bottom, but I have personally seen many affirmatives which stray far enough from the topic to warrant a debate centered over the resolution in that instance.

K: I used to run Ks pretty frequently in high school but I run them far less frequently now. I'm likely not deep in your literature base so be sure to explain your position and your link story clearly.

FW: My gut feeling is that debate is a game and that it should be fair, but I have seen many rounds where the affirmative team has done an excellent job of comparing the pedagogy of both models and won that their model is key for X type of education or accessibility there of. However, I am persuaded that a TVA only needs to provide reasonable inroads to the affirmatives research without necessarily having to actually solve for all of the affirmative. I do find the response that negs would only read DAs and ignore/"outweigh" the case to be effective - try to add some nuance to this question of why negs would or wouldn't still need to grapple with the case.

Non-traditional Aff: I've always run affs with USFG plan texts, but that doesn't mean that these positions are non-starters. I will be much more receptive to your affirmative if it is intricately tied to the topic area, even if it does refuse to engage the resolution itself for whichever reasons you provide.

Theory: I generally think 2 condo is good, more than that and things start to get a bit iffy.

Most importantly, please be kind to your opponents and have a good time.

coaching (LD/Worlds/Speech) for Harvard-Westlake (2023-present)

coached (PF/LD/Policy/Parli/Speech) at Flintridge Prep and Westridge School from 2018 - 2023

competed in NPDA and Speech at LAVC

competed in Policy at southwestern cc and USC

email chain —-> trojandebateteam@gmail.com,

*ask me about debating at USC*

(I try to change my paradigm up a little bc I coach and judge a lot of things and it can be overwhelming if you think im a worlds person when I do policy or when you think you have an LD judge in the back of your congress rd)

for Worlds TOC (-- 4/20/24)

ask questions, I’m happy to answer things. Above all, I love good spirited debate, strong refutations, collapsing down of arguments, strategic concessions, comparative weighing and framing. Tell me how I should be seeing the round so I don’t have to intervene and frame it myself and your rfd will likely follow suit! I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story to resolve things and tend not to to have the energy to weigh alternative ways in which the round could’ve gone, but I’ll give you recommendations of what might’ve gotten my ballot or where I felt I could’ve been persuaded.

• content — good presentation of information, structure,
• strategy — good debate tech, answering of questions, taking questions, etc
• style — in depth analysis of said content and its implications, your aesthetic representations of this

Quick thoughts for pref sheets (usually for LD/policy)

general debate thoughts

1) I don't tell you how to debate but I do have preferences. That's just because I want everyone to see my ballot as accessible and within reach, not because I'll drop you if you challenge my preferences. I often rewrite my paradigm bc of how talented and exceptional debaters are. As such, I will vote on anything except:

• RVIs on T,
• friv theory (I think you can justify good practices and make them into args on the flow, disclosure is not friv)
• Tricks (these should be impact framing args imo),
• and I will not vote on arguments that implicate something that has happened out of round that I have not witnessed or been a part of. Screenshots are fine but I give a lot of defense bc I personally have no context

2) I think debate is super fun when there is an embodied or critical element to it -- if you read plans and defend us heg, just be passionate about it and tell me why I should care and I'm certain you can snag a 29 or higher otherwise disembodied debates tend to be super stale and you should definitely disconnect from the document and make the debate feel real for me. I am not a drone and I like debates to feel like I'm not an ai robot

3) I have a pretty low evidentiary standard (LD background sorry), but I do have a research background and would like you to do some work with your evidence. I am a strong proponent of doing more with less. I will read along as it happens. That being said, my contemporaries are considerably better card people, I did a lot of performance. (translation: pls dont put me in a 2nr/2ar debate about competition theory about the counterplan)

4) I prefer people tell me how to evaluate their debates, framing included, what matters, what doesn't -- filtering / sequencing etc

5) debates are simplest and imo best executed when people reduce the number of args and clarify their argumentation and spend more time discussing the relation to the other teams args / participation in relation to their args, as well as making the link -> impact story more persuasive.

Lastly, I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story possible. Please collapse and make a choice. I think thats the beauty of debate is winning your argument rather than forcing me to have to do the evaluation of a number of sheets in the 2nr. Basically, if you go into the 2nr with 4 off case and expect me to vote on one of them, I'm going to be really upset.

I'll do my best to explain the world you've laid out for me in the debate and how I came to my decision in my RFD but I will not likely explain the the entire world of the debate in relation to implication of (x) unless it helps me vote differently.

keep reading below for specific preferences or how I think about things

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Stuff for Strikes/Prefs:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

debates about debate / pre-fiat: truth > tech

debates about warrants and information / post-fiat: tech > truth; but if you drop a DA, that usually means you lose if the impact o/ws the aff. if it doesn't, I'm just gonna be like wow you really let case o/w that's tough

t/fw: have voted on it but I've been labelled a K hack because of the args I read. I often feel like people should implicate the world view of the framework page more and tell me what their model of debate creates and impact that out. makes life a lot easier for everyone involved imo

Nebel T: boy, I don't get this and I'm too afraid to ask questions now, so pls explain what an up-ward tailed test is or we will both be lost

Theory threshold: kinda high actually, umm LD debaters need impacts to theory and clash is not an impact, it's a standard or an internal link to something -.- in policy, condo is cool. I will vote on condo but I have a high threshold for why you couldn't read the perm and a da to the alt

Critical Non T Affs: I love these, I've even been inspired to write specific positions by 2 debaters I've judged so I guess there's your spillover warrant -- pls have your fw answers and i'm super down to learn some new stuff!

"debatably" T/NonT Affs: really big fan, win your stuff

Tricks: pls don't thx ~~

Cheater CPs: love a smart counterpane debate, I had some fun reading some cheater CPs but I am not a counterplan competition maximalist -- please treat me like I'm a child in this debate, I will not be patronized

High Phil theory: pls strike me ; I genuinely do not enjoy the process of linking offense to a FW in which two things feel very similar and struggle to eval these debates unless there is a comparative advantage / cp / k format. I will judge them if I have to, but its a debate I don't enjoy.

high Phil Ks: I read a good amount of psychoanalysis (Lacan/freud), D&G and some others for classes as well as for leisure reading. That being said, please dont just assume we have mutual understandings of order words or the real x symbolic x the imaginary.

Args like Warming good / Recession good / death good; if warming is good bc it’s great for that one species of phytoplankton, tell me why that phytoplankton is key in comparison to the climate conditions of others; i.e., incremental warming is what's happening now, incrementalism is good) Same for like death good; it's gotta be like "we need to reorient how we see death" otherwise, you're gonna be in for a rough time

K v K debates: probably my preferred debate, as long as you explain what's going on, I'm here to let you run your round and evaluate it how you want me to. These are really fun debates for me to become engaged in and one I love watching.

Case Debate / Turns: yee these are cool

Email: aarinj@gmail.com

Jesuit '22(2a/1n, 2n/1a(Junior Year)), Georgia Tech '26(Not Debating)

He/Him

Don't call me judge, I have a name(pronounced Are-in)

Quick Notes Before the Round:

I am fine with essentially every argument. If you want to go for ASPEC, I'll begrudgingly listen to it. I'll reward better arguments with better speaker points, but not vice versa. The more niche your argument is, the more you have to explain it for it to make sense to me, but I assure you I will try my best to understand based on what is presented in the round. I have not read anything related to the topic, so keep that in mind when you use acronyms and words of art.

That said, I will not vote for anything I do not understand. If the 2ar/2nr does not give me a coherent reason to vote for them, I will probably vote for the other team. If neither give me a coherent reason, then I will do the work to figure out who won, but I really don't want to do that.

Make the debate as easy as you can for me. Trust me, it will greatly award you in terms of the outcome of the debate and speaker points.

Preferably, both you and I will keep track of time for speeches/prep. If our times differ significantly, I'll intervene, otherwise, I'll leave it up to you.

Don't take excessive time setting up the email chain. It should be set up and sent right at start time. I will dock speaker points if its taking too long for you to send the email.

Theory debates are good. Affs should go for them more, don't be afraid to read and go for theory, especially on CP competition.

If you have a cool sticker for me to add to my computer, I will be eternally grateful.

Topicality:

Topicality debates are very very complex thus reading your 2nc/2ac blocks slower will help a ton for me to actually catch every warrant you want me to. Since a lot of topicality is based on analytical arguments, spacing/numbering of arguments will keep the flow clear and help me keep up. If you choose to go 100% speed through your block, don't get angry at me when I miss a warrant.

Topicality is about setting limits to the topic, so I instinctively compare both the affirmatives and negatives interpretation of how limits should be set. Giving me a clear topic list under both interps will help me compare both. Also making your standards comparative will go a long way. If you couldn't guess, comparing is a really good idea for topicality.

I default to competing interpretations, but I can be easily persuaded to default to reasonability if the aff claims and supports that they are a core of the topic aff.

Disadvantages:

The more specific your link, the more likely I am going to vote for you. If your evidence is cherry-picked, poorly highlighted to get a link, then I will have a very high threshold to vote for you. I think the best thing either side can do is be comparative about why the link story is wrong/right. Affirmatives should always be skeptical of the negative link evidence. Use your 1ac to answer disadvantage, the 1ac should pre-empt common disadvantages against your aff.

Counter Plans:

Affirmative--please read theory. Negatives read too many nonsensical counterplans. Read and go for theory, I will probably vote for you more often than not if there is clear abuse. Also, please use your 1ac evidence, you read 8 minutes of evidence that should help to prove your solvency claims.

Negative--I like smart counterplans. The more specific the better, especially if the solvency advocate is fire. I am fine with most counterplans. Process counterplans are fine, but you need to prove an opportunity cost to the aff, not a reason why the CP is better than the aff. I also think negs need more of a defense of their strategy. Don't just throw out 5 counterplans with bad highlighting. Think about which ones are actually strategic.

Kritiks:

I have gone for these the most. I like Kritiks. They are fun to read and fun to judge. Framework esque kritiks are fine, but you need to slow down on the nitty gritty so I can flow. Other types of Ks are what they are. Make sure to give examples of links and contextualize them to the aff. Show me why the aff is bad and feeds into a violent system. I'm fine with any of the common Ks, but if it is more niche, I need a longer explanation in the 2nc/2nr.

Affirmative--Tell me why your aff is good and why you should get to weigh it. A lot of negative f/ws are kinda limiting and I think affs can win that they get to at least weigh their aff in which case outweighs is your friend. I also think that slowing down on the link debate is to your benefit because then I can more easily understand your warrants and will probably subconsciously do a lot of the work for you.

Negative--It is essentially the first paragraph, but recognize when FW is two ships sailing at night. Ditch it if you don't need it. Don't go for it if it doesn't tie into the alt. Speaking of alts, paint a picture of the alt. Tell me what I am voting for and I will be a little more lenient on the link debate.

K affs: I don't think that fairness is an impact. At best, it is an internal link to things like advocacy skills. I don't think "core generics" is a good argument because the negative saying is that they are forced to read generics when half their 1ncs are the PTX DA and some random camp DA is equally as bad. Aff teams should push more on education being a terminal impact.

Clearly define your model of debate and the relevant terms. I will view FW debates through a comparison of models so the more comparative you are the more you are likely to win. I think that K affs are important for policy debate, so you are highly unlikely to convince me that the aff is cheating. Instead, the negative should be making arguments about why there needs to be a connection to either the topic or governmental action. This is absent a clear TVA where the aff could easily be done through policy action. Making demands on the state doesn't require USfg action. I will vote for the negative, but I think that a. you have to get off your blocks and b. you got to actually respond to what the aff is saying. I think that a lot of judges are very neg biased and I will NOT be.

Go for presumption or case against K-Affs, most of K-Affs don't actually do anything besides ask for the ballot. I am in the camp that reading K-Affs are good and should be read, NOT in the camp that they actually spill out. A good case push or a presumption ballot is very good imo.

Speaker Points

I start at 28.5 and go up or down based on what you do in the debate that either helps you or makes the debate harder for you or for me.

Don't be rude to your opponent or me

Don't say problematic things in the debate

If you are a novice and you got this far, show me your flows at the end of the debate and I will give you +0.5 points, also tell me your favorite TV show and I will give you another +0.5 points if I haven't seen it.

PF/LD

I have no experience with either or what is expected. I will judge these rounds like Policy. I do not keep up with the topics for these events so please explain well otherwise I will be lost.

I am a lay judge. Please keep your own time, I will vote off of good weighing and good accessibility. Please do not depend on me for timing.

Please do not read theory or K's; if you are reading a counter plan please explain in detail.

Prefer speech drop but my email is samar.kibe@student.lovett.org. Pronouns are he/him. I do want to be on the chain.

TLDR:

Trad - 1

Policy (LARP) - 2

Ks, Theory - 3

Phil - 4

Tricks, Friv Theory - 5

The Longer Version: Hey there, I am a 3rd year debater from the Lovett School, and I have experience in both PF and LD on the local and national circuit. I am more comfortable in resolving traditional debates, but I am open to any argument, as long as you are not racist, xenophobic, or sexist in your remarks.

Other prefs:

• DO NOT BLITZ THROUGH ANALYTICS PLS, especially in the rebuttal speeches.

• Tech over truth, but my threshold for certain arguments is lower than others.

• 7/10 on speed (I will say clear thrice and then just stop flowing at that point.) Speed is fine as long as it's on the doc. Slow down for analytics/anything not on the doc.

• 
  Don’t violate accommodations if they are reasonable.

• I don’t disclose speaks, but I will disclose who won after the round.

• Off-time roadmaps are fine but keep them short.

Trad:

Too often I find people reading non-util. fw with contentions that work with util. If there is no clash with fw., please feel free to save time and drop framing.

Clash and Signposting are key here. This is my first time judging, so please please please make sure to signpost well.

Don't just read evidence to me but make sure to provide clear warrants for what the evidence says.

Please do your best to accommodate your opponent’s preferences. If they are a trad. debater and you have a trad. case (which you should), don’t spread a 5-off on them or run some niche PIC. Again, I’ll vote off anything, but I will drop your speaks, and it will make me sad :( Browbeating less experienced debaters is bad sportsmanship.

Policy (LARP):

• Poorly linked ADV/DAs to existential impacts makes for messy debates. My threshold for voting on extinction is high, so please clearly explain your link chain to me.

• Evidence analysis is very important for these debates.

• Please make sure the tags you read actually represent what your card is saying; don't misrepresent evidence.

• On PICS: Frankly, I think most PICs are fairly abusive and restarts the debate in the 1AR. Feel free to go for them, but I generally find PICs bad theory persuasive.

Ks:

• I'm a no go for performance Ks. Don't have a lot of experience with those. Feel free to run other Ks though.

• Don’t assume I know the theory you are referring to, so explain your theory of power and methodology clearly, especially if you are running a fw heavy K. I am decently familiar with setcol lit. I do enjoy K debates but vague alts, poor clash, and relying on random, unexplained buzzwords makes for bad debate. Winning the ROTB is key for these debates.

K Affs:

• Love K Affs (both topical and non-topical). If you’re running a non-topical Aff, be ready for T-FW. I don't lean either way when it comes to T-Fw debates

Theory:

Please only save these debates for when genuine abuse has occurred. I strongly dislike frivolous theory debates.

- On Disclosure:

I think disclosure is generally a good norm; HOWEVER, if it is clear that your opponent is not a circuit debater which may be demonstrated by them not having a wiki, I will not vote on disclosure theory.

- On Subsets/Nebel:

I am partial to voting on subsets/nebel theory on non whole res. AFFs. This being said I do think the AFF has a number of responses to this.

- On Condo:

I’m open to Condo bad, especially if they run a K and a DA which links into the K. (Econ DA and Cap K for example).

Phil:

Not the best judge for evaluating high theory. Save your Deleuze/Levinas/Korsgaard/Baudrillard for a different judge. I’ll do my best, but again I am not great at analyzing these rounds.

Tricks: Any argument that hinges on your opponent not catching a certain argument is not my favorite. I find most tricks style arguments to silly. This being said, I am open to any line of argumentation, but I won't necessarily like it.

Speaks:

I will drop speaks for the following:

• Browbeating less experienced debaters

• Being rude/sexist/racist/homophobic/etc. (I will contact your coaches if necessary)

• Not accommodating opponent's preferences if reasonable.

I will boost speaks for the following:

• Really good case

• Slowing down for Tags

• Good evidence analysis/cross-applying evidence

• Good Signposting

• A K done really well

Hi, I’m Hope! Marlborough '24. Harvard '28.

I debated for four years in LD, qualifying to the TOC twice.

Please put me on the email chain: hopelee24@marlborough.org

Preferences:
I'm best for judging LARP, less good for K debate, and a no-go for phil and tricks.

Please slow down on tags when spreading.

Good warranting, line-by-line, and clear judge instruction will make voting for you easier. Always be kind, respectful, and remember to have fun!

Include me on the chain: dylanyliu3@gmail.com

I competed for Brentwood in LD on the circuit from 2017 to 2021, competing for Emory in policy, 25'. He/Him.

I value the work and effort that goes into preparing and attending a debate tournament. I am excited to judge your round and value both my and your time!

For nats, lay, pf:

Ignore everything below. Debate is a game of persuasion: a] i'm influenced by winning arguments, b] i'm influenced by influential speakers. Lay/pf debate is an exercise in accessibility, strategic choices, efficiency, and judge adaptation. Think of me as a debater roleplaying as a parent judge and you'll have a good time.

For circuit LD/policy:

tl;dr / prefs: Debate is a very really highly educational game evaluated through whether or not I'm persuaded to vote for you. Debate how you want to debate, I think good argumentation is extremely persuasive. I think my primary obligation as a judge is to evaluate the round, but value the educational aspect of debate which has a strong likelihood of persuading my ballot.

I am likely bad for pomo and tricks and will vote for it only if there is a very compelling explanation in the rebuttals that tell me what it is I'm voting for exactly and why that means you win. I don't feel particularly comfortable voting for positions that I couldn't explain back to you.

At my core, I think debate is good. I think clash is the focal point of what makes the activity good.

debate thoughts

cp's

are logical, good, and neg gets them. I think they should have solvency advocates or very obviously solve the aff. I think condo operates structurally differently in LD and policy, and I have both run and am comfortable voting for condo bad.

da's

are yay -- if consequences matter and the consequence would be on balance negative then I would probably negate.

k's

are intriguing. My favorite debates have been critical -- I think throwing buzz words at me without warrants doesn't make for a compelling position and warrants are good. Please don't not read them, but if you do read them I think that there's a moderate-to-high threshold on me being able to explain it back to the debaters for you to win on them.

aff stuff

I love a good 1ac -- I think if you are referencing your 1ac in your 1ar frequently then your 1ac was probably well thought out.

I don't think saying "extend the advantage" is enough -- an explanation of the story is the floor and the way the advantage implicates the round is the gold standard.

I like impact scenarios

I dislike blips and would probably only vote on it if it's the only option

other stuff

i will bump up both debaters' speaker points if the 1ac begins at the round start time.

I think in round violence against people in the room can be a compelling ballot - I think there's a sliding scale of when I'm obligated to intervene and I will gladly end it shamelessly and seemingly arbitrarily, especially for children.

Clipping and other evidence violations ends the round with an L + lowest speaks; I will actively listen for clipping and am open to recordings or proof that someone else is clipping.

Please don't read win 30 in front of me

Emory ’26. Calvert Hall ’22. Yes, email chain: lcsrlobo@gmail.com. Chain should be named “Tournament -- Round # -- AFF Team vs Neg Team.”

Must read: Do line-by-line, judge instruction, warrant arguments, and narrow the debate as it progresses. Any ideological preference can be overcome by good debating. Do not overadapt; going for an argument that your judge goes/went for can often hurt you more than it helps. Led a lab at the DDI but haven’t done any research since then, so do not assume I know seemingly obvious terms or acronyms that evolved throughout the year. Inserting rehighlights is fine. I really don’t want to vote for dropped, arbitrary theory arguments. If you introduce an ethics violation you must stake the debate on it. Tech > truth on most everything that isn’t death good or clearly problematic.

Update 1/27: I have judged way too many debates that involve both teams spewing economic concepts with no explanation of what they mean, why they are true, etc. Please do not do this!

T: persuaded by reasonability when impact/internal link differentials are tiny, less receptive when big. “Good is good enough” alone doesn’t make much sense. Include caselists, do impact comparison, and answer defensive arguments contextual to your interp. It matters a lot to me that every word is counter defined but it matters more that a non-counter defined word has a concrete limits/ground case attached to it.

CPs: No judge kick unless told to. Evidence quality and impacted deficits matter lots. Links less is usually unpersuasive, sufficiency framing usually is. Condo- numerical interps are arbitrary, logic + risk aversion make sense to me, and fairness by default outweighs education. Substance > theory, but if you do go for theory slow down and answer arguments.

DAs: Relative risk precedes and determines turns case. Cards aren’t necessary if logical defense beats a DA, but I’d prefer ev if you have it. Love the politics DA.

Ks: I find myself voting for the team that best compartmentalizes the moving parts of the debate. I want framework to be as much of a wash as possible- “no Ks” and “you link you lose” are equally unpersuasive, so winning alt solves, impact outweighs, or links turn case claims are the path of least resistance in front of me. That's not to say I won't vote on framework, especially if large swaths of offense are dropped/mis-answered. Links should be somewhat unique and include rehighlights/pull lines. Am more persuaded by “aff outweighs” than the perm/link turn unless the alt is fiated. I am fundamentally unpersuaded to one-sentence 'role of the judge' and 'role of the ballot' arguments other than deciding who did the better debating and submitting it to tabroom, respectively. These arguments are often better explained as pieces of framework offense.

Planless: Anything can be an impact (aff or neg) contingent on comparison and turns case. Extremely persuaded by SSD and TVA when contextualized to AFF offense. It’s hard to toe the line between C/I + link turn and impact turn, so picking one or the other is best. KvK debates almost always come down to the perm, so win a theoretical objection (meh) or material DA (better) to it.

king ’23 | emory ‘27

chanhpark1129@gmail.com

hi, i'm chan. i am currently debating at emory. i did ld for four years in high school.

tech > truth. a dropped argument is a true argument.

policy: “i wholeheartedly disagree with michi okahata if you are aff and coralynn yang if you are neg.”

ld: "i have learned i am good for tricks, philosophy or theory. eloise so has told me nothing i know about this activity (note: we have the same argumentative predispositions)."

random thoughts:

---infinite condo is good.

---yes judge kick.

---nebel has my heart.

---politics da is fun.

---tricks fine. be upfront in cx.

---death k is my special interest.

glhf!

I'm a former competitor in Extemp and Public Forum. I've been coaching for around ten years. I teach world history in Atlanta. I haven't judged much policy debate but I've judged and coached plenty of speech, LD, Public Forum and World Schools.

Things I like: arguments with warrants, citations, consistent logic, argument extensions, relevant questions, speaking skills (good flow, clear, etc...), theory, speech roadmaps, evidence, etc...

Things I do not like: rudeness and arguments without citations and/or warrants.

Analytic arguments are fine for any of the debate events.

Worlds Schools - Do not spread.

Policy - Kritiks, disadvantages and topicality are all fine. I like line-by-line and clear organization in your speeches. For me, an ideal debate would be polite, insightful, and have some relevance to our current historical moment. It would represent the zeitgeist so to say.

If you have any questions at all, please feel free to ask.

mrobinson43@gmail.com

Lowell '23

Emory '27

(she/her)

Please add lowelldebatedocs@gmail.com to the email chain for policy, and eloiseso@gmail.com for LD

It's helpful if chains are titled: Tournament Round # --- Team Code [AFF] v Team Code [NEG]

2023-24 Econ Topic: I have next to zero topic knowledge --- please err on the side of over explanation, I have judged a couple rounds here and there on the topic.

LD: I have learned I am not good for tricks, philosophy or theory. Chan Park has told me all I know about this activity (note: we have none of the same argumentative predispositions). I did policy in high school, and now do policy in college, and have only judged a couple rounds of this event.

TLDR: I debated at Lowell for 4 years as a 2N/1A , was partners with Winthrop Neubarth, and was coached under the watchful eye of Mr. Debnil Sur. During this time, I debated on the national circuit as well as our local circuit (which was much more lay).

Any confusion about my paradigm or how I judge can be resolved by reading Debnil Sur's, Jessie Satovsky's, or Taylor Tsan's, as all of my thoughts about debate are the shoplifted, trickle-downed version of theirs.

• Conditionality is most probably good, sometimes went for the K on the neg, went for the states CP on an international topic, so pretty much cool to judge everything (absent pomo-esque, niche Ks, and a KvK debate, in all of which I will probably be very confused)
• Getting called judge icks me out — Eloise is fine!
• I really dislike debaters being condescending in round — I don’t think it makes you seem smarter, and it makes the round unbearable to debate in and judge. That being said, I understand that it’s a competitive activity and emotions can run high, but for everyone’s sake, please be respectful. What you take away from debate will not be crushing freshman with 10 off, but your teammate ditching you at NSDA for a week to go home early, or your friends getting roasted in an RFD and laughing about it for months after.

GGSA/Lay

I am totally down for a fast circuit style round, BUT if both teams do not want a fast round that's totally fine — lay debate is a good skill to cultivate and learn. I think judge adaptation and learning to read panels is good, so adapt however YOU think is best. I will most likely decide the debate on a technical level, because I don't think there's any more objective way for myself to evaluate a round with the background I have. At the end of the day, it is an activity in convincing a judge (or winning the panel), and this is the best way that I think you can get my ballot.

Other Stuff if You've Made it this Far

Read anything you want. If an argument is truly bad, do not instruct me to reject it, but instead just beat it.

I flow on computer. That being said, I am not the fastest typer, and have found that speeding through theory blocks, or having no distinction between pages will not be in your favor.

email: charlesswan06@gmail.com
pronouns: they/them

Just do what you do best. I probably won't clear you as long as you have a speech doc. Just go max speed. I compete in LD Debate specifically K's. If you run a trad in front of me v a K, please make sure you aren't dropping every argument the K creates. Similar for the K, make sure the clash is there (I need to know why extinction non-unique or why cap is bad for POC) I won't like it but I will vote down a K if I feel like you don't understand what you're reading. Quick prefs below:

1. K/Performance K's
2. Theory/K v K
3. Policy v K
4. Phil
5. Tricks (just don't read it)


I'll boost your speaks by 0.5 if you tell me your favorite rap song/book series. Racism, transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia etc. will also result in instant L's + speaks will be the lowest they can be.

email for questions

TLDR: Time yourself and do what you do best, and I will make my best effort to make a decision that makes sense. Extremely low tolerance for disrespect. Do not say death is good. Minimize dead time and read aesthetic cards for higher speaks. Be nice, stay hydrated, and have fun!

Email: Add poodog300@gmail.com. Set up the chain before the round starts and include the Tournament Name, Round, and Teams in the subject. Will start prep if you are taking too long. Please take the two seconds it takes to name your file something relevant to the round.

AFF Things: Know what you are defending and stick to it. I will vote on any theory push if debated well enough, but most things are reasons to reject the argument. Very bad for non-resolutional K AFFs.

CP/DA Things: #Stop1NAbuse. CPs should have solvency advocate(s). I think competition debates are fun. Not a fan of UQ CPs. Politics is always theoretically legitimate. Can vote on zero-risk.

T Things:Not the best so don't blaze through analytics. Explain what your model of debate would look like. Outweighs condo and is never an RVI. Plan text in a vacuum is silly but I will vote on it.

K Things: Agree with JMH: policy debaters lie and K debaters cheat. No good in K v. K. I will be very unhappy if you read a K in a Novice/JV division or against novices. Debate is a game and procedural fairness is an impact.

PF/LD Things: Paraphrasing is fine if you have evidence that can be provided when requested. Will not vote on frivolous theory or philosophy tricks. Ks are fine if links are to the topic.

Nice People: Debnil. Both Morbecks. Michael B. Cerny. Steve Yao. Delta Kappa Pi.

Mean People: Eloise So. Gatalie Nao. Chase Williams. Kelly Phil. Joy Taw.

TL;DR: Tech > truth. Theoretically will be comfortable voting for any argument you present to me, so run whatever you're best at, and don't over-adapt too much. Comfortable with speed, just include me on the email chain. My email is webb@muhs.edu.

Background: I debated policy and LD at Marquette High in WI before studying philosophy and economics at Yale, and am currently the LD coach at Marquette.

Random Argument Thoughts:

Phil: If running phil cases is your thing, great - I really enjoy philosophy as a subject, and love rounds in which a debater is clearly passionate about a thinker and knows their thought well. If, on the other hand, you're unable to coherently explain your framework in CX, I will likely tank your speaks. FWIW, I wrote my undergrad thesis on Heidegger and plan to write my master's thesis on Nietzsche.

LARP: Probably my favorite kind of arguments to judge because they provide the easiest means to substantively engage with the topic, which I think is a good thing. CPs should be competitive and have net benefits, DAs should have uniqueness, affs should have inherency, etc.

Ks: Go for it. Please just make sure you're able to explain what the links are and how they're contextual to the aff. Ideally, there will be an ROB or some framing work done to explain why the K comes first. I prefer when K affs are at least tangentially related to the topic.

Theory/T: Honestly, I get kinda bored during theory debates and am not great at flowing them if the shells/responses aren't in the doc. My least favorite debate rounds to judge are those in which one side blows up a 5 second blip that their opponent didn't flow. I have a pretty low threshold for buying responses to friv theory.

Tricks: A conceded argument is a conceded argument, so long as it is sufficiently warranted. However, this is the area of debate that I am least familiar with, so these will require you to hold my hand a little bit.

My judging paradigm:

STRONG Preferences:

--standing to speak

--look at judge during cross - x

--time your opponent

--spreading is fine

-clearly sign-post your constructions! V and VC must be clearly indicated, as well as contentions and subpoints

--CLASH is KING