Tabroom.com

ENDI T

2024 — Atlanta, GA/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Maggie Berthiaume Berthiaume-Steiner 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 26, 2024 at 6:11 AM EDT

Maggie Berthiaume Woodward Academy

Current Coach — Woodward Academy (2011-present)
Former Coach — Lexington High School (2006-2008), Chattahoochee High School (2008-2011)
College Debater — Dartmouth College (2001-2005)
High School Debater — Blake (1997-2001)
maggiekb@gmail.com for email chains, please.

Meta Comments

1. Please be nice. If you don't want to be kind to others (the other team, your partner, me, the novice flowing the debate in the back of the room), please don’t prefer me.

2. I'm a high school teacher and believe that debates should be something I could enthusiastically show to my students, their families, or my principal. What does that mean? If your high school teachers would find your presentation inappropriate, I am likely to as well.

3. Please be clear. I will call "clear" if I can't understand you, but debate is primarily a communication activity. Do your best to connect on meaningful arguments.

4. Conduct your own CX as much as possible. CX is an important time for judge impression formation, and if one partner does all asking and answering for the team, it is very difficult to evaluate both debaters. Certainly the partner not involved in CX can get involved in an emergency, but that should be brief and rare if both debaters want good points.

5. If you like to be trolly with your speech docs (read on paper to prevent sharing, remove analyticals, etc.), please don't. See "speech documents" below for a longer justification and explanation.

6. I am not willing or able to adjudicate issues that happened outside of the bounds of the debate itself — ex. previous debates, social media issues, etc.

7. In debates involving minors, I am a mandated reporter — as are all judges of debates involving minors!

8. I’ve coached and judged for a long time now, and the reason I keep doing it is that I think debate is valuable. Students who demonstrate that they appreciate the opportunity to debate and are passionate and excited about the issues they are discussing are a joy to watch — they give judges a reason to listen even when we’re sick or tired or judging the 5th debate of the day on the 4th weekend that month. Be that student!

9. "Maggie" (or "Ms. B." if you prefer), not "judge."

What does a good debate look like?

Everyone wants to judge “good debates.” To me, that means two excellently-prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues related to the policy presented by the affirmative. The best debates allow four students to demonstrate that they have researched a topic and know a lot about it — they are debates over issues that experts in the field would understand and appreciate. The worst debates involve obfuscation and tangents. Good debates usually come down to a small number of issues that are well-explained by both sides. The best final rebuttals have clearly explained ballot and a response to the best reason to vote for the opposing team.

I have not decided to implement the Shunta Jordan "no more than 5 off" rule, but I understand why she has it, and I agree with the sentiment. I'm not establishing a specific number, but I would like to encourage negative teams to read fully developed positions in the 1NC (with internal links and solvency advocates as needed). (Here's what she says: "There is no world where the Negative needs to read more than 5 off case arguments. SO if you say 6+, I'm only flowing 5 and you get to choose which you want me to flow.") If you're thinking "nbd, we'll just read the other four DAs on the case," I think you're missing the point. :) It's not about the specific number, it's about the depth of argument.

Do you read evidence?

Yes, in nearly every debate. I will certainly read evidence that is contested by both sides to resolve who is correct in their characterizations. The more you explain your evidence, the more likely I am to read it. For me, the team that tells the better story that seems to incorporate both sets of evidence will almost always win. This means that instead of reading yet another card, you should take the time to explain why the context of the evidence means that your position is better than that of the other team. This is particularly true in close uniqueness and case debates.

Please read rehighlightings out loud rather than inserting them.

Do I have to be topical?

Yes. Affirmatives are certainly welcome to defend the resolution in interesting and creative ways, but that defense should be tied to a topical plan to ensure that both sides have the opportunity to prepare for a topic that is announced in advance. Affirmatives certainly do not need to “role play” or “pretend to be the USFG” to suggest that the USFG should change a policy, however.

I enjoy topicality debates more than the average judge as long as they are detailed and well-researched. Examples of this include “intelligence gathering” on Surveillance, “health care” on Social Services, and “economic engagement” on Latin America. Debaters who do a good job of describing what debates would look like under their interpretation (aff or neg) are likely to win. I've judged several "substantial" debates in recent years that I've greatly enjoyed.

Can I read [X ridiculous counterplan]?

If you have a solvency advocate, by all means. If not, consider a little longer. See: “what does as good debate look like?” above. Affs should not be afraid to go for theory against contrived counterplans that lack a solvency advocate. On the flip side, if the aff is reading non-intrinsic advantages, the "logical" counterplan or one that uses aff solvency evidence for the CP is much appreciated.

What about my generic kritik?

Topic or plan specific critiques are absolutely an important component of “excellently prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues.” Kritiks that can be read in every debate, regardless of the topic or affirmative plan, are usually not.

Given that the aff usually has specific solvency evidence, I think the neg needs to win that the aff makes things worse (not just “doesn’t solve” or “is a mask for X”). Neg – Please spend the time to make specific links to the aff — the best links are often not more evidence but examples from the 1AC or aff evidence.

What about offense/defense?

I do believe there is absolute defense and vote for it often.

Do you take prep for emailing/flashing?

Once the doc is saved, your prep time ends.

I have some questions about speech documents...

One speech document per speech (before the speech). Any additional cards added to the end of the speech should be sent out as soon as feasible.

Teams that remove analytical arguments like permutation texts, counter-interpretations, etc. from their speech documents before sending to the other team should be aware that they are also removing them from the version I will read at the end of the debate — this means that I will be unable to verify the wording of their arguments and will have to rely on the short-hand version on my flow. This rarely if ever benefits the team making those arguments.

Speech documents should be provided to the other team as the speech begins. The only exception to this is a team who debates entirely off paper. Teams should not use paper to circumvent norms of argument-sharing.

I will not consider any evidence that did not include a tag in the document provided to the other team.

LD Addendum

I don't judge LD as much as I used to (I coached it, once upon a time), but I think most of the above applies. If you are going to make reference to norms (theory, side bias, etc.), please explain them. Otherwise, just debate!

PF Addendum

This is very similar to the LD addendum with the caveat that I strongly prefer evidence be presented as cards rather than paraphrasing. I find it incredibly difficult to evaluate the quality of evidence when I have to locate the original source for every issue, and as a result, I am likely to discount that evidence compared to evidence where I can clearly view the surrounding sentence/paragraph/context.

Milan Browning Hire 4 rounds

Thaddeus Cross Berthiaume-Steiner 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 10, 2024 at 7:54 AM EDT

Thaddeus Cross- 4th year debater at Woodward Academy

I want to be on the email chain: thadcross25@gmail.com

Feel free to ask any questions before the round!

Top 3 things about debate:

1. Be nice to people! - you can be persuasive and nice, there is no reason to be rude

2. Speak clearly! - if I can't flow what you're saying, there is no point in saying it

3. Clash! - if your arguments don't interact with the other team's and apply to the debate, they're bad arguments

My thoughts on arguments and performance:

Cross-Ex: do your own cross-ex, you should know what you are saying, tag teaming is fine, but lowers speaks

Disadvantages: I like good turns case arguments and timeframe comparison for impact calculus.

Counterplans: I like well thought out counterplans with solvency advocates, I dislike bad process CPs that don't have a topic area specific solvency advocate.

Conditionality: in a vacuum I think conditionality is good... my real gripe is with counterplans and kritiks that are not specific to the affirmative and do not have topic specific evidence... that being said, conditionality is a vehicle for the affirmative side to punish the negative for reading the poor quality arguments mentioned above, so my threshold for voting on conditionality is lower when the negative reads poor quality conditional advocacies (I am also very willing to vote on theory to reject CPs without topic specific evidence)... in the event that the negative reads high quality conditional advocacies, I am neutral on voting on conditionality, and good debating is necessary to sway me (in all honesty, I probably lean negative in this scenario, but good debating from both sides is still necessary to persuade me)

Impact Turns: I will not vote for non-unique impact turns, there needs to be a compelling argument why the affirmative is worse than the status quo. I think negative teams win too often on impact turns that are not unique.

Kritiks on the negative: prove to me why the aff is worse than the status quo and how the alternative resolves the links of the kritik. I lean aff on framework (weighing the aff is definitely best for education and clash), but that can be changed with good debating.

Kritiks on the affirmative: Nobody in the first year division should be reading a critical affirmative. You are not good enough to read one as a first year. It is not educational as first years are still learning the fundamentals of debate (learn the rules before you break them). Sadly, I believe in clash and cannot vote down first years immediately for reading a critical affirmative, but the threshold to vote negative on Topicality is very low. Please be topical so that everyone in the round can learn and become better debaters in order to generate the skills necessary to effectively debate a critical affirmative.

Pet Peeves (if you want good speaks, this is the "don't do it list"):

- "tag team" CX: it makes it feel like you don't know what you are doing

- taking forever to send out/start speeches: teams that move the round along efficiently will be rewarded with good speaks

-stealing prep: everything done in a debate should be on the clock, anyone at any age can understand this

- not understanding your arguments: I think anyone at any level can and should put in the time to learn about the arguments they are making to the point where they can effectively explain the argument in CX without reading directly from your cards

-avoiding clash: examples include... reading multiple bad arguments to skew your opponents; reading bad theory arguments; reading bad process counterplans; avoiding disclosure; avoiding commitments in CX; trying to confuse your opponents; reading bad evidence

-teams not flowing: poor flowing is obvious, and will result in lower speaks

Anhhuy Do Hire 6 rounds

Conor Feldman Poole-Tillman 6 rounds

Joshua Harrington Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 26, 2024 at 3:07 PM EDT

Paideia 2019

Michigan 2023

Currently Pursuing a Ph.D. in Philosophy at Emory University

Email: harrington.joshua33@gmail.com

TLDR:

Policy debaters lie and K debaters cheat. If you believe both of these, you should pref me in the 1-25 percentile. If you believe only one of these, you should consider how much you disagree with the other then put me somewhere in the 25-50 percentile. If you disagree with both of these, consider preffing someone else. Any and all thoughts in this paradigm are malleable and determined by the debating done in a given round. My ideal tournament is one in which any judge from any program can fairly adjudicate any argument without any prior ideological commitments.

I fully believe that the role of the judge is to consider the arguments presented and do their best to render a decision that best reflects the round presented to them. Throughout my debate career I have seen judges allow personal bias and apathy render meaningless the hours of time and energy that debaters give to this activity that we all have limited time in. Therefore, I will do my best to flow all arguments made, listen to CX’s, render a decision, and give comments that I think will aid you in future debates. With that being said, this paradigm reflects my current thoughts on policy debate and how I render my decisions.

If at any point you read this paradigm and think I am referencing a specific ideological position in an attempt to cement a singular vision of debate, I am not. I find equal flaws and absurd arguments across the ideological spectrum and equally dislike most of the arguments, practices, and trends rewarded in this activity. I have felt this sentiment for a few years now. Despite this reality, the one truth I consistently return to is that I love debate. I love this activity and will do my best as a judge to make this activity a welcoming place to all argumentative styles and positions. If you have any questions or concerns, I encourage you to reach out via email or even come up to me at a tournament and introduce yourself. Far too many of us are strangers and fail to reach out, so know I am more than open to dialogue.

Background:

I am currently pursuing my Ph.D. in philosophy at Emory University and plan to continue coaching alongside. I debated for 8 total years and during that time, I was lucky enough to debate across a range of argumentative styles and strategies. I found value in all argumentative forms but have also developed my own argumentative preferences in doing so. I strongly prefer strategies that open oneself to deliberation and defend controversial positions. I believe the issue of clash and what kinds of education we produce are important ones to explore, as I continue to judge. I believe the difference between a good argument and a bad argument is often about packaging and impact calculus and often vote against teams that poorly articulate concepts and the implications of the arguments presented. Similarly, I often vote against arguments not because they are wrong, but because they have not been packaged in a manner that is responsive and/or implicated enough for me to vote on. Once again, any and all arguments are open for me, but if I cannot articulate the impact of an argument and its implications on the other arguments presented, I am very unlikely to vote on it.

Online Debate:

I encourage you to have face cams on, at least during speeches and CX but understand if you are not comfortable with that or just choose not to. I'm a pretty good flow overall, but if there is a tech issue or the speech becomes unclear, I'll do my best to let that be known.

Case/impact:

I will likely read your 1AC and be annoyed if you claim to do things and solve impacts not supported by your current 1AC construction. Many people claim the 2AR lies, but I believe the lies start as early as 1AC CX. This is not to say that new articulations, warrants, and impacts cannot be accessed throughout the process of debating, but I am annoyed by AFF inconsistency. I do not care what 1AC is read or what 2AR is given, just do your best to maintain consistency.

In terms of engagement with case, your negative strategy should implicate the case page in some way. When I say “implicate”, I mean that in the loosest of definitions possible. This can stem from going for terminal defense all the way to fully mooting the 1AC via framework. Remember, no matter what, at the end of the round, a negative ballot will likely have to answer the question, “what should I do with the 1AC?”

DA’s:

Read any and all of them as you please so long as it is substantiated by evidence. These debates often come down to impact calc and card quality. In case vs DA debates, I find myself often voting aff on try or die. Your impact calculus should anticipate that you are defending the status quo and do your best to overcome that.

CP’s:

I am fine with any counterplan so long as it has a solvency advocate, or as long as I can intuitively understand how the counterplan would function. I am working to become a better judge at in-depth counterplan competition debates, but for now err towards over explaining rather than under explaining. Judge kick seems to be good, however if I am judge kicking a counterplan, I am likely to vote on case outweighs unless sufficient case mitigation.

Theory:

I very much do not want to judge condo debates. I default to three being good, four being up for debate, and five or more being bad. The common rebuttal to this format is “number of condo doesn’t matter/it is about the practice/no clear difference between four and five”. I recognize these arguments even though I believe they are said in bad faith. This is an instance where technical execution can overcome ideology for me. However, in most theory debates (including condo), the aff needs to prove in-round abuse in order to persuade me. With theory arguments besides condo, I am likely to just reject the argument and not the team.

I care very little about negative contradictions at a theoretical level. Performative contradictions are not reasons you get to sever your reps, but they can be reasons that I ought to be skeptical of certain arguments.

Kritiks:

Any and all kritiks are viable options when I am in the back. I believe links should either be in the context of doing the plan, the assumptions around particular impacts, or the failures of a particular understanding the 1AC relies on. I find most one card kritiks incredibly unconvincing. I like kritiks that are not just kritiks of fiat and will give you a speaker points boost for developing your kritik beyond “fiat is bad”. I read and enjoy kritiks that defend a theory of power and apply that theory to the link debate; those were the kritiks that I read as a debater.

Answering Kritiks:

For answering the kritik, I am very good for many of the classical policy argumentative pushes that people use against common kritiks. That includes but is not limited to arguments such as: humanism good, psychoanalysis wrong, state inevitable/good/will crackdown, scenario analysis good etc. When a floating PIK/utopian alt is read, I am likely to be convinced by the permutation and a fairness push on framework. Otherwise, I would highly recommend going for a clash impact over fairness against most kritiks.

Defending your 1AC and implicating the kritik is the most effective and likely path to the ballot. I believe the FW (fairness) + extinction outweighs is a more than viable 2AR to give. That said, 75% of the time debaters do not articulate these arguments in a manner that is responsive to the negative’s kritik. I believe it is bad to only have extinction outweighs and fairness-centric framework in your arsenal because there are instances where clash is more responsive and debating the warrants of the kritik will increase your chances of the ballot. In addition, you should be willing to push NEG team on what they are saying. Pressing on the truth of a theory, the relevance of a link, and the viability of the alternative are all more than viable strategies and far more enjoyable to judge than the “two ships passing in the night” trend of Policy vs K debates we currently have.

K AFF’s:

K AFF’s are likely to be most successful in front of me when they take a stance on the resolution and a defend a theory of power that can be applied to the NEG’s offense. What a theory of power constitutes can be very broad, but I am likely to make you defend the implications and solvency of your 1AC. What it means to solve something likely depends upon your 1AC choice, but I must know what you are trying to do to know whether it is good, worthwhile, or even possible.

My three preferred 2NRs vs K AFFs were the Cap K, Topicality, and Afropessimism. I write this to demonstrate, I believe every AFF is answerable, and sometimes the best answer is Topicality.

Similar to the case section, I am most likely to vote NEG when NEG teams make arguments that meaningfully implicate the case page. I think presumption is a necessary tool that is often poorly deployed. I believe it can supplement most strategies and can be won in 1AC CX by a creative 2N who asks the right questions.

I enjoy topicality debates, both going for it and answering it. Fairness and clash are both impacts that should be explained more than you currently plan on. Most of these debates come down to who best articulates the role of the ballot and its ability to solve both sides’ offense. If you are AFF, I am likely to want an answer to the question, “what is the role for the negative”. Through smart defensive arguments, a counter interp, and/or a large defense of an impact turn, I can be easily convinced to never vote on topicality. On the opposite side, you should use fairness/clash to implicate case impacts and beat logical inconsistencies in most 2AC’s to framework. Different K AFF’s have different strategic strengths and weaknesses; different K AFF’s also produce different discussions and forms of clash (maybe). Recognizing the most strategic deployment of the 1AC in addition to your most strategic articulation of fairness, clash, tva, ssd, etc. will increase your chances of getting my ballot.

For K v K debates, I am increasingly conflicted on my beliefs of whether the AFF gets a perm and whether that perm requires a net benefit. I believe it is possible for 2N’s to craft competitive alternatives that disagree with core parts of the affirmative. At the same time, I recognize the potential fluidity of many K AFF’s and am thus sympathetic to different visions of competition. This analysis must be done and resolved otherwise I will abide by traditional rules of competition and consider whether the alt is mutually exclusive with the AFF. I very much dislike floating PIKs, but depending on the PIK and relevant offense, I can be convinced that PIKs in the 1NC can be good.

Procedurals/Ethics violations/RVI’s:

The only procedural I am likely to vote on is topicality. The vast majority of non-topicality procedurals that I have been exposed to are incredibly arbitrary and lose to a 2AR on “we meet”. If you find an 1AC you feel as though you cannot debate with a substantive strategy, I encourage you to find a topicality violation based in the resolution or find a way to out cheat your opponent.

Similarly, when issues of evidence become potential grounds for the rejection of the team, I am highly likely to strike the card and/or the argument rather than the team. Similar to the condo section, I do not particularly want to judge these debates and very rarely am certain enough that the practice should end the debate and/or be grounds for voting a team down.

Lastly, I am a very poor judge for strategies dependent upon out of round interactions. I believe the competitive aspects of debate makes the conversations incredibly unproductive and conversations outside of round are necessary (when possible) to resolve such disputes.

Misc:

My ideal debater combines the persuasion and ethos of Giorgio Rabbini and Natalie Robinson, the technical skill of Rafael Pierry and Elan Wilson the work ethic of DML, Kris Wallen, Don Pierce, Hana Bisevac, and Pranay Ippagunta, the judging abilities of Corey Fisher, Vida Chiri, Devane Murphy, Shree Awsare, and Taylor Brough and the attitudes of Nate Glancy, Jimin Park, Ariel Gabay, and Ben McGraw. If you are able to display any of these qualities to the level that these debaters have, you have set yourself up to thrive in this activity.

Mere Hunter Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 24, 2024 at 4:14 AM EDT

Pronouns: he/him/his

merehunter2002@gmail.com - Please include me in your email chain!

Hello! I am a third year undergrad student at Emory University. I greatly appreciate when debaters share their pronouns, so please feel free to do so (it is encouraged)! While I am not a debater myself, I have been judging Policy for AUDL since August 2022 and have spectated countless rounds in PF, Policy, and World Schools. I strive to make debate a safer and more inclusive/ respectful space. Have a great round!

** Please note that any sexism, racism, homophobia, and/or transphobia in an argument will automatically result in the loss of the round.

My Preferences:

Tell me what you want me to weigh off of (magnitude, timeframe, risk, etc..)
In your 2NR/2AR tell me what my ballot should look like! Also, please weigh. The earlier weighing is introduced, the better! (For example, if your opponents dropped an argument, say so. This will make my decision much easier)
I will vote off the flow but it must be warranted (meaning if you properly extend your argument but it lacks explanation, I will not vote off of it). I am mostly a tech = truth judge
Signposting is required for good speaks, Off-Time Roadmaps are encouraged
Make a note to extend all arguments and if you are going to kick an argument, say so.
I prefer when teams collapse in later speeches, giving you more time to better warrant your arguments (quality > quantity)
I am not super familiar with Ks, theory, etc., but I will try my best to adjudicate them within the round as long as the warrant/impact is well-explained
If you take prep, please time yourself and report what you have remaining when you are ready to proceed in the round (I will also time, but I prefer that debaters do so as well)
Be respectful in Cross-Ex; do not be condescending

Clear and comprehensible speaking will result in higher speaks; also note that spreading is not required. I can handle medium speed.

David Kilpatrick Kilpatrick-Morbeck 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue July 2, 2024 at 7:37 AM CDT

The only things you really need to know:
1. If you berate, threaten, verbally or physically attack your opponents, I will end the debate and you'll receive a loss along with the lowest points Tabroom will allow me to assign.
2. Don't endorse self-harm.
3. Arguments admissible for adjudication include everything said from when the 1AC timer starts until the 2AR timer ends. Anything else is irrelevant.

4. I'm unlikely to vote for hidden dropped one line theory arguments. Hidden ASPEC, new affs bad, severance in a voting issue, X random CP type is bad etc. I accept that my commitment to the idea judges should assess debates as technically as possible and this notion might seem contradictory but big debates coming down to these types of arguments makes the activity worse and detracts from my belief that hard work is what should be rewarded.

Other than that, do what you do best. Technical debating is more likely to result in you winning than anything else.

I am a coach at The Harker School. Other conflicts: Texas, Emory, Liberal Arts and Science Academy, St Vincent de Paul, Bakersfield High School.

Email Chain: yes, cardstealing@gmail.com

You will receive a speaker point bump if you give your final rebuttal without the use of a laptop. I will give higher points to speeches with errors/pauses/inconsistencies etc. where the speaker debates off their flows than speeches that sound crystal clear and perfect but are delivered without the speaker looking up from their computer screen. If you flow off your laptop I will use my best judgement to assess the extent to which you're delivering arguments in such a way that demonstrates you have flowed the debate.

Ultimately, do what you do best. Giving speeches you're comfortable with is almost certainly a better path to victory than attempting to adapt to any of this stuff below. Debate is extremely hard and requires immense amounts of works. I will try to give you the same level of effort that I know you've put in.

Debate is an activity about persuasion and communication. If I can't understand your argument because what you are saying because you are unclear, haven't explained it, or developed it into a full argument-claim, warrant, impact, it likely won't factor in my decision.

The winner will nearly always be the team able to identify the central question of the debate first and most clearly trace how the development of their argument means they're ahead on that central question.

Virtually nothing you can possibly say or do will offend me [with the new above caveat] if you can't beat a terrible argument you probably deserve to lose.

Framework- Fairness is both an internal link and an impact. Debate is a game but its also so much more. Go for T/answer T the way that makes most sense to you, I'll do my best to evaluate the debate technically.

Counter-plans-

-spamming permutations, particular ones that are intrinsic, without a text and with no explanation isn't a complete argument. [insert perm text fine, insert counter plan text is not fine].

-pretty neg on "if it competes, its legitimate." Aff can win these debates by explaining why theory and competition should be separated and then going for just one in the 2ar. the more muddled you make this, the better it usually is for the neg.

-non-resolutional theory is rarely if ever a reason to reject the team. Generally don't think its a reason to reject the argument either.

-I'm becoming increasingly poor for conditionality bad as a reason to reject the team. This doesn't mean you shouldn't say in the 2ac why its bad but I've yet to see a speech where the 2AR convinced me the debate has been made irredeemably unfair or un-educational due to the status of counter plans. I think its possible I'd be more convinced by the argument that winning condo is bad means that the neg is stuck with all their counter plans and therefore responsible for answering any aff offense to those positions. This can be difficult to execute/annoying to do, but do with that what you will.

Kritiks

-affs usually lose these by forgetting about the case, negs usually lose these when they don't contextualize links to the 1ac. If you're reading a policy aff that clearly links, I'll be pretty confused if you don't go impact turns/case outweighs.

-link specificity is important - I don't think this is necessarily an evidence thing, but an explanation thing - lines from 1AC, examples, specific scenarios are all things that will go a long way

-these are almost always just framework debates these days but debaters often forget to explain the implications winning their interpretation has on the scope of competition. framework is an attempt to assign roles for proof/rejoinder and while many of you implicitly make arguments about this, the more clear you can be about those roles, the better.

-i'm less likely to think "extinction outweighs, 1% risk" is as good as you think it is, most of the time the team reading the K gives up on this because they for some reason think this argument is unbeatable, so it ends up mattering in more rfds than it should

LD -

I have been judging LD for a year now. The policy section all applies here.

Tech over truth but, there's a limit - likely quite bad for tricks - arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete. Dropped arguments are important if you explain how they implicate my decision. Dropped arguments are much less important when you fail to explain the impact/relevance of said argument.

RVIs - no, never, literally don't. 27 ceiling. Scenario: 1ar is 4 minutes of an RVI, nr drops the rvi, I will vote negative within seconds of the timer ending.

Policy/K - both great - see above for details.

Phil - haven't judged much of this yet, this seems interesting and fine, but again, arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete arguments.

Arguments communicated and understood by the judge per minute>>>>words mumbled nearly incomprehensibly per minute.

Unlikely you'll convince me the aff doesn't get to read a plan for topicality reasons. K framework is a separate from this and open to debate, see policy section for details.

PF -

If you read cards they must be sent out via email chain with me attached or through file share prior to the speech. If you reference a piece of evidence that you haven't sent out prior to your speech, fine, but I won't count it as being evidence. You should never take time outside of your prep time to exchange evidence - it should already have been done.

"Paraphrasing" as a substitute for quotation or reading evidence is a bad norm. I won't vote on it as an ethics violation, but I will cap your speaker points at a 27.5.

I realize some of you have started going fast now, if everyone is doing that, fine. However, adapting to the norms of your opponents circuit - i.e. if they're debating slowly and traditionally and you do so as well, will be rewarded with much higher points then if you spread somebody out of the room, which will be awarded with very low points even if you win.

Will Kochel Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed July 24, 2024 at 11:02 AM EDT

Decatur High School 2023

Macalester 2027

"Don't be annoying or rude. Do line by line. Flow."

This is my 8th year in policy debate. I've been successful in UDL, hs national circuit, and college debate. I am happy to judge any style of debate, but have a preference for debates that are fast and technical.

I flow on paper unless there isn't any available, and recently haven't been using a speech doc during speeches unless I've made an error on my end or I am noticing something off clipping wise. That means please be clear. If I can't understand an argument, I will not vote for it, and I am happy to vote down the "better debater" if I couldn't understand what they were saying in the first place. I have been in debate for a while and can understand spreading well, so this shouldn't be a deterrent to speaking fast, but go only as fast as you are clear. On the same note, clear signposting and organization is great too.

Please still addwmkdebate@gmail.com to the email chain.

Unless it's a cardless theory debate, send a document with relevant cards that have been correctly marked and actually read. If its egregious, I might doc speaks.

I try to approach the debate with a reasonably clean slate and stay tech > truth. That being said, well-warranted arguments based in the literature are more likely to win my ballot than arguments that are missing pieces or lack evidence even with uneven time coverage or evidence disparities.

I wont decide a high school debate round on an out of round issue. If there is a severe out of round issue where a team is uncomfortable or unsafe debating their opponents, I am happy to help you take it to tab, but I do not have the ability or desire to adjudicate issues which I was not present to and I don't think that a debate round is an appropriate place for that type of discussion.

I have mostly debated using policy arguments. I have zero problem with Kritiks and I vote for them often, but my experience in the literature may be lower than other judges in the pool. I'll judge these debates technically and vote on the flow.

I am intuitively very consequentialist. Its not impossible to get me to adopt a different ethical outlook, but that requires work. I don't think this makes me a bad judge for the K, but Ks are more persuasive when their links and impacts can be understood through a consequentialist lens.

If you want to go for reps/research/scholarship links, go right ahead, the question I ask myself often in these debates is "how can I answer if an affs reps/research/etc is good without weighing the effects of the aff?" If you can answer that question effectively or win weighing the aff is bad, I am probably an excellent judge for you.

I default to util framing, but am open to changing my default. Its much more persuasive for me if you have an alternate ethical system for me to use than just making critiques of util/consequentialism

When judging framework v K aff debates, I often think that the K impacts are substantially more persuasive than fairness, but the neg internal links (limits, predictability, etc) and defensive pushes (i.e. SSD or the TVA) are substantially more persuasive than the aff answers. I generally lean towards the team that can maximize these strengths and minimize their weaknesses.

I have limited faith that the ballot does much than signal a win or a loss in tabroom, but I can certainly vote otherwise.

I notice that I have a lower link threshold for non-fwk neg arguments vs planless affs. I can be convinced either way on if perms are legitimate or how they function.

Policy

While try or die framing is very persuasive to me, I also am weary of it. I think that many teams get away with frankly terrible impact cards and there should be a higher threshold for accessing "nuclear war" or "extinction". I don't think I would ever randomly intervene in this respect if it wasn't an issue brought up by the debaters, but pointing out evidentiary deficiencies can be a great way to tip the scales in impact calc.

I am pretty good for theory. Its hard to make me reject the argument and not the team for non condo theory without substantial work. I would vote for condo bad vs one conditional cp, or condo good with five. The number doesn't matter to me much and I'll evaluate the debate technically. I'd appreciate if you slowed down in these debates.

I don't hate process CPs and can vote either way on competition. That being said, some of the garbage that gets read in high school these days should lose to 15 second analytical takeouts. If the counter plan doesn't have a solvency advocate in the lit, I still 100% can vote for it, but the threshold for an aff response is also likely lower. Often times I feel that net benefits to those counterplans could get to zero risk with just analytical takeouts, please have actual internal links.

2NC counterplans out of add ons are fine. 2NC counterplans out of defensive 2AC answers to DAs or CPs are cowardly and an uphill battle, but I guess I could vote for it. Nothing on god's green earth will ever let you 2NC counterplan out of a straight turned DA if the aff says anything on it.

Case debate is a dying art. If you do it effectively, it can boost your speaker points a lot. DA + Case is a hard, but underrated strategy even on topics that are difficult for the neg. ADV CP + DA is nice too.

Speaker Points

My speaker points change drastically depending on the tournament size/strength and context. I have recently been giving very high speaks and will probably be lowering them somewhat.

Mikaela Malsin Malsin-Stupek

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 6:28 AM EDT

**standard operating procedure: 1) yes, if you are using an e-mail chain for speech docs, I would like to be on it: mikaela.malsin@gmail.com. The degree to which I look at them varies wildly depending on the round; I will often check a couple of cards for my own comprehension (because y'all need to slow down) during prep or sometimes during a heated cross-ex, but equally often I don't look at them at all. 2) After the debate, please compile all evidence that *you believe* to be relevant to the decision and e-mail them to me. I will sort through to decide which ones I need to read. A card is relevant if it was read and extended on an issue that was debated in the final rebuttals.

updated pre-Shirley, 2013

Background: I debated for four years at Emory, completed my M.A. in Communication and coached at Wake Forest, and am now in my 2nd year of the Ph.D. program at Georgia.

global thoughts: I take judging very seriously and try very hard to evaluate only the arguments in a given debate, in isolation from my own beliefs. I'm not sure that I'm always successful. I'm not sure that the reverse is true either. In the limited number of "clash" debates that I've judged, my decisions have been based on the arguments and not on predispositions based on my training, how I debated, or how my teams debate.

speaker points: I will use the following scale, which (while obviously arbitrary to some degree) I think is pretty consistent with how I've assigned points in the past and what I believe to represent the role of speaker points in debate. I have never assigned points based on whether I think a team "should clear" or "deserves a speaker award" because I don't judge the rest of the field in order to make that determination, I judge this particular debate. EDIT: I think the scale published for the Shirley is very close to what I was thinking here.

Below 27.5: The speaker has demonstrated a lack of basic communication.

27.5-27.9: The speaker demonstrates basic debate competency and argumentation skills. Some areas need substantial improvement.

28.0-28.4: The speaker demonstrates basic argumentation skills and a good grasp on the issues of importance in the debate. Usually shows 1-2 moments of strong strategic insight or macro-level debate vision, but not consistently.

28.5-28.9: Very solid argumentative skills, grasps the important issues in the debate, demonstrates consistent strategic insight.

29-29.5: Remarkable argumentative skills, understands and synthesizes the key issues in the debate, outstanding use of cross-ex and/or humor.

29.6-29.9: The speaker stands out as exceptionally skilled in all of the above areas.

30: Perfection.

Critical arguments: My familiarity is greater than it used to be but by no means exhaustive. I think that the "checklist" probably matters on both sides.

Topicality: I believe in "competing interpretations" with the caveat that I think if the aff can win sufficient defense and a fair vision of the topic (whether or not it is couched in an explicit C/I of every word), they can still win. In other words: the neg should win not only a big link, but also a big impact.

CP’s: Yes. The status quo is always a logical option, which means the CP can still go away after the round. (Edit: I am willing to stick the negative with the CP if the aff articulates, and the neg fails to overcome, a reason why.) Presumption is toward less change from the status quo.

DA’s: Big fan. At the moment, I probably find myself slightly more in the “link first” camp, but uniqueness is certainly still important. There CAN be zero risk of an argument, but it is rare. More often, the risk is reduced to something negligible that fails to outweigh the other team's offense (edit: this last sentence probably belongs in the all-time "most obvious statements" Judge Philosophy Hall of Fame).

Theory: RANT is the default. Probably neg-leaning on most issues, but I do think that we as a community may be letting the situation get a little out of control in terms of the numbers and certain types of CP’s. I think literature should guide what we find to be legitimate to the extent that that is both possible and beneficial.

Good for speaker points: Strategic use of cross-examination, evidence of hard work, jokes about Kirk Gibson (edit: these must be funny)

Bad for speaker points: Rudeness, lack of clarity, egregious facial hair.

Gabriel Morbeck Kilpatrick-Morbeck 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 8, 2024 at 11:32 AM EDT

Gabriel Morbeck

Strath Haven High School (PA) - 2014 to 2016

Emory University - 2016 to 2020

gsmorbeck28@gmail.com

I am currently an assistant coach at Emory and a part-time coach at Woodward Academy.

Please add me to the email chain!

If you're judged by me, here are the most important things for you to know:

1. I prefer affs that defend a topical plan. If they do not, I find framework arguments about fairness and limits very compelling. If you choose to not defend a plan, you have to play at least some defense on fairness/limits to make any education arguments compelling.

2. I think about debates through an offense/defense lens more than most judges. Unwilling to vote on presumption in almost every situation.

3. How I evaluate your explanation is shaped by how much quality evidence you have. I think I care about evidence quantity much more than most judges. Reading 5 cards on something in the 1AR is much more likely to get you back into the debate than explaining why you think its wrong.

4. Tech is important, but so is developing robust positions throughout the debate. If you go for something that the other team has hardly covered or dropped, but you have barely spent any time developing it, I can't guarantee I'll vote on it.

5. Strong neg bias on condo. Generally fine with 2NC counterplans, modifying/kicking planks, etc. I do think that neg teams need to say judge kick in the 2NR for me to consider it. I don't find most other counterplan theory arguments very compelling. You're much better off winning competition arguments than saying that a whole category of counterplan doesn't belong in the debate.

6. I'm not very good at evaluating T debates against policy affs. Go for it at your own risk.

7. I love politics DAs.

8. Debate is fun! I understand everyone cares a lot about wins and losses, but I appreciate debaters who remember that they're functionally just playing a game with their friends on the weekend. I'll enjoy judging you if you enjoy being in the debate!

LD paradigm

I debated policy for 6 years so debates that look closest to policy debates are what I probably want to see. I want to see debates about substance. Plans and counterplans are great, critiques too. Please do impact calc--at least the top 30 seconds of the final rebuttals should be devoted to it.

I care about evidence. I'd rather see you read more cards to build your arguments (throughout every speech except the 2AR) than rely on spin.

I'm meh for theory. From my understanding there is generally a lower threshold for theory args in LD than in policy, so if your are making impassioned appeals to fairness I probably do not feel as cheated as you do.

In K debates--do link debating. I care more about that than framework/role of the ballot args. The strength of the link affects how I view every other arg in the debate.

Values stuff--I generally lean towards util/consequentalism when thinking about debates.

Manny Navarrete Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 4:57 AM EDT

he/they

Coaching affiliations: Atlanta Urban Debate League Debate Ambassadors (Grady, Decatur, Drew Charter, etc.), 2018-2022; Emory University, 2022-

Scroll to the end for non-policy

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN - mnav453[at]gmail[dot]com

SEND OUT A TEST EMAIL 5-10 MINUTES BEFORE THE ROUND. Subject should be formatted something like: "Tournament Name and Year - Round Number - Aff team vs Neg team." For example, "ADA 2023 - Round 1 - Greendale Community College AA vs Springfield University BB"

ONLINE DEBATE NOTES: If I am judging you online, please go slower, especially when you are starting your speeches; my audio set up is not the best. You should also get some sort of confirmation that everyone is present before starting your speech. If I have my camera off, I am not there and you should wait until I have turned my camera back on before starting your speech or CX.

Feel free to email if you have questions about anything I've written here or if you thought of a question after post-round feedback.

I have organized the policy portion into a short version for the pre round and a long version for prefs. After that is some procedural stuff, i.e. how I handle ethics violations.

NDT 2024 UPDATES

I have not judged since the first semester, so I am pretty unaware of topic innovation and metagame shifts from Wake onwards. I am also trying to rely less on docs when flowing, so you may want to go slower than you normally do.

TL;DR (FOR THE PRE-ROUND)

If I'm judging you in person, then I would appreciate wearing masks when you're not actively speaking or eating/drinking. It's not a requirement and I won't change your speaks for it, but we are still living with COVID and I'd rather minimize risk if possible. Thank you for the consideration.

Do you and make choices. I am most experienced judging policy aff v policy neg and policy aff v critical neg debates, but I will try my best to judge the arguments in front of me in the ways that the debaters want me to. Just make sure to choose the most important arguments and resolve them in the final rebuttals. In other words not every argument on a sheet of paper needs to be extended into the final speeches.

I care a lot more about the flow then the card doc. I will read along during speeches, but I try not to read cards after the debate unless either the debaters have explicitly instructed me to do so or I feel that I have to in order to resolve an important argument. As a result, go slower and follow the line by line. That doesn't mean numbering every argument you make, but rather sticking to the arguments in the order they were originally presented in and explicitly saying so when you deviate from that order.

In the event that you want me to read cards, please do some evidence comparison: tell me how I should read, not just what, i.e. what does your ev assume that theirs doesn't, is their evidence rhetorically powerful instead of argumentatively substantive, etc. This can help in determining close debates.

I care more about big picture storytelling and substantive engagements than cheap shots and minor technical concessions. I'd rather decide a debate on the basis of well warranted evidence or great judge instruction than "multiple perms are a reason to reject the team".

If you're extending a negative advocacy (CPs & Ks), assume I know nothing about your mechanism/literature/whatever, and spend some time in the block just explaining the premise(s) of your argument.

2023-2024 college policy topic thoughts: Judged a few debates at Kentucky and UMW. More comfortable with the core affs/core DA's. Don't have a strong opinion on T questions.

LONG VERSION (FOR PREFS)

Still figuring myself out as a judge, so what follows are not my indelible Thoughts on Debate but rather what I happen to think at this moment in time. I will try my best to adjudicate the debate in the way(s) the debaters want me to. That being said, I think how someone approaches judging will be much more useful to you as you fill out prefs than the whats of their pre existing biases.

Most people seem to be debating to the 2AC/block and card doc instead of the 2NR/2AR and the flow these days. I don’t say this because I want to show off my flowing skills (I am pretty average with respect to flowing ability, perhaps slightly worse on a laptop), but because this an easy way to extend arguments but not resolve them. You can read all of your impact turns to T in the 2AC or every neg UQ card on politics in the 1NR, but extending all of them without saying why you’re extending them in a strategic sense makes it difficult to determine what the most important arguments are and how to resolve them. It also doesn’t help that most people blaze through their blocks without slowing down on tags, using transition words, or otherwise making their speech palatable to the human ear.

As such, I will try to reward strategic decision making and judge instruction more than just who read more cards. This does not mean I hate cards – obviously well-researched and well-prepared arguments are better than badly-researched and ill-prepared ones – but rather that, unless the debaters have instructed me to read specific cards or I feel I must do so in order to resolve an important argument, I will try not let the evidence speak in place of the debaters. I will note however that in close debates, good evidence comparison can be a massive help in resolving the debate. By “good evidence comparison” I mean telling me what parts of the evidence I should prioritize, what the implications of the comparison is, etc. In other words, evidence comparison is another aspect of judge instruction.

In terms of how this actually affects your debating, you should generally go slower and prioritize your flowability. Start the 2AR/2NR by isolating what is the most important argument to resolve and why resolving that one argument filters the rest of the debate. From there you pick the most important arguments on your flow, follow the line by line, and explain why each argument is a necessary component of my decision, and explain why I should resolve them in your favor. If you want me to read a specific card or set of cards, then you should tell me to do so.

What follows are my biases and thoughts on different genres of debates.

K aff v T: While I have run the occasional aff without a plan, most of my debate experience, whether competing or coaching, is policy affirmatives against either some version of CP/DA or K strategies. Most of how I think about debate follows on from this style. This does not mean that T versus an aff without a plan is an auto-win in front of me, but rather that I have less experience and knowledge about these types of affirmatives. I think that affirmative teams should at least have some relation towards the resolution and should try to offer some sort of model of the topic and/or debate in general. Conversely, negative teams need to explain why fairness/education/whatever your standard is would be a preferable to whatever standard the affirmative proposes. In other words, you can win fairness is an impact but still lose if you don't win it outweighs the aff's impacts. I am sympathetic to limits arguments, but only to the extent they resolve some kind of impact that interacts with the opponent’s impacts. TVA’s and switch side arguments can serve as useful tiebreakers for the negative. I also think these affs should defend some departure from the status quo.

Policy aff v K: I find that the two basic ways to win a K in front of me are either to explain why I should change my decision calculus from utilitarianism and/or consequentialism to a different model (“framework”) or why I should prefer a different way of approaching the world/politics than standard USFG action (“alt”). “Links as linear DAs” I don’t find super persuasive. With regards to more framework-type strategies, you need to explain the implications of winning framework: does it change how I evaluate the link debate? Is winning framework enough to justify a ballot? This also applies to the aff: you need to explain why I should care about your framework arguments beyond “now we don’t lose on framework”. I also find role of the ballot/role of the judge arguments not super useful, since they seem to be round about ways of doing framework and impact analysis; they most frequently appear in my RFDs when the other team has conceded them. For framework strategies, it may be useful to forefront your defense and minimize how much the other team can access their offense. For alt-type strategies, you should explain why the alternative is competitive with the affirmative's intervention and how it resolves the affirmative's offense and/or your offense. My biggest comment to affirmative teams is to pick the focus of disagreement in advance and not just let the negative dictate the terms of the debate.

Policy v policy: Please, go for "substantive" strategies and not cheap shots; those debates are maybe harder to execute well but are much more rewarding for everyone involved. Case debating is a lost art these days, between the rise of massive multi plank CPs that fiat everything possible and most people prioritizing impact defense in their 2NR case coverage. Cases tend to be weakest in their internal link chains and solvency, so negative teams should think about what the weakest part of the case is and not just what you have backfiles to answer. In other words I am willing to vote negative on presumption. I am not good for complex process CPs or CPs that fiat in offense. To go for that strategy, I find it requires a lot of theory debating, which I have more thoughts on below, but also the ability to impact your theory and competition arguments. I also don’t find “sufficiency framing” a useful argument in a vacuum since I don’t know what counts as sufficiently solving the case. I like DAs and impact turns, since they more or less force disagreement over some part of the case. Just make sure to highlight the important cards you want me to read after the round. You also need to explain why winning certain parts of the flow are enough to win you the debate even if you are losing other parts. For example, in a debate about de-development/degrowth, my ballot gets a lot easier to decide if you win that sustainability is more important than a transition or vice versa.

K v K: I have the least experience judging these kinds of debates. I need some sort of clear idea of what the aff does and why its intervention is important and a departure from the status quo, and the negative needs some reason why that intervention is not desirable. I would describe my knowledge of critical literature as broad but shallow: I have some idea of the main arguments of many of the most cited authors but either haven’t read most of the primary works or haven’t thought about how they function in the debate context. If you want to go for the cap k as a policy team versus an aff without a plan, you should explain why I should care about extinction impacts or the desirability of your political project as compared to the negative's.

T and Theory: I think of T against policy affs as fall back options for when substantive strategies don't work out. If you want to win T then you need to explain why the aff's interpretation of the topic so unlimiting so as to make the topic not worthwhile from either an education perspective or games playing one. Condo is pretty much the only theory argument for which I would reject the team. To win on condo as the aff you need to explain why the practice of conditionality makes debate uniquely worse, i.e. why is the skew in this instance worse than skew as a result of a lot of DAs and T violations. I think going for condo is all or nothing; there is no reason why 1 condo is good but 2 is bad, and so on. The negative should explain why the practice of conditionality makes debate uniquely better. I won’t judge kick unless told to do so. All that being said I think that CP theory is an underutilized toolkit for the aff considering how prevelant massive CPs are in contemporary negative strategies. I care more about functional competition than textual competition, at least with respect to process CPs.

PROCEDURAL STUFF (POLICY)

An accusation of an ethics violation i.e. clipping will result in the immediate stop of the round. The accusing team will need video/audio evidence of this accusation.

I am not fond of "insert this re highlighting." If you think the other team's evidence actually concludes in the opposite direction of their argument, you should be confident in re reading the evidence. The only insertion of evidence I would prefer is if your evidence is a chart/graph/visual information, something that doesn't translate into words/speech very well.

Arguments I will never vote on: death/self harm good; pref sheets args; out-of-round incidents

LD-SPECIFC STUFF

tl;dr I don't know much of the activity and thus you should approach like in a "policy-esque" way. Additionally, it would behoove you to do less theory work than you might be used to. Overall, my advice is to pref me only if you are comfortable with a standard policy debater judging; if not, then don't.

I have very little understanding of the nuances of the activity, i.e. what constitutes a well-constructed case for me might be different than what is generally considered to be such in the community. I'm also a policy debater by training and so I probably lean towards "progressive" trends than some (as in, I am fine with spreading). I also have ZERO knowledge of the topic and you should be prepared to break down its complexities for me. One other thing: I will probably use my policy speaker point scale from the beginning of this philosophy but I have no idea if that scale is typical of current LD numbers or not.

PF-SPECIFIC STUFF

PLEASE kick scenarios by the end of the debate; my ideal debate has each side go for 1-2 impacts and most of the final focuses being spent on impact comparison (Mr. T, for example).

Most crossfires I have seen are filled with bad or leading questions. Instead of asking "You failed to respond to our card about (insert issue here), so doesn't that mean we win" you should be asking questions like "why should the judge prefer your evidence over ours"

Pet peeves - offenders will be docked speaks:

don't say "we tell you about (insert issue here)": just say what you want to say about the issue

DO NOT END YOUR SPEECH WITH "FOR ALL THESE REASONS I STRONGLY URGE A (INSERT SIDE HERE) BALLOT": I know what side people are on and will intuitively understand what you say is a reason to vote for you...

Laurel Pack Kilpatrick-Morbeck 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon May 27, 2024 at 10:43 AM CDT

Laurel Pack (she/her) Varsity public form debater 2020-2023. Current JV policy debater at Samford University.

Email: laurel.a.pack@gmail.com (use this email for any questions before round and for the email chain)

Policy Paradigm

Line-by-line/reasons to prefer are super important to me when extending T into the block. However, I ask that you slow down and annunciate clearly on the T arguments that aren't carded. I also generally lean aff on T, so long as they prove being neg isn't impossible and there is a substantial literature base.

Condo:

Contradictory condo is your strongest story if you run condo. Otherwise, unless condo is not responded to at all (or not responded to sufficiently) I will probably have a pretty difficult time voting on condo over substance of the round.

CP Theory

CPs need to be competitive with the aff and the neg has to make that clear. If I think the CP can happen in the same world as the aff, I probably won't vote neg on the CP. I also don't belive in judge kick, the debater should have to do the strategic work in the round and decide if the CP is worth going for. I also think there should be more focus on CP framing, should the CP solve all of the aff to be sufficient? Not sure. Don't ignore the top-level stuff.

Kritiks:

I think affirmative should defend a plan, ideally this is a topical policy action. I am not a judge who is comfortable judging a kritikal or performance aff. I am also probably not a good judge for a k v k round. I am most comfortable evaluating the K on the neg. I also prefer alts to be specific. My ideal alt would be to advocate for a specific movement or mindset that can proveably resolve the impacts of the aff. Please don't make the alt "reject the aff." The alt should do something. Finally, please don't assume I'm an expert on the literature base you're reading from, you will probably have to walk me through the links clearly and make sure you spell out how we get from point a to point b.

Final Thoughts:

Don't be unethical. No arguments like climate change good. If you read authors who are morally questionable I will absolutely drop the card and will be willing to listen to a procedural about it. I also won't read cards after round unless there is a dispute about what the card says/what it means.

PF Paradigm

TLDR:

The team speaking first should start an email chain with everyone so exchanging cards is easier. If you're disclosing cases, the case should be a PDF or a WordDoc.
If your team is doing the second rebuttal, you MUST frontline (spend about a minute on it). No new frontlines should be read in the second summary.
Your final focus should only be going for 1 of the arguments presented in constructive. Pick a scenario and stay with it, this should be done in summary.
When you are going for an argument in final focus, every part of it should be extended (uniqueness, link, and impact). An argument without any of those components is not very useful.
If someone reads a turn, even if you are not going for that argument, you HAVE to respond to the turn before you drop the contention. I consider it offense if the other team decides to point it out.
SUPER IMPORTANT: Don't look at me in cross exe when you're answering a question, the feeling is reminiscent of when people sing happy birthday to you but you don't know what to do.
Be nice :)
I tend to make a lot of facial expressions, please consider them ALL neutral. I have really bad eyesight, most of the time if I look like I'm confused or angry, I'm probably squinting to look at something on my computer. I also worry that I tend to look angry but please don't let this discourage you (I'm most definitely not angry).
Ask me any questions about my paradigm before the round if you have any, I'm always happy to explain things

More info:

Constructive: Not much to note, go as fast as you feel comfortable. Warning: I find it really difficult to vote for cases with just one contention (unless it has multiple subpoints) I also very rarely see good cases with three contentions. In 99.9% of cases, the third contention is just one card which wastes time (this time could be better spent reading another card on either of the first contentions).
Rebuttals: A strong line-by-line is key to the ballot. You should have one or two responses to every point of their argument (uniqueness, link impact) (Signposting is also really important here, please tell me exactly what argument you're addressing). When you give an off-time roadmap, stick to it. Don't say you're starting on their case then start time and go to your own case. This was mentioned above but if you're going second, frontline pretty please.
Summary: Having a good summary is key to not losing a round. My ideal order of a summary would be collapsing (identifying which scenario your side is focusing on for the rest of the round + responding to any turns read), then immediately weighing the scenario you are going for, and then REALLY in-depth frontlining on everything they read against it in rebuttal. Then, move to their case, talk about why you outweigh any of their scenarios (pre-requisite or turns case arguments are really useful here), and then extend your rebuttals. Note: Summary is a super difficult speech, don't feel like the round is over if you miss one of these things, all will be well. Also, I'm really suspicious of new arguments in the first summary (unless they're frontlines) and I do not accept new arguments in the second summary. If the other team points out you made a new argument in second summary, it won't be evaluated. I will also probably evaluate that argument last, even if they don't point it out.
Final focus: Extend all the parts of the argument/scenario you're going for and then WEIGH. Literally, be so dramatic during this speech. Ideally should be split half and half between your case and their case, covering their case should focus on what you think are the MOST devastating arguments (arguments they didn't respond to or the ones you find most compelling)
Cross exe: Please please please be nice. There is nothing I hate more than a super-aggressive cross exe. You can be witty, and sassy, and funny, but there is a very big distinction between that and angrily dominating the conversation. Also, cross exe is binding if the other team points it out (i.e. don't concede the entire case in cross because you think it won't matter).
Misc. Thoughts: I am constantly saddened by the state of PF. Debates become really repetitive and very surface-level. Clash and creativity are the easiest way to win my ballot. I will 9/10 prefer the smarter, well-thought-out, and compelling argument to one that's super polished but really insufficient in warranting or links.

Madeleine Pelli Hire 1 rounds

Don Pierce Malsin-Stupek 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 21, 2024 at 3:32 PM CDT

Please put me on the email chain: donpierce2025@gmail.com and debatemba@gmail.com.

Tech > Truth

Recently, I have become generally more K oriented, but I have made both policy and K arguments, so I have some knowledge in both areas. I will do my best to follow along to any argument that is made. That being said, if the argument has not been explained to the point where I would feel comfortable explaining why I am voting for it at the end of the round, I am not going to vote on it. Explain acronyms.

My ballot generally will start with framing/impact calc and/or framework, where you should be comparing/debating out both which sides framing is better and what that means for my ballot. This sets a threshold for what I should look for on the other pages and minimizes intervention. I can be convinced to build offense from the bottom up, meaning I consider each level of offense as a yes/no question and then consider who access more offense at the end of that chain and then do framing/framework/impact calc, but that is not my default.

Policy

The most important things:

Theory---I will be fine if you want to go for theory but please slow down on it especially if you don't send analytics in the speech doc. Outside of conditionality, I generally don’t think theory arguments are reasons to reject the team, and it would be difficult to persuade me to vote on it.

Ks---you can read Ks in front of me but do not use excessive jargon or just assume that I understand the underlying theory. The framework debate is often ignored or not fleshed out, which means I generally have to give the aff their plan and the k their links.

K affs---I have read both policy affs and K affs, so you should run what you want to run in front of me. The focus of these debates need to be on clashing and comparing the two sides. Avoiding excessive jargon and using many examples will be the most useful. I generally think procedural fairness is an impact, but I can be persuaded away from it, like most things.

Other things:

CPs---they are great. If you say judge kick and say I could in the 2nr, you should do that impact calc/framing for both a ballot with the cp + da and da + case defense. Generally speaking, I think the literature determines which counterplans are legitimate and which aren’t, but I can be persuaded that against that

DAs---also great. DA plus case is an underrated strategy vs bad affs.

Ts---a good T debate is really fun to listen to, but it requires a lot of judge instruction in order to not intervene.

I have no background in PF. My policy paradigm will help shed light on what I have the best background on, content wise, but ultimately, I am fairly open to anything. Given my lack of background in the activity, I will need more explanation on arguments/acronyms that are isolated to the activity.

I flow closely and track argument consistency throughout the round. If the argument you are going for is brand new in your last speech, I will be very skeptical of it.

RW Poole Poole-Tillman 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue June 11, 2024 at 11:39 AM EDT

"RW," please and thank you. I use the "he" pronoun series.

Email: poole.ronald344@gmail.com - Please add me to the email chain

In general, I don't care what you do-- notwithstanding overt harm. I only wish for you to do whatever it is you do, well. You are an intellectual, so you will be held responsible for your performance and the scholarship you choose to forward. I'm a young judge/coach, yes, but I've been doing debate long enough to genuinely not be surprised by anything you could do in round. This is not an invitation to shenanigans. Let's all be fr.

I flow. I'll read speech docs, sure, but I flow... 'If I didn't flow it, it didn't happen' is my default. It's also a cautionary note to speed. You can turn yourself blue reading through your blocks so long as you don't expect me to understand you. You should slow down to a conversational pace when you're saying something I should flow. Otherwise, we'll just be looking at each other.

As for the technical aspects, everyone has equal access to competing interpretations. This is an important note on FW, T, the K... all of it. Folks should come prepared to defend their model of debate in the context of the opposing model presented by the opposing team. That's debate...

You can mark me as a 1-3 for pretty much all K & Theory debates (so long as you are absolutely sure you can out-tech your opponents). These debates-- K v. K, (some) performative debates, debates about debate-- have the potential to be super interesting and enriching for the game. They, most often, are not. Since I don't know that this can be helped entirely, my suggestion to you is to be clear and to make it make sense-- defend your assumptions to get access to your impacts. Given today's average K-team, that's the very least you could do for me to be engaged. Ultimately, I'll only consider smart, thorough offense on the flow-- y'know, the line-by-line. High theory stuff (à la Baudrillard, D&G, Bataille, and their others) is cool, but I tend to vote based on advocacy, i.e., through some definitive method which expands the (educator) framework I'm inclined to default to, not how well you can explain the ineffable in a 3 or 4-minute 2NR overview.

*Flag your analytics for me. Knowing what's you versus your authors is important for assigning speaks.

While I'm not a fan of all-out policy showdowns, since I (regrettably) end up sifting through massive speech docs, checking cards in the post-round, trust that I can keep up. On the DA, uniqueness and the link should be bracketed to tell a story. 'Uniqueness controls the link'-- I need to be clear on how uniqueness and the link interact... Another cautionary note to reading generic disad sequences, since DAs should be intrinsically related to the action of the Affirmative advocacy. I'm not so sanctimonious that I can't at least meet you half way (re: generic offense), but it is your responsibility to explain why your disad outweighs the advantages of the plan, convincingly. These thoughts similarly apply to how I vote on the CP. There should be some intrinsic connection between the plan and counterplan. There are minimum competitive thresholds (re: clarity, reasonability, functionality, and solvency) a CP should pass for me to even consider a "net benefit."

Adhitya Ravikumar Hire 1 rounds

Ike Song Poole-Tillman 6 rounds

Becca Steiner Berthiaume-Steiner 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 4:39 PM EDT

Current Associate Director of Debate at Emory University

Former graduate student coach at University of Georgia, Wake Forest University, University of Florida

Create an email chain for evidence before the debate begins. Put me on it. My email address is lace.stace@gmail.com

Do not trivialize or deny the Holocaust

Online Debates:

Determine if I am in the room before you start a speech. "Becca, are you ready?" or "Becca, are you here?" I will give you a thumbs up or say yes (or I am not in the room and you shouldn't start).

I get that tech issues happen, but unnecessary tech time hurts decision time.

Please have one (or all) debaters look periodically to make sure people haven't gotten booted from the room. The internet can be unreliable. You might get booted from the room. I might get booted from the room. The best practice is to have a backup of yourself speaking in case this occurs. If the tournament has rules about this, follow those.

DA’s:

Is there an overview that requires a new sheet of paper? I hope not

Impact turn debates are fine with me

Counterplans:

What are the key differences between the CP and the plan?

Does the CP solve some of the aff or all of the aff?

Be clear about which DA/s you are claiming as the net benefit/s to your CP

"Solving more" is not a net benefit

I lean neg on international fiat, PICS, & agent CP theory arguments

I am open minded to debates about conditionality & multiple conditional planks theory arguments.

Flowing:

I strongly prefer when debaters make flowing easier for me (ex. debating line by line, signposting, identifying the other team’s argument and making direct answers)

I strongly prefer when debaters answer arguments individually rather than “grouping”

Cross-X:

"What cards did you read?" "What cards did you not read?" "Did you read X off case position?" "Where did you stop in this document?" - those questions count as cross-x time! If a speech ends and you ask these, you should already be starting your timer for cross-x.

Avoid intervening in your partners cross-x time, whether asking or answering. Tag team is for professional wrestling, not debate.

Public forum debate specific thoughts:

I am most comfortable with constructive speeches that organize contentions using this structure: uniqueness, link, and impact.

I am comfortable with the use of speed.

From my experience coaching policy debate, I care a lot about quantity and quality of evidence.

I am suspicious of paraphrased evidence.

I like when the summary and final focus speeches make the debate smaller. If your constructive started with 2 or 3 contentions, by the summary and final focus your team should make a choice of just 1 contention to attempt winning.

Because of my background in policy debate, it takes me out of my comfort zone when the con/neg team speaks first.

Johnnie Stupek Malsin-Stupek 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 11:20 AM EDT

Head Debate Coach - University of Georgia

jstupek8@gmail.com

Top Level

- Clarity and flowability are the strongest qualities that drive my speaker points. I encourage debaters to adopt speaking practices that enhance their flowability such as: structured line-by-line, slowing down when communicating plan or counterplan texts, emphasizing particularly important lines in the body of evidence, and descriptively labeling off-case positions in the 1NC.

- Arguments do not always need cards to be impactful. I care about logical analytic arguments, particularly those that are set up well in cross-examination.

- Plan and counterplan text vagueness is an under-exploited issue. As such, I'm likely more amenable to specification arguments than your average judge.

- While no judge is a true blank slate, I have and am willing to vote on basically anything.

Disads

- I begin resolving these debates by comparing the relative risk of the internal link chains of the disadvantage and the advantage(s) the 2AR went for. All things being equal, I frequently resolve these debates without turning to questions of impact comparison or impact interaction. The advice I often find myself giving after debates is that second rebuttalists should spend less time on traditional impact calculus or turns case arguments and more time making sure you win your advantage or disadvantage. Of course, all things are not always equal and second rebuttalists should point out when there's a tangible timeframe or magnitude distinction between impacts.

- Brink + link uniqueness is not an adequate substitute for traditional uniqueness and link claims.

- Always been a fan of agenda politics, probably always will be.

- For affirmatives reading framing arguments, your time is almost always better spent making substantive answers to the disadvantage rather than meta arguments about the complex nature of disadvantages.

Counterplans

- Please stop starting your counterplan 2ACs with consecutive permutation arguments delivered at top speed. This is the single most difficult thing to flow properly in my experience. The easiest fix here is to read cards in between each different permutation and slowing down when communicating perm texts.

- I have no inherent aversion to process counterplans. I think that at times these debates can be really interesting, especially when contextualized to the topic.

- I still believe in an abstract academic sense, that the benefits of conditionality outweigh its costs. This issue, however, is so rarely evenly debated that more affirmative teams should consider going for conditionality bad.

- My default view is that counterplan theory arguments that are not conditionality bad are reasons to reject the argument rather than reasons to reject the team. This presumption can be overcome, but the bar is high.

- My default view is that I will judge kick the counterplan and compare the aff vs. the status quo. I can and have been persuaded not to do so when the affirmative team advances that argument.

Topicality vs. Policy Affirmatives

- Including resolutional language in your plan text does not in and of itself persuade me the aff is topical.

- Caselists are incredibly useful for articulating just how under or over limiting a particular interpretation is.

- For affirmative teams, I would rather hear impacts about the benefits of a broader topic for affirmative innovation and flexibility than appeals to education about the affirmative's content. I am unlikely to be persuaded that I should reject a negative topicality interpretation because the affirmative would have a difficult time constructing solvency deficits to a particular counterplan under said interpretation. That argument seems to be a theoretical objection the counterplan rather than a topicality standard.

- Teams articulating a "precision" standard should take care to clearly explain what their threshold for a "precise" interpretation is, why their interpretation meets that threshold, and why the opposing team's interpretation does not.

Kritiks On The Neg

- I care about the alt quite a bit. Teams that have persuaded me to vote for kritiks have often done so on the basis of strong alt debating.

- The way "framework" arguments are currently deployed is somewhat puzzling to me. Most aff/neg framework standards seem to get more at the question of "how much" weight I should give to a particular impact than to whether I should consider a particular impact in the first place. I've never been persuaded that framework means I don't consider the merits of the 1AC. I've equally never been persuaded that framework means the alt has to be policy.

- Kritiks that derive their offense from the affirmative not doing enough or being too incremental are vulnerable to permutations.

- Alt causes are not link arguments. Link arguments are not "disads."

Planless Affirmatives

- I have been persuaded that the aff doesn't have to read a plan or say USFG should, but I have not encountered a situation where I have been persuaded that the aff doesn't have to be topical. Having some sort of counter-interpretation, even if it's just "resolved means to analyze," is important for how I ground and resolve aff arguments about the neg's interpretation. I want to hear in detail about what the affirmative's model of debate might look like. I would rather hear one or two conceptual impact turns to the negative's model, than eight different "DA's" that are difficult to distinguish between.

- For the negative, I would rather hear arguments about the value of procedural fairness than than some of the more "substantive" framework arguments.

- The vocabulary of "internal link" and "impact" is not particularly useful in a debate about theory. Certainly the negative needs to explain why fairness is a valuable concept, but that explanation does not have to involve the same kind of cause and effect logic chain we encounter in advantages or disadvantages. The "just an internal link" pejorative often applies just as well to arguments forwarded by the affirmative. As a whole, these debates would be so much better if no one used the words "impact," "internal link," or "disad."

Speaker Points

- I hesitate to offer some sort of static scale for speaks because I think that speaker points are relative and I am constantly reflecting on whether my speaker point distribution is in line with the rest of the judging community.

- Debaters who debate technically and make good strategic decisions will receive good points.

- Debaters who debate with style (humor, passionate rebuttals, exceptional clarity) will receive good points.

Closing Thoughts

If you've made it this far, I want to take a moment to express my sincere gratitude for the work you do as debaters and coaches. I know how hard everyone works to prepare for debates and I strive to provide judging and feedback that lives up to that standard.

"As I look back at the contours of my own life, many things about it I would change if I could. But not this. The long hours, the demanding schedules, all that goes into effective debating and effective coaching, the lost weekends. I would do it all again. I would do it all again not for any particular tournament or trophy, not for the specifics of any topic, not even for the intellectual benefits debate bestows upon its participants, critical thinking and the like. I would do it all again for the chance to work with hard-working, dedicated, and committed students like those assembled in this room." - Scott Deatherage

Ahsan Tahirkheli Malsin-Stupek 6 rounds

Elysia M Tillman Poole-Tillman 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed June 12, 2024 at 8:51 PM EDT

Email chain: angrycornpeople@tabroom.gay | I want to get the same version of the speech doc that the other team does. If you are looking for email chains/speech docs from rounds I have judged (or anything else that requires a response), email me at acpdebate.forthis@simplelogin.co instead.

Name is pronounced ee-LEE-see-uh /iːliːsiː.ə/ (I don't care what you call me in the round but if you choose to say my name please say it correctly)

My conflicts are with Atlanta Urban Debate League teams (Decatur, Druid Hills, North Atlanta) + anyone committed to attend Emory.

___

Virtual debate: My home Internet sometimes doesn't like me, so feel free to let me know if I sound weird or look laggy. I keep my camera on, so assume I'm not at the computer/ask if I'm there if you don't see me (sometimes I forget about my webcam cover).

Intellectual property rights topic: Big topic means I'll probably lean neg on all non-condo CP theory.

____

tl;dr - I'm good for most styles of debate and am willing to vote on pretty much anything but disclosure theory and Heidegger. I regularly vote on arguments I disagree with. K debaters probably want to pref me higher and people who hate all kritikal arguments probably want to pref me lower or strike me.

___

Run whatever makes you comfortable. I will do my best to vote based on the flow and check my biases. That said, you should probably know what those biases are:

I flow on paper and prefer not to look at speech docs. This means you should actually slow down on things like tags and analytics. I mostly only look at docs now to make sure one team hasn't altered the file to be harder for the other team to read or to give more specific feedback on the ballot.
I get really grumpy about unorganized speeches. Speeches should follow the roadmap and have clear signposting. Tell me what to call your offcase positions--if I don't know what to title my flows I will be grumpy for the rest of the round.
Speed is fine but a lot of y'all are not nearly as clear as you think you are. You should use transition words regardless of what speed you go at so I know when I should be writing something down (I cannot audibly distinguish emphasized text in the body of a card from a new tag).

Please send speech docs as attached files (preferably as .docx/Word files rather than PDFs) and not links. I am happy to help you figure out how to export/download your Google Doc.

Dropped args = true args, but dropped claims are not the same as dropped args.
Prep ends when you tell me you're saving and sending the speech doc. Honor system. I will always time prep myself, and if the times you say are much higher than mine, I will assume you are trying to steal prep. Any cards marked during the speech should be marked and sent out immediately after. I won't force CX to start until the other team has received a marked copy but I won't take prep while you mark it. If prep is not running and no one is speaking you should not be typing or writing.
I think I tend to give lower speaker points than average, sorry. Sub-27 means you did something very offensive.

Specific arguments**:
** Conditionality is not inherently good or bad. I do not have a set number of conditional advocacies I think should be allowed. Super contradictory positions I feel are not useful for education or fairness. Time skews are real but not an easy voter (I'd rather the aff point out how flimsy an underdeveloped argument is when answering it than try to win the round on condo; I agree with the neg position that time skews are possible/inevitable with or without condo). My default way of enacting RANT is to stick the neg with the position unless I'm told to do something else.
** Topicality (v policy affs): I care much more about if the plan is topical than if it's predictable (meaning I like unpredictable, creative, but topical affs and am willing to vote on T against a predictable, core aff that everyone knows). If you have a dubiously topical but predictable aff, you should spend more time telling me why predictability or whatever other standards you have are stronger internal links to fairness and education. Having a good caselist and/or Topical Version(s) of the Aff will go a long way in front of me. I will probably think your violation is ridiculous if it's not based on specific word(s) in the resolution or is based on generic words like "substantially", "increase/expand/decrease/reduce", or "should". I really hate T-subsets, please don't make me vote for it.
** PICs: Running a PIC isn't automatically a voter for me, but if specific in-round circumstances make things abusive, talk about it! (I think PICing/PIKing out of specific performances or authors on a K Aff can be a really good and exciting strategy in certain situations) I tend to either love (specific, creative) or hate PICs. I hate Word PIKs so much. If the whole perm defense is severance bad you better be able to actually explain what the perm specifically severs and why it affects fairness/education in the round.
** Generally the only CPs I like are single-plank advantage counterplans, but I don't think others are bad strategically or invite strong theory violations (except counterplans with lots of planks; if there are more planks than cards in the 1NC shell, go for theory in front of me).
** My default ROJ/ROB is to determine whether or not to do the aff and let the negative decide to argue against doing the aff however they want. Yes aff gets fiat, yes neg gets links to stuff beyond the plan text. That said, you can absolutely tell me what I should do in the round. I've run really funky/out-there FW args and am game for yours. I tend not to like FW interpretations that try to completely erase one side's argument. I particularly hate the "versus status quo or competitive policy option" 2AC interpretation but also don't believe in K FWs that tell me not to even consider the aff. Good K debates should be able to use the logic of the K to explain why the affirmative is outweighed/can't solve/reproduces certain things/etc.; I'll use one of these interpretations if it's the only one extended or wins reasons to prefer, but I don't think they're good for debate. I tend to care way more about education than fairness.
**I will very happily vote neg on presumption if you're winning the case debate.
** K affs: I'm game for K affs with or without a plan (it should still be clear from the 1AC what an aff ballot means), but you need to defend why not being topical is good/doesn't matter and your aff needs to actually solve impacts that you talk about in the 1AC. Your ROB/FW should still have some way for the negative to engage. If it engages the topic I'll be excited. I'm probably more permissive than most if your aff doesn't use the USFG but is about the topic. I'll vote on T-USFG/FW, but I expect both sides to actually argue why their model/standards are better than the other team's, not just that one is good/bad for debate (y'all are both gonna say that anyway). Please don't attach the ballot to an affirmation of your life, that makes me extremely uncomfortable and makes it significantly harder for the other team to engage.
** Don't assume I know the literature base for whatever you're running. That said, I'm generally familiar with some kritikal literature (particularly identity stuff, Marx, Foucault). Warren and Wilderson were my bread and butter. I am NOT very familiar with high theory stuff like Baudrillard or Deleuze & Guattari.
*** If the other team runs Heidegger (or any other known Nazi), you can make that a voting issue in front of me.
Telling another team to quit policy debate/go do another activity will make me very angry. This activity already has enough barriers to full participation.
I'm autistic so don't read too much into my face or tone of voice. They're just like that.
I'm not saying CLEAR if you're unclear but I will always do my best to flow. If the other team is barely comprehensible, call that out and I'll give you a lot more leeway on answering.

Tag teaming in CX is fine, just don't steamroll your partner.
I will not vote on disclosure theory. If you gotta bring it up use it to bolster your predictability argument. That said, if your aff is intentionally not topical, I think you should put it on the wiki after you've read it in a round for the first time or it will really hurt your debate-space education/spillover arguments.
Troll arguments are fine if both sides agree. If you commit to it I'll probably be willing to vote on it.
If you try to out another person/force them to disclose whether or not they're queer in round, I will intervene, drop you, and talk to your coach. You should never do this in any context.
Accusations of card clipping need to be backed up with a recording and will immediately decide the round based on the guidelines in the Unified High Schools Manual unless the tournament has given judges specific instructions on how to resolve clipping. I'm more likely to make an exception to this at an educational tournament like a camp.
If I can do anything to make the round more accessible, let me know.

___

My competitive background is 100% HS policy mostly as a 1-off K (antiblackness) debater, but other teams often told me I should quit and do LD if I wanted to talk about race. Interpret that however you'd like. I've run traditional big policy affs, a smaller policy aff, and (non-performance) K affs. While antiblackness kritiks were my go-to as a 2N, I have run disads, counterplans, and T. My coaches were Ross Gordon, Erik Mathis, and Clay Stewart. As a judge, I have mostly seen HS policy rounds but have a little experience with college British Parliamentary/Worlds debate. I now work for the Atlanta Urban Debate League and mostly judge there. I see my role in the world of debate as that of an educator and I do believe in the potential for education to spillover outside of rounds.

Other paradigms I generally like (in order):

Manny Navarrete (particularly policy v policy)

Mike Demers

Logan Viera Berthiaume-Steiner 6 rounds

Aadi Waghray Kilpatrick-Morbeck 6 rounds

Thomas Wainwright Hire 5 rounds

Mackenzie Williams Hire 4 rounds

Miranda Wilson Poole-Tillman 1 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 10, 2024 at 9:46 AM EDT

pronouns: she/her/hers

Hey! I'm a fourth year at Emory University, and I did PF for four years in high school on the national and local NC circuit. I'm now a Policy debater on Emory's team. Debate is absolutely my favorite activity, and it makes me happy. Overall, I hope you enjoy the round/have fun.

Include me in the email chain! mirandawwilson@gmail.com

Policy:

-Ks: I do not think I am very good for the K because most of the literature is unfamiliar to me. Feel free to strike me. However, I will vote for the K if it is well-explained and well argued. I really value a detailed/comprehensive explanation of the alt and why that is better than the plan. If I don't understand what your alt does, I prob won't vote for the K.

Taken from @Emilyn Hazelbrook's paradigm (which I largely agree with in it's entirety):

-K Affs: Your reason for not defending the resolution should be built into your 1ac. You should prioritize line by line over extensive overviews. Impact turns are more persuasive than counter-interp debating, and clash makes a bit more sense as an impact over fairness, although I will vote on either.

-Topicality: I default to competing interps. Make sure to explain what debates would look like under your interp and theirs in rebuttals and read case lists.

-Theory: Condo is good until you read 4+ advocacies. Everything but condo is a reason to reject the argument, and I can’t see myself voting on most procedurals unless they're egregiously mishandled. Please slow down on theory standards—you're only speaking as fast as I can flow.

-Counterplans: I lean neg on most questions of competition (minus consult cps). If you're aff, read solvency deficits specific to your aff’s mechanism and smart perms. I default to judge kick if the neg says the cp is conditional, but I also think that smart 2nrs won't spend 2 minutes extending a losing cp.

-Disadvantages: Actually compare the aff and disad impacts in rebuttals and read turns case arguments. I prefer topic-specific disads, but enjoy politics disads when debated with very specific links.

-Case: Debates where neg teams invest time into picking apart the 1ac are my favorite to judge. Impact turns, circumvention, and analytics pressing the internal links/aff mechanism are much better than generic impact defense.

Public Forum:

-I will vote off the flow, but I have to buy your argument. For example, if you extend something all the way into final but it's not warranted/explained I won't vote off of it. Rather than "tech over truth" or "truth over tech", I'm more of a tech should equal truth (if that makes sense?).

-The flow is important to me but so is narrative. When determining speaks, I will look at how effectively you combined evidence with rhetoric.

-I can handle speed, but do not spread.

-Please frontline in second rebuttal!

-I will not flow disads in second rebuttal. Rebuttal is not the time to add in a third contention or argument, it is a time for defense.

-The same cards/arguments/weighing need to be extended in both summary and final focus. Please give me a clear weighing mechanism and explain it! It will make my job much easier.

-Signpost!!!!!!!!!

-I find historical precedent extremely important and love when it's argued in round. I also love framework debates; I think good framework can be used really effectively (same thing as above though, I have to buy it).

-I love unique arguments!! However, I do not have much experience with theory, and I don't think PF is necessarily the place for it. I'm willing to hear it, but I can't promise you'll be happy with how I evaluate it.

-Please don't misinterpret evidence. I'm begging you. There are so many articles out there. Find a piece of evidence that says what you want it to say instead of misconstruing. Don't be surprised if I call for evidence at the end of a round, especially if it gets indicted.

-To extend evidence you don't necessarily have to extend the citation, just make sure the content of the card stays consistent.

-I hate when arguments get muddled. If you don't have a good response, then just try to outweigh: don't muddle.

-I don't mind if you skip grand cross because it's awkward if no one has any questions. I won't flow first and second cross, but I will consider it for speaks, etc.

Miscellaneous:

-Be respectful. I have dealt with a lot of sexism during my time in debate, and if you are condescending in anyway I will dock your speaks. Any racist, homophobic, or sexist arguments and you will automatically lose.

-If you don't know someone's pronouns in round (they have not explicitly said them), it's probably best to default to they/them. I do appreciate when debaters post their pronouns before round in the chat.

-I will disclose and give an RFD if both teams want/the tournament allows.

-If your opponent didn't drop an argument, then don't say they dropped it. Also, don't extend through ink.

-Feel free to ask any questions after the round!

-Have fun:)

Login to Tabroom

ENDI T

2024 — Atlanta, GA/US

Policy Paradigm List

Judges