bronx science 23, umich 27

add me to the chain: guybloom@umich.edu

If you think Pink Frosted Donut defeated Egg Roll in Food Battle 2012, strike me.

also, i am looking for a team to coach, so if youre interested please email me using the above address

Top Level

don't do one of the isms, obviously there's no clear threshold for what makes something round-ending worthy but i will use my discretion.

i don't think i'm very good at debating, and i think a lot of the people i've judged who are in high school probably could beat me in a debate round fairly easily. that being said, i do think about the activity and the way arguments interact a fair deal and i'd like to think of myself as a pretty competent judge for most things. i don't know very many things, though, and if your strategy relies on the inner workings of the courts or dense economic concepts that i would have had to take a class to understand, dumb it down a little. just make writing my decision easier. my debate relevant substantive knowledge kind of begins and ends in psychoanalysis (and i don't think i'm a huge expert in that either, though i do enjoy reading it for fun).

i like clean decisions and will try my hardest to formulate a decision which is a string of discrete yes/no questions rather than sliding scales. obviously, i almost always have to do some linear calculus with the risks of different pieces of offense, but i try to do this as little as possible. the MOST unsatisfying rfds to me were ones which followed the format "well, they were just ahead on this argument so i voted ____". instead, i'll try to say something like: "x argument was won by the aff, since y warrant was conceded which zeros the neg's response z." again, obviously, most defensive arguments do not ZERO the other teams offense, but i hope you get the point i'm trying to illustrate. deciding things like this makes the most sense to me, so if you use this type of judge instruction i will probably be more likely to vote for you.

in highschool i read mostly k stuff, but i would honestly say that in clash debates i find the policy side more convincing. regardless, i am confident that i can judge these rounds impartially.

read whatever you want. my senior year, i read a psychoanalysis aff, a hegel aff, and an aff that said we should kill babies because christianity is true. on the neg, we went for psychoanalysis, wipeout, and "high theory" stuff.

i very strongly believe that debate is a game and as such i will judge the round strictly based on my flow. i am willing to vote on arguments that could be defeated by a single well thought out sentence (and i have in the past). counterintuitively, this probably means i am better for the k than most because i am willing to jettison common sense and vote on arguments that are terrible and obviously untrue (which most answers to "only weigh links to the plan" and "extinction outweighs" unambiguously are). conversely, this means that if you are a team that relies on winning rounds in ways that do not involve my flow, i am not the judge for you. it's not personal; i simply would not know how to evaluate your performance and would probably end up voting against you if you debate an opponent who relies more strictly on the flow.

i'm not the best flower, but i try. start off a little slower and be sure to leave pen time for me. if you give me 5 subpoints in 8 seconds, i'll probably miss at least one.i honestly think most judges are much worse at flowing than they let on, and if pressed in the post round about something they didn't catch, will say something along the lines of "oh well i just thought it was too blippy" or "it was there, but not enough". i think this is cowardly. if i miss something and you ask me about it, i'll be upfront about how i missed it and tell you how it would have effected the round. i don't feel too bad about this, because some of the speeches i've heard are downright unflowable. record your blocks and try to flow them to alleviate this. i definitely make unforced errors sometimes, though, so if a line is very important or round ending worthy, make sure it's not just a second on point 3 subpoint c. to be clear, though, if it IS a second on point 3 subpoint c and i catch it, i'll vote on it. so do that at your own risk, i guess. i wouldn't advise it, since the chance your opponent catches it and i do not is orders of magnitudes higher than the chance that i catch it and your opponents do not.

adding this because it's really annoying me. picture this: the 1nc reads multiple advocacies, but 1nc cross ex does NOT clarify the status of the advocacies. the 2ac reads conditionality bad, says dispo solves, and perms every advocacy. the neg block, in this scenario, SHOULD NOT defend conditionality. it is a waste of time. you should instead say "we were dispo, you never asked, but it doesn't matter now since you've permuted everything". there are a few cases where this is not strategic, and where it lets the 1AR lock you out of a disad + case 2NR. but overwhelmingly this is not true, and the other potential 2NR is something like T.

feel free to postround, i won't take it personally. when i write decisions, i usually try to think of potential things i wouldn't be able to defend in the postround and write around that, and if i can't, i edit my decision accordingly. i think judges that DO care should probably put some more effort into their decisions and take the event more seriously, given that students give up their weekends and pay to attend tournaments (while judges give up their weekends and presumably GET paid to do the same).

all of the opinions i share below are just opinions that won't enter into my evaluation of a round.

Policy (aff) vs Policy (neg)

probably not the best here but i'm competent most of the time. explain acronyms.

cheaty counterplans are cool and i like competition debates. i enjoy clever perms.

zero risk is a logical extension of "dropped arguments are true"-- if you flat concede a piece of defense that the other team convincingly argues zeros your impact, i will give them that. i don't think this should be a controversial opinion-- it seems that most judges agree a dropped scenario starts at 100; this is just the inverse of that.

Policy (aff) vs T

i think ptiv needs an explicit counterinterp

limits seems to intuitively outweigh predictability. i think predictability is more of a yes/no question whereas limits are more of a sliding scale. this opinion is not widely accepted and as such i will default to both of them as a sliding scale.

Policy (aff) v K(Neg)

my honest opinion is that links to representations are an infinitely regressive standard that makes it impossible to be aff. this will have no bearing on how i judge debates.

framework is the first question i'll ask myself when deciding these rounds. i will NOT arbitrarily decide on some "middle ground" between the two interpretations; if the aff wins that the neg doesn't get reps links and the 2NR offense is a reps link, i will literally zero that link. conversely, if the neg wins that the aff doesn't get the plan, and the 2AR goes for only offense based on the consequences of the plan, i will not give it to them. i won't give a 1% risk of a link or a 1% risk of offense. i will ALWAYS decide a singular winner of the framework debate, and framework is not a "wash" unless one of the debaters says it is in their final rebuttal and i decide that they have won that it is.

i try to judge all debates like this ^, but what i've found is that i've overwhelmingly had to take a sort of "proof by cases" approach because framework is so hard to evaluate. for example, i'll find myself in the position of thinking the aff has unanswered fairness offense, the neg has unanswered epistemology offense, and there is no comparison done by either team, so i say to myself "well i know the aff wins if they win framework, but i also kind of think they win if the neg wins framework, so i vote aff and i don't have to decide who actually won framework". this almost always favors the aff because it is plausible for aff teams to win their representations are defensible and good, and in most cases it is implausible for the neg to win the link is a disad which turns or outweighs the case. so, my advice here is twofold. first, answer all of the offense and the defense on framework in the 2NR on point. spend time on framework, since you want me to be confident that you win it. second, outline very clearly why the link means you win under your model and why their offense doesn't apply. something like "even if they win securitization can be good, they have not won that it is epistemelogically valuable or beaten our argument that their specific form of securitization leads to interventions and more insidious forms of racism". or maybe, "even if their form of research is epistemelogically valuable, our offense uplayers that because we've proven that their performance in this round leads to psychic violence which you should unconditionally reject". just give me some delineation or distinction or something so that i can explain to the aff why they've lost and why their offense doesn't apply.

k tricks are cool. i dont think they're undignified or anything, and i won't hesitate to vote on a floating pik or "fiat is illusory" as long as its a developed argument in the block and not just a single line without a warrant.

i think in most cases, "links to the plan" are useless and don't get you anything. the perm double bind is just, like, true against these arguments. the one caveat to this isn't even really a "link to the plan", but if you generate mutual exclusivity off of the logical incongruence of the aff and the alt that's probably fine. i would be willing to vote on a 2NR on the setcol K that says decolonization solves the case PLUS some external impact, and it is mutually exclusive with the aff because fiating the plan necessitates the continued existence of the USFG. the reason i think this is a caveat is because it does not require winning the framework debate in any capacity; it is a competitive alternative that is more similar to a uniqueness counterplan than a kritik.

K (aff) vs Policy (Neg)

i think 1ac cross ex is crucial to establish disad links, grounds for impact turns, and counterplan competition.

most k affs link to cap good. 2as will gaslight you but having read a lot of "K" lit i can safely say that basically all of it starts with the presumption that capitalism is bad. that being said, policy teams should be a little less heavy handed with explaining this link. highlighting a line in their ev that says "capitalism" and some negatively connotated adjective is not going to be nearly as convincing as an explanation that uses the vocabulary of the 1ac and 2ac to explain how their theory of power condemns capitalism. this whole spiel is irrelevant if the 2ac bites the link, of course.

impact turns can be good because tons of K affs just say things that sound bad and assume theyre bad without any real investigation into why people say they're good. obviously don't cross any ethical boundaries or be bigoted.

K (aff) vs T (neg)

i'm pretty confident in my ability to judge these debates. i've been on the aff a lot more, but i agree with most everything the neg says in these debates, so i guess that evens out.

rewriting this part bc i think my views have changed a bit (but probably moreso that what was previously written did not accurately express how i felt). i think the approach to answering framework which relies on redefinitions of words in the resolution and a counterinterpretation is almost always incredibly unstrategic. no, the usfg is not an assemblage, and going for these types of arguments will make it incredibly easy for the negative to point out why your model is untenable. the 2ac can (and maybe should) read these arguments, but unless it is a technical crush it will be very hard to convince me that a more "open" or critical model of debate where everyone kinda just has to talk about something related to the resolution does not link to the limits disad. for this reason, i genuinely believe that for most k affs there is zero utility in defending a topic link. i think i'm in the minority there. i just think the impact turn to T is so much better than the middleground counterinterp and that, counterintuitively, defending a model in which anyone can read anything is probably easier than defending what i previously described (because the negative can easily win that the latter becomes the former, so you might as well just defend the former).

K (aff) vs K (neg)

framework is important to me here in terms of the sequence and filter i use to evaluate arguments.

no perms in method debates seems to overcorrect what is a very real issue. not giving the aff a perm feels nonsensical, but just letting them permute two mostly abstract ideas is obviously less than ideal. on the neg, i think its best to point out how their explanation of the perm might contradict the way the 1ac is explained during cross ex or the way the 1ac authors themselves describe how they think we ought to organize.

alt explanations should be a little more in depth here than they are in clash rounds because the perm usually matters a lot more in these rounds.

i think i'm in the minority here, but i think a lot of these debates are really neg favored. i mean, yeah, the perm is kind of hard, but also not really, and if you're reading a K which genuinely disagrees with the aff, there's a good chance the literature explicitly has answers to the permutation (and probably ACTUALLY disagrees with the aff, in contrast to a lot of Ks with policy affs). this won't really determine anything about how i judge debates but just a thought i have.

final rebuttals should have lots of framing and you should make it very clear what offense you're going for. impact calc is hugely important.

other stuff

dont clip

i think you can insert rehighlightings, if they misrepresent a card its their fault. if it's a part of the article that wasn't in the original card, you have to read it.

ad homs are not arguments i feel comfortable adjudicating. it complicates my role as a judge, and if the situation is so dire that it presents a safety or comfortability concern, i think going to tabroom or your coach is a much better remedy than making an argument about it. its not that im unsympathetic to these types of issues in debate, but i think that accepting the premise that my ballot is an endorsement of the character of debaters is a slippery slope which has some pretty terrible implications. this is probably the one exception i have to tech over truth. i do not care if you out-tech the other team on this position, i genuinely feel grossly uncomfortable writing and submitting a ballot on "this highschooler is a predator/racist/sexist". to be clear, this is about out of round issues. if someone is bigoted in round, im definitely willing to vote on "this rhetoric/performance is a reason to reject the team".

asking for perfect speaks will get you a perfect zero

Jeff Buntin
Northwestern University/Montgomery Bell Academy

Feelings----------------------------------------X--Dead inside

Policy---X------------------------------------------K

Tech-----------------------------X-----------------Truth

Read no cards-----------------------------X------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-------------------------X----Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL-------x--------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Fairness is an impact-X------------------------------Fairness is not an impact

Tonneson votes aff-----------------------------X-Tonneson clearly neg

Try or die--------------x---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption---------------------------------X-----Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face---X--------------------------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

2017 speaker points---------------------X--------2007 speaker points

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

Dallas-style expressive----------X---------------D. Heidt-style stoic

Referencing this philosophy in your speech--------------------X-plz don't

Fiat double bind-----------------------------------------X--literally any other arg

AT: --X------------------------------------------------------ A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)

"It's inev, we make it effective"------------------------X---"It'S iNeV, wE mAkE iT eFfEcTiVe"

Bodies without organs---------------X---------------Organs without bodies

Redistribution affs must tax----------------------X--------Not required to tax

New affs bad-----------------------------------------X-Old affs bad

Aff on process competition--X-------------------------Neg on process competition

CPs that require the 'butterfly effect' card------------X- Real arguments

'Judge kick'----------------------------------X---Absolutely no 'judge kick'

Nukes topic--X-----------------------------------------Any other topic ever

Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Updated July 23
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net, fiscalrizztribution@googlegroups.com

Introduction: Hello, debaters and fellow educators. I am Tim Ellis, and I am honored to be here as a judge at this high school policy debate tournament. My background includes [briefly mention your educational and professional background relevant to the debate topic or communication skills]. My role as a judge is to evaluate your arguments, critical thinking, and communication abilities, while maintaining a fair and unbiased approach to the debate.

Debate Philosophy: I believe in fostering an environment where students can express their ideas passionately, engage in respectful discourse, and develop their critical thinking skills. I encourage debaters to focus on clear and logical arguments, evidence-based analysis, and effective communication. Substance will always take precedence over style, but effective delivery can enhance your message.

Argumentation: I value well-structured arguments that are supported by credible evidence. When presenting your case, it's important to clearly define your position, provide relevant evidence, and logically connect your arguments. The use of real-world examples and expert opinions can significantly bolster your points. Remember, the quality of your evidence matters more than the quantity.

Clash and Refutation: Debates thrive on clash – the direct engagement with your opponents' arguments. I expect debaters to engage with opposing viewpoints by directly addressing their arguments, demonstrating the weaknesses in their logic, and offering counterarguments supported by evidence. Effective refutation requires a deep understanding of your opponents' case, so take the time to dissect their position and refute it cogently.

Communication: Clear communication is key to conveying your ideas persuasively. Speak confidently, enunciate your words, and maintain a steady pace. Avoid jargon or excessive use of technical terms that might alienate those unfamiliar with the topic. Remember, effective communication isn't just about what you say, but how you say it – engaging with your audience is crucial.

Etiquette and Sportsmanship: Respect for your opponents, your partner, and the judge is non-negotiable. Keep your focus on the arguments and ideas, rather than personal attacks. Maintain a professional demeanor throughout the debate, and remember that good sportsmanship is an integral part of the debate community.

Time Management: Time management is essential. Respect the allocated time limits for your speeches, cross-examinations, and rebuttals. Effective time allocation allows for a balanced and comprehensive discussion of the issues at hand.

Final Thoughts: Debating is a valuable skill that extends beyond the walls of this tournament. Regardless of the outcome, embrace the learning experience. Constructive feedback is intended to help you grow as debaters and thinkers. I am here to provide a fair assessment of your performance, and my decisions will be based on the quality of your arguments, your ability to engage in meaningful clash, and your overall communication skills.

I am looking forward to witnessing your insightful arguments and thoughtful engagement. Let's engage in a spirited and enlightening debate that enriches all of us. Best of luck to each team, and may the discourse be both rigorous and rewarding.

*TOC coaching affiliation: I am a coach for Break Debate. Conflict List---Barrington AC, Carnegie Vanguard LH, Durham SA, Flower Mound AM, Garland LA, L C Anderson LS, L C Anderson NW, Lexington MS, Lynbrook BZ, Lynbrook OM, Monta Vista EY, Oak Ridge AA, Sage Oak Charter AK, Scripps Ranch AS, Southlake Carroll AS, St Agnes EH, Seven Lakes VS.

*Please start the email chain without me - I flow without the doc.

Debate is a game that requires dropped arguments to be evaluated as true in order to function. That means I will vote on anything sans racism, sexism, etc.

—CX—

One of the most important parts of the round. I will shake my head if you ask about a card that wasn’t read.

—Ks—

2NR must explain why either the plan or plan focus is bad. Quotes from evidence, cx, and references to their performance are persuasive.

An offensive reason for why they shouldn’t be able to weigh case + a link to the affs reps is sufficient. You do not need an alternative because framework provides uniqueness.

If the link is to the plan, you do not need to win framework as long as you treat the K as a critical DA and CP. Link turns case prior to solvency, the impact to the link outweighs case, the alt solves enough of the aff for the link to outweigh the solvency deficit, etc.

Perm cards and generic DAs are unpersuasive. Spend that time doing contextual analysis, using the link to explain why the perm fails.

—Policy vs K—

2AR must explain why either their reps are good, or why plan focus is good.

Good affs have smart tricks vs the K: aff is anti-militarist, withdrawal inevitable, plan affirms sovereignty, etc. Use them.

Perm double bind.

Debate the links, don’t just assert the opposite - explain why their characterization of the aff is wrong. Links have three levels: link, internal link, impact. Answering any one of these is usually sufficient.

—K affs—

DAs to the negs model must be intrinsic - your offense should be about something their interp mandates, not arguments that can potentially be made under it.

Alternatively, you can read a DA that establishes why their performance in this round is a reason they should lose.

Most aff framework angles rely on winning debate shapes subjectivity - this is probably the most important argument in any debate where the impact is clash.

If the impact is fairness, affs should have reason for why debate is more than a game, alternatives to competition are possible, etc.

Ballot key?

—Framework—

The impact to fairness is fairness. However, it is your job to prove that.

2NRs should probably win that debate is a game and content is neutral.

Explain why their DAs don’t apply to your model. Explain why their C/I links harder to their offense.

Line by line their arguments with offense and defense. If clash is good, do it.

—Policy Vs Policy—

I should not be in the back of this. I understand substantive interactions but am not well versed in competition. However, I will do my best to evaluate these rounds as technically as possible.

—Phil—

I vote on it. Decent understanding of skep, intent-based vs consequentialist frameworks, etc.

—Theory/Tricks—

A dropped argument is a dropped argument no matter how silly. However, silly arguments are by virtue east to answer.

Of course I want to be on the email chain -- chwangdebate@gmail.com

HS Debate: 19-23 (4 years) -- Walter Payton

College Debate: 23-Present -- University of Michigan

Debate Coach: 23-Present -- Walter Payton

Top Level:

I think that judging records are more informative than whatever I type in my paradigm. Judging Record

Tech > Truth. I always decide the round off the flow first and foremost. Truth will have no bearing on the round unless the debate absolutely requires it because both teams failed to do literally anything which requires significant judge intervention. As an extension of this, I will not immediately strike arguments off my flow because they are too stupid or offensive to answer. The stupider and more offensive the argument is, the easier it should be to answer.

Throughout high school, I have done both policy and kritik strategies as both a 2A and a 2N. I have read big-stick policy affs, soft left affs, k-affs, 9-off 1NCs, and 1-off K 1NCs. My current style of debate is much more rooted in policy than K.

While I coach both policy and K teams, I spend the vast majority of my time doing policy research. I am very involved in argument coaching, and am usually well-versed in whatever the topic presents.

I do not care if you post-round; I am a firm believer that you have a right to express why you think you should've won the round. Debaters invest a lot of their time to win the round so they should have the ability to express why they believe that time should have resulted in a win. If you think part of my decision is wrong feel free to argue as it leads to better conceptualization of the decision.

If I need cards after the round I'll ask for them.

Online Debate:

Slow down regardless, but if you are unclear in person you should doubly slow down. No one wants part of my decision to be "I didn't hear that argument being made in x speech because you were very unclear."

I will type in chat if I am gone and my camera will be on showing that I am not there. If you start without me being there I will incredibly confused.

Things I like:

Clear framing of my ballot and why you win.

Really smart technical tricks or concessions.

When debaters time their own speeches.

Being funny and creative in your speeches.

Things I don’t like:

Saying the words “oops” or something along those lines at the top of your speech.

Calling me anything other than my name. “Judge” is the main one. You all are like a year or two younger than me calling me that makes me feel older than I am.

Unnecessarily saying my name in a speech just to prove you read the above line.

Being a jerk to your partner and/or the other team.

When the 1AC has not been sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start.

Trying to be funny and failing miserably.

When both people leave after the round. Too many times have I made a decision and have to run into the hallway looking for the debaters.

Kritikal affs:

I have read kritikal affs in the past, but I am still sympathetic to negative framework arguments.

Framework v. K-affs are some of my favorites debates to watch and judge. In my experience the aff wins these debates by winning their offense on the counter-interp and/or turning the neg's offense, while the neg tends to win these debates with smart framing of their interpretation and standards to mitigate aff offense.

If the 1AR makes vague, nebulous assertions about their aff with zero application to any negative offense, I am very reluctant to weighing any new 2AR spin.

I believe that fairness is the best impact, but that it can be either an impact or an internal link depending on how the teams contextualize it in-round.

Teams are not willing enough to go for presumption even when it is the correct 2NR. I am more than willing to pull the trigger on presumption should the negative arguments for it be strong enough. Varying inconsistencies between the 2AC and 1AR on case make pulling the presumption trigger that much easier.

I have little experience with KvK debates. I generally think that the aff gets perms, but I am very flexible on that.

Policy affs:

Do whatever.

A lot of affirmative teams are getting away with way too much and negative teams are allowing them to get away with it. Strong analytics are sometimes enough to take out shoddy internal link chains.

I am better for soft-left affs than most judges are.

Counterplans:

I enjoy counterplan competition debates but I fear that the majority of teams have literally zero clue what functional and textual competition actually mean and just use them as buzz words.

I think that people are either underutilizing immediacy and/or certainty key against process CPs, or they are giving terrible reasons for immediacy and certainty. Generic reasoning behind certainty and immediacy won't win you the round, but actually winning the deficit specific to the CP might.

Counterplan theory is a lost art of debate, which is a real shame because I love these debates. Affirmative teams are allowing negative teams to get away with murder. In a perfectly even debate I generally lean defense, but I am will decide the round purely off the flow. Should you invest the time and effort into effective and high quality theory debating, I am very receptive to such. The words “condo is a voting issue - time skew strat skew” do not constitute a complete argument. If you are just regurgitating your backfile theory blocks against each other I will disgruntledly vote for whoever backfiles are better and give both teams bad speaker points. Conversely, teams that utilize topic specification to describe the division of ground and how the theoretical objection changes will make me happy and be awarded high speaker points.

Saying "we get x condo" or "x condo is good/bad" is really arbitrary and I think is super hard to win, especially when the debate is "1 condo vs 2 condo" or something similar.

The reasoning for why new affs justify infinite condo is strange but I lean either way.

I generally find that word PICs are weak and unpersuasive. If you think that your word PIC is an exception you are welcome to try.

Kritiks:

I have found myself in the back of multiple rounds where the 2NR has been the K and am more than capable of evaluating it.

There has been a fundamental issue with how some teams are extending the K, and it has nothing to do with my predispositions on kritiks. Either:

1. 2NRs are not going for framework or the alt at all and are losing on extinction outweighs a non-causal link, or
2. 2NRs are not extending an impact (to framework, the links, or the K in general).

If you properly extend the K I am very receptive to it; I have found myself voting neg on the K when the 2NR does not have these issues and when the 2NR extends clearly articulated and nuanced arguments. I have no intention of voting up the K on vague, nebulous assertions made in the 2NR that are not applied to other parts of the flow.

I understand the basic premise of identity K's, but I have very limited experience reading them. I read an Orientalism K for a little which was more closely akin to an IR K than an Identity K. I think that saying that there's a link to the plan because of a historical event is a defensive argument for why progress is not possible but without further analysis will most likely not constitute a link to the aff.

I have next to zero experience with postmodernist/poststructuralist literature. I am not someone that easily understands that type of literature, thought or arguments. I will try and evaluate these debates as well as I can, but these types of arguments are far outside my realm of knowledge. You repeatedly saying the word “ressentiment” will definitely not help me. If you really want to win my ballot err on the side of over-explanation.

Topicality:

I am a better judge for evaluating T than most judges. There’s a strange paradox with judges that say that they are “tech over truth” but then have strong preconceptions of T debate that all but signal it is unwinnable for the neg. I have no such preconceptions. I have no preference for one standard compared to another.

I go either way on plan text in a vacuum.

I think that reasonability is very winnable, but only if you properly debate the negative’s debatability/limits push. I think debates are a lot easier to win on T if you frame it as a game of inches rather than a game of extremes. Rather than winning "our interp is good, their interp is bad", it is much easier to win that both models can be good and that either there is a small comparative advantage to one interpretation or conversely that because both are good it's a reason why competing interpretations in this instance is bad. I haven't seen any debates like this, but I definitely think teams should.

Disads:

I think that zero risk is real, and I have not heard a convincing reason why it is not real that is not interventionalist.

Other than that, I don’t think there’s a whole lot that can be said, or honestly should be said. There’s this strange dilemma surrounding politics and “generic” DAs which I don’t really get. A disadvantage is just a negative implication to the plan, there realistically shouldn’t be this much hemming and hawing to what that means. Read the disads you think will win.

Impact Turns

Impact turns are a unique opportunity to research and deploy arguments that challenge conventional wisdom, and are very fun and creative debates. I don't have any strong feelings for one side or another on any impact turn. I do not think that genocide good is a convincing answer to war good.

Speaks:

Theoretically the mean speaks should be 28.5, and I try will give speaks around there. The chance that (unless something went terribly astray) you get a 27 or a 30 is basically 0. I have and will give substantially different speaker points between partners if it is fitting, and I think low point wins are more common than is documented.

I think that giving speaker points for things like "make me laugh" or "mention x debater" is really dumb. I also think that taking away speaker points for doing thinks like calling me judge is also really dumb. If you are a funny debater that probably already affected the speaks I am giving you positively, so adding more just artificially inflates speaks.

Hotter Takes/Misc.

If you go for a new argument in the 2AR based on the 2NR, you must tell me how to evaluate it or I assign 50% weight to everything which opens the debate up to way more intervention that I am sure anyone wants.

Breaking new on paper, or sending one card at a time, or something in those regards is a little silly, but I guess I see where you are coming from.

There are individual instances of debate or state action that could be contextualized as good or bad, but I think it's hard to say that debate or the state as a whole is inherently either because of those examples. I think that using said specific examples in order to determine that debate and/or the state wholistically is either good or bad is really dumb.

Affiliations

North Broward Preparatory School (Assistant Director): 2021 – Present

University of Michigan (Assistant Coach): 2020 – Present

Northwestern University: 2016 – 2020

Email Chain (yes): gabrielj348 [at] gmail.com

Placement

The affirmative team should read a topical plan that agrees with the resolution. The negative team should defend the status quo, a competitive alternative, or a topicality violation. The ballot picks a winner and I’m not likely to be persuaded I should attempt to use it for anything more.

Debate is a voluntary academic contest. Debate rounds should be as fair as possible. I’d strike me if you disagree with that premise. I’d also strike me if your argument says debate is bad, debate rounds should be unfair, the other team/school/community is bad, or in general requires avoiding a well-prepared opponent.

Community events and historical disputes should be separate from debate rounds. If a genuine issue arises during the debate, please alert whomever you feel most comfortable with (judges including myself, your coaches, the tab or tournament staff, etc.) and we will stop the debate. I won’t decide these issues through offense/defense, tech over truth, or line by line. Adhering to debate norms like speech and decision time, spreading, and the flow seems antithetical to resolving genuine concerns and is a disservice to all involved. Please avoid ad hominem attacks, reference to out of round events, or disingenuous complaints and/or accusations. I generally will not vote for them even if dropped.

Tech over truth in most debate... see above. Any argument is on the table. I won’t reject false arguments for the sake of truth alone, even when confident about the issue. I have a low threshold for dismissing incomplete or illogical arguments, especially if you are technically proficient and on the side of truth. My goal as a judge is too avoid unpredictable intervention without giving you a change to adapt. I’ll communicate in my decision if and where I thought I had to intervene, especially if an argument makes writing a coherent ballot for either side difficult.

I default to extinction bad/util good, especially if not told otherwise.

Topicality v. Planless

If the 1AC is planless or does not defend topical enactment of a government policy I am much better for the negative. If debated close to evenly I have a hard time reconciling affirmative offense with the competitive nature of debate.

I have presumptions that debate is first a game, games should be fair, and enforcing norms is not de facto violent. The negative does not need many words to convince me those things are true. If your arguments disagree with those premises, you should strike me.

Both fairness and clash are impacts and considering reasons why they might not be requires fair adjudication and clash.

I have a high threshold for what a complete argument is in framework debates (claim, data, warrant) and labeling something as a DA does not substitute for the parts that constitute one.

I will not footnote in presumed community knowledge or events and strongly prefer debates about the current topic to debates litigating past community conflicts. Even if included I’m not automatically convinced that these are inherently impacts, that the only negative ballot disavows history or that it’s inherently violent to agree with an interpretation that past 1ACs also violate.

I’ll likely vote neg if the following arguments are included: debate is a competition/game that requires fairness, preserving fairness is a prerequisite to achieving other potential worthy outcomes, well-prepared opponents who clash over the same topic improve the quality of rounds, improving rounds is good, strategic choices and competitive desire for the ballot motive every argument, claims to the contrary are strategic choices even if genuine, I should presume them to be motivated by competition since the only certain motivation I know is that all participants currently want the ballot, competing interpretations must consider the likely and worst allowed examples under each interpretation, no interpretation is every interpretation, the resolution is the most and likely only predictable interpretation, and what matters for predictability (and what the ballot is a referendum on) is whether the negative should be able to go for topicality in future debates when faced with a similar 1AC.

Topicality v. Plan

I’m best if you have a specific violation that was clearly tailored to the affirmative ahead of time. If your violation can be read against most 1ACs on the topic I think it’s probably wrong. I’ve voted for bad interpretations but have a low threshold for calling nonsense if there’s an answer that justifies doing so. Acknowledge strategic costs and benefits of an interpretation truthfully rather than asserting it is “best” for both sides or solves everyone’s offense.

I lean affirmative especially if the interpretation is unpredictable, poorly evidence, or creates a slightly more limited topic for the sake of limits. I often find myself frustratingly reading through the unhighlighted sections of out of context definitions that I wish someone had pointed out with an implication beyond “your card is from X”.

I’m more persuaded by debatability and fairness concerns than education. Connecting your standards to impacts and differentiating them each interpretation is important.

Fine for PTIV arguments and have made peace with vague plans. I think solvency and circumvention arguments are a better remedy than topicality.

Usually, I think that arguments that the topic is broken or unworkable for one side are overstated and should be mentioned once if not skipped.

Theory

Conditionality is the only presumed voting issue. Conditional advocacies may be infinite in number and introduced in either constructive. Advantages with intrinsic internal links are my preferred recourse. Most persuaded by logic.

I’d prefer if the negative didn’t CP out of straight turns but more for cowardice than theory reasons.

States uniformly doing the plan and/or all amending constitutions is questionable.

International fiat is bad.

Counterplans

Good for most but the more it tests the plan the better I am. Not a fan of CPs without evidence but evidence may be read after the 1NC.

Fine for process and I appreciate the craft that goes into writing them. They aren’t a personal strength or research priority so try to clearly explain the mechanism, scope of fiat, and standards. Mandate, effect, function language is useful.

Competition debates should include normative justifications for both definitions and counterplan/permutation interpretations.

You cannot selectively “defend” something for a DA but not for CPs.

Disadvantages

Politics is on life support. You should let it go. I have not judged a coherent politics debate backed by quality evidence in years. Most of these scenarios are nuked by a few analytics. There’s no bill yet? Zero risk. No vote for months? Zero risk. Biden must “sign off” tagged as “PC key”? Zero risk. No cards but somehow prices in all thumpers but can’t overcome the link? Zero risk. Bill solves climate change? Probably zero risk.

The block should read additional impact mods and carded turns case arguments.

Zero risk is possible but rare.

Case

I prefer numbered 1NCs that include solvency and internal link presses, re-cuttings, and case turns over a slew of analytics and impact defense. Don’t number if you can’t correctly refer to them throughout the debate. I’ll number my flow regardless.

Impact defense and alt causes are good but you should make arguments specific to the 1AC rather than copy paste a generic block.

2As get away with murder on the case. “Yes X, that’s Y” is not a complete argument. The block should exploit light 2AC coverage. I have a low threshold for zapping case. Being present in the 1AC is not a free pass to resurrect an argument in the 2AR.

Impact turns are great, some of my favorite debates. I tend to start with sustainability/impact framing before transition. Remember to answer/exploit arguments based on the specific internal link conceded to access the impact turn.

Kritiks

I’m better for the aff than neg but went for, have researched, and am gettable on kritiks. The more they test the plan the better.

I generally think the plan should be weighed for fairness/clash reasons, the neg should engage/turn/solve the case, and that permutation double bind is a good argument. I can be persuaded not to weigh the plan at all. I can also be persuaded to say Ks should functionally be CP/DA with link uniqueness, alt solvency, etc. The negative usually spends too much time doing a little of everything without developing anything. I’m more likely to vote neg on a K that’s clearly the Fiat K, no tricks or disguises, than a K that attempts to do everything at once and fix it in the 2NR.

Framework is the most important part of the K for me. I've often sat for the affirmative when the neg was ahead on most of the page but losing framework. If case is dropped and the affirmative gets to weigh it, I generally vote affirmative.

Don’t spend unnecessary time one FW without explaining the implication of winning your interpretation for the other parts of the debate. When both interpretations are compatible with one another (this happens too often and means your interpretation is probably not serving as much utility as you think) the team that identifies that first and allocates time accordingly usually wins.

Neg teams lose me when they conflate being slightly ahead on an interpretation like "we get links to stuff other than the plan" with "we don't need to answer case/those links auto-disprove/dismiss entire affirmative".

If you want the implication of your framework to be that I shouldn't weigh the case, clearly state that in the block.

I'm most persuaded by in descending order: neg can get links to stuff other than the plan, neg can lower the threshold for alt solvency, neg needn’t necessarily solve case to win, case doesn’t matter.

My ideal compromise is the neg gets links to things other than plan implementation but must win that the implication of those links outweighs/denies the hypothetical benefits of implementing the plan.

I am not “deep” in any particular literature base so explain your theory and apply it to the case as much as possible for Ks that are more complex than Capitalism, Security, etc.

I have yet to see a compelling reason why most identity kritiks negate the desirability of the plan or why debate should be primarily about a particular group. Explaining how the kritik implicates the case is very important in these debates. If your strategy does not attempt case debate I am probably bad for it.

Demonstrating an ontology argument does not automatically accomplish that task, necessitate a d-rule framing, or substitute for specific impact instruction and/or comparison. The neg needs to include reasons that winning a descriptive claim implicates normative ones. The world might really really really suck... the plan might make it better. Absent a strong framing argument that implicates that type of thinking, I’m probably voting affirmative.

Cross Examination

CX is important and you should consider it an extension of speeches. CX is binding and starts with the first question (no “did you read” before starting the timer).

You don’t have to answer questions after the timer, after rebuttals, or during prep time and I may not pay attention to questions asked outside of CX. Be reciprocal if you want them to clarify something post timer.

The negative should almost always include questions about the plan in 1AC CX. Random questions about impacts are not going to make or break the debate.

Questions about solvency/mechanisms/links/internal links/alternatives/competition > alt causes, meh analytics, impacts, revisiting past questions.

Evidence/Ethics

Inserting evidence is fine but should preferably be read out loud before the debate ends if you think it’s important. I’m probably won’t care much about recuts if you don’t restate the important lines in final rebuttals.

Ethics "violations" are not a thing. Ethics challenges are. I will stop the round and attempt to reconcile them according to what seems most fair and/or true, best adhering to the governing rules of the tournament. If your argument is best made as a link to something else, make it as a link. Anything rising above that threshold will stop the round and include the possibility of either team losing. Practically speaking this means think hard before saying "new sheet". If you aren't willing to stop the round, I'm not flowing or evaluating it. Speaks will be capped at 28.7 if the round stops. The round will not resume after it stops. There are too many low to no cost voting issues or ethics violations that heavily favor the accusing team, especially when it is evident that pre-tournament preparation has occurred. I will not continue the debate or "draw a line" from past speeches when questions of integrity or character on made.

Speaker Points/Decorum

Treat each other with respect. If you cannot, do not expect respect from others. Put simply, ask yourself if the room would be pleasant were everyone to behave like you.

If a core component of your strategy is ad homs, out of round accusations, screenshots, or refusing questions, strike me.

29.6 – 30.0: Top 1-10 debater at the tournament.

29.0 – 29.5: Should clear/win a speaker award.

28.5 – 28.9: Above average to solid.

28.0 – 28.4: Still learning, stick with it.

27.6 – 27.9: This was tough…

27.0 – 27.5: You were rude. Being here sucked.

25.0: You cheated/clipped/etc. Coaches or Tabroom should be alerted.

LD

I coached LD at Harker for a year but was mainly tasked with policy assignments. If you get me and treat it like a policy debate, you'll be fine. I'm not familiar with phil shells or tricks and very likely won't vote on them.

I'm honestly truth over tech in this activity because so many of the things people say are nonsensical. T is not an RVI. Conditionality is okay. Aff framework choice is fake. Don't proliferate new pages.

**Just a brief update for the high school community on the Inequality topic:

T - Taxes and Transfers - Heavily lean Aff here, but the Neg can win it I guess.

Process CPs - Good luck with these in front of me.

If you feel the need to not take prep before the 2AC or 2NC, good luck with that as well in front of me.

**Updated Summer 2023**

Yes I would like to be on the email chain: jordanshun@gmail.com

I will listen to all arguments, but a couple of caveats:

-This doesn't mean I will understand every element of your argument.

-I have grown extremely irritated with clash debates…take that as you please.

-I am a firm believer that you must read some evidence in debate. If you differ, you might want to move me down the pref sheet.

Note to all: In high school debate, 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.
In college debate, I might allow 6 off case arguments :/

Good luck to all!

Emory ‘24

Washburn Rural ‘20

Email chain: gkessler222@gmail.com

Tech > truth, but arguments need warrants.

Being rude/condescending will earn you very low speaks.

I won't adjudicate issues that occurred outside of the debate.

T USFG: I'm very good for T against K Affs. Fairness is the best impact. I also like clash style impacts.

Ks: I'm also very good for Affs with plans and extinction impacts against Ks. I generally believe Affs should get to weigh the plan.

T: I don’t have extensive topic knowledge so will need more explanation. I enjoy these debates more so when they include substantive engagement, and less so when they include a contrived, unpredictable interp.

CPs: Not a huge fan of generic process CPs.

Theory: Conditionality is generally good, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

About me

KU '25. I debate in college. Currently coach the Quarry Lane School. Previously coached Lawrence Free State ('22-23) and the Ascent Academy.

jspiersdebate@gmail.com

Macro-level:

I try to make thorough decisions based on the technical deployment of arguments presented. What that means is:

1. I will not read cards after the 1NC until a card doc is sent. I value evidence immensely, but I feel I would be doing a disservice to both teams if I allowed my preconceived notions of what your evidence says to influence my decision. In that respect, effectively leveraging cards requires depth of explanation and comparison such that I know what it will say before opening up a card doc, and ideally you say why your ev good/their ev bad without me having to make the call based on my own whims. My ideal world has me deciding a debate without opening a card doc, but if the debate is truly exceptional or desperately lacks clash I inevitably have to.

Clarity is a substantive constraint. If I do not understand the functional utility of the arguments you're making while I am flowing (or at least based off of the words I have on my flow) it is unlikely that my decision from reading the cards is going to dramatically shift that functional understanding. Ex. if you are extending like a turns case argument on one part of a DA as a uniqueness argument for a part of a case turn and you don't say that I'm likely just going to be confused and not going to psychoanalyze your decision and instead try to simplify as much as possible.

Teams can point out the implication of this substantive constraint – if a card is tagged meaninglessly, like “A. Death K” – you can just say that the tag didn’t make a complete argument and move on. At some point this is arbitrary, but a tag-line should be a representation of what the text is because it’s unreasonable to get every word of the card body, and even more unreasonable to interpret it in the way debaters want you to. If your speech is so time crunched that you can’t make a complete sentence with a subject and predicate, you’re doing something wrong.

2. I do not care what arguments you make, but I do care that you defend their implications. I am an employee of a school, so this doesn’t apply to “racism good” and the likes which are both abhorrent and astrategic, but “death good,” hidden ASPEC, and the fiat double-bind are fair game. I am equally good for policy and critical arguments, so long as they are deployed technically. To be clear, this doesn’t mean I don’t disagree with many arguments—I find most advantages to be a distortion of reality at best, and could place my bets on how I’d vote in a perfectly technically executed clash debate—but those biases are ultimately meaningless. When I get into a debate I try to be more of an “excel spreadsheet flow-bot” in the way that I view the debate, and while my biases could implicate the advice I give to each team, I attempt to prevent them from manifesting in my decisions.

3. I will take what you say as literally as possible. Arguments like "talking about the aff solves extinction and that outweighs procedural questions" make little sense intuitively but its risk starts at 100 until anything else is said. This is not because I like trickery - I am much more excitable by debating that is intuitive, evidence based, and reflects a modicum of "truth" - I just don't know how I could logically justify deleting it merely because I thought it was a bad argument. Ideally, the end goal of successful tech is some reflection of truth, because bad arguments should lose.

4.Tell me what to do. The debates that are the hardest/worst to judge aren’t ones with debate techne problems, but those where everyone is very good at components but not trying to piece together a decision. Debates are won at margins, and typically verbalizing the ballot you want makes it much easier to view the debate favorably for you because I understand what you’re trying to do with each component to get to the ballot. Don’t go overboard—the view from 10k feet is only so helpful—but making it clear what you want me to say = faster and more helpful decisions.

You may think, paradigm is short - agreed, but find basically everything else has little utility in prefs. I like everyone else like debate that is more specific and deep, find debates over the topic enjoyable, and want to vote for the team who is nicer to their opponents.

“I am drawn hither by your longing [for me to judge your debate], I come pushing myself along from afar off, and underneath am now scraped quite sore. But I am glad to do it. Gladly do I come, gladly do I offer myself to [judge] you[r debates].” —the Green Dragon, although I made some adjustments, which I noted in brackets

“What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.… The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun… Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.” —Ecclesiastes

Larissa MacFarquhar said that Judge Posner “writes not to defend himself, but to be accused.” I would like you to debate like Posner writes.

“sposito@umich.edu” —Me

“The propositions which one comes back to again and again as if bewitched - these I should like to expunge from philosophical language.” —Wittgenstein

The constant zeal for a cause, even the highest, our own, betrays a lack of spiritual refinement, as do all things that rest on unconditional faith: for the emblems of this is always—a cool gaze. —Toni Morrison

I consider all people harmful who are no longer capable of opposing hat which they love: this is how they corrupt the best things and persons. —Edward Said

“I love life. I love all of it, and in fact I love food.” —Ariel Sharon, 1982

“I have respect for so-called “toughness,” … not isolated and reified as it so often is in male-dominated cultures, but as the necessary preservative for all virtues, even those of gentleness and generosity. … My commitment to feminism requires I… not abjure it.” —Ann Douglas

"I need a quote to end with so it doesn't seem too serious. Maybe I should do something self-referential, but I feel like that's so overdone right now...." —My thought process

nargissuleman3@gmail.com

debating at ku '27

this is an activity that takes an insane amount of work, analysis, effort, and creativity. being in this round alone and having to read this paradigm is a testament to the time you have invested in this activity. that being said, i would say that my debate background is largely critical, and i have spent a majority of my time reading/debating antiblackness, afropess, set col, militarism, etc. for me, warranted analysis, properly extended arguments, and clear judge instruction are most definitely the way to get my ballot. know that my background is not the extent of my comfortability with your preferred argumentation.

yes, judge adaptation, but most importantly, read what you are comfortable with in front of me. i have judged and coached a variety of teams with varying styles of debate so i promise whatever you read i gotchu.

k affs

i think that your aff should have at least some connection to the topic, or a thorough reason as to why it shouldn't. if your aff is performative, don't let it get lost after the 1AC, especially if its tied to whatever method you are advocating for. i think that the easiest way to get my ballot is rob/roj. if at the end of the debate i am left feeling confused as to what your relationship to the ballot is, and why your model OR this debate uniquely is significant and outweighs the other impacts in the debate, then it is going to be difficult for me to vote for you in this situation. for fw, competing interpretations are the best way to go. i am largely of the belief that if you have kritiked a set of research practices/models/wording of the topic, you should propose an alternative to those structures. that being said, this may not be the best method for every aff, and i would advocate for this being something you consider as you construct your 1ACs in the first place, because i do also think impact turns are good, but no necessarily for every aff.

fw v k affs

if you are able to discuss why your model of debate is inclusive and allows for multiple points of education to be accessed including the aff's, you are automatically in a good position in these types of debates. i think that clash is always a better impact than fairness, and i find most fairness debates to be quite shallow - but u do u ig. fw makes the debate about models, so defend to me why your model is good/why debate under your model is more desirable, and im voting neg. i think the tva is probably better than ssd arguments. remember the tva doesnt have to solve for the entirety of the aff's impacts, BUT prove that the affs model of debate is accessible while being topical.

k v k affs

i think that these are some of the most exciting debates to judge/participate in, and i really appreciate the increasing creativity in these types of debate. this is a question of competing methods and at the end of the debate i should know why the negs/affs method is preferable and thorough impact calc is crucial. the aff probably gets a permutation here, BUT the net benefit(s) need to be gas and i should believe that without the aff, the disads are triggered. i love link turns in these kinds of debates and think they are super strategic. for the negative, clearly articulating why the aff can't overcome the link and why the aff links to the net benefit, make it very difficult for the aff to win the perm.

policy v k

fw is so insanely important in these debates. most of the time believe that the aff should get to weigh the consequences of the plan against a competitive alternative. the most strategic position for you is LINK TURNNNN and disads to the alt. additionally, permutations are good and i dont think you need to be spam reading 7 of them in the 1AR but a few are strategic. i think that a lot of Ks dont have unique links and links are usually just towards the status quo. dont get caught up in a bunch of jargon and lose the basis of what ur trying to say.

k v policy

link specificity is good. if the alternative isnt able to overcome the links then i think you are put in a difficult position. the fw debate should provide reasons as to why your interpretation of what debates look like are good for both teams in this round/or a good model for debates to operate under. best argumentation to the perm is why the aff links to the net benefit/disads to the permutation obviously. my familiarity with varying Ks are in the o/v of my paradigm. yes you still should take case in the 2NR imo, but obviously not necessary in every debate.

random thoughts

• you probably going to lose a debate against a k-aff with no case in the 2NR
• do not defend israel as a good or preferable hegemonic power and/or aid to israel in front of me. find somewhere else to defend genocide!
• debate is a site of education and idea cultivation. do not ruin that for anyone else with racism, sexism, islamaphobia, transphobia, etc.
• yes read at whatever speed you want but if you start spitting everywhere and acting like u about to take ur last breath....please.
• include a soccer reference/joke and i will boost your speaks 0.1-0.3 depending on how hard i laugh.