He/Him

CCHS 2020-2024

Corner Canyon AH

Put me on the email chain henryjosephatkin@gmail.com

I will evaluate any arguments made in the round and will judge based on the round to the best of my ability, however these are generally what I prefer. All of these are allowed just my preferences. Just gonna stress this again, you do you. Don't over adapt to me.

Advantages

Soft left aff's are cool! Big stick impacts are boring and probably wrong!

Use your 1AC advantages!

Add on's are cool!

DA's

Love a good DA

This might be a hot take but the UQ debate on DA's is underutilized.

Generic ptx da's are kind of annoying especially if the link is just pc and you never explain more. If you don’t know who switches their votes on a politics da that’s a little sad. That's not to say I don't like ptx da's, i just think people should put more work into link's than "republicans mad"

unique DA's are great. I will enjoy the debate a lot more if you go for the unique DA than the generic one.

I don't love intrinsicness tests but I find that neg teams are terrible at debating them so go for it. I would really like an interp about what a valid intrinsicness test is

Zero risk is a thing

CP's

lean aff on things like multi-actor fiat and process CP's but lean neg on questions of international fiat, pic's and probably a couple other issues. Uniform 50 state fiat is silly. especially if you use them being closer to the people as a solvency advocate. but again i'll try to be tab so debate that out.

Advantage CP's and PICS are my favorite kind of cp, process cp's with a dumb internal nb are my least favorite.

Hey 2A's, your solvency cards aren't solvency deficits to an advantage CP. Stop trying to say they are. Hey 2N's, if your cp text is an entire dissertation, stop. please.

you should debate about judge kicking, I'm willing to go either way but probably lean toward not kicking. if there is no instruction i won't kick the cp or alt because that's intervention

T

Probably better for limits than ground, I don't really understand why neg teams have a god given right to their generics.

Plan text in a vacuum is silly.

probably better for reasonability than most judges but still lean slightly towards competing interps. reasonability isn't just a blank check for the affirmative though, all i means is that they have to prove their model of debate is good instead of better than the affs interp. so if you give a 2ar on reasonability but don't answer the negs offense i will make a very quick decision.

I will not vote for an aspec shell hidden at the bottom of the a T shell.

K's v Policy Affs

K's are awesome.

I have read queer pessimism, cap, security, anthropocentrism, and k's that talk a little bit about disability and imperialism

I have not read but have learned about anti-blackness, afro-pess, variations of model minority stuff, baulldriard (although I'm not a huge fan), Biopower, fem, set col, imperialism, cosmo, orientalism, academy, and queerness in area's other than pessimism and some others I can't think remember rn.

I know nothing about most postmodernists, Nietzsche, Bataille, Buddhism, complexity, cybernetics, Virillio, Heidegger, Deleuze, Foucault, Necropolitics, variations of death good and other stuff. Not to say you shouldn't read these, just that you should explain them. Which you should do anyways.

If your K is a UQ CP + DA it will lose to perm double bind every time, I'd prefer a framework round unless you have something new and tricky.

I'm not going to make up some middle ground on framework, I'm going to pick a model of debate and go with that. If either side wants to run a middle ground framework bc they think it'll be easier to win than their "you link you lose" or "no k's" framework, then I'm all for it. But I'm not going to do it for you

On the FW debate if you can connect what you're arguing to what it teaches people to argue/advocate for it will be much better, i find this specifically a problem with affirmatives. You are not solving extinction. you are advocating that it's good to try and solve extinction through the government. win that extinction is a real possibility and that your fw teaches people to solve it, not that you solve for your scenario. I do not share the moral panic many judges have about k fw that makes the case 0 or aff fw that makes the K 0. i love k tricks lol, fiat isn't real.

If you have performance don't forget about it after the 1NC

My ideal debate is a soft left aff vs the k

K aff's--https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dnTLx4XQDI

I have very little experience with K aff's but I do think they're really cool!

If FW

Impact turns are great, I'm better for one's grounded in your 1AC than generic impact turns.

Fairness could be an impact.

If you have performance don't forget about it after the 1AC

KvK

These debate are super fun! I don't have a ton of experience in them (only done one) but I really enjoyed it and I really like watching them!

I think K affs almost certainly get perms (never heard a reason why not that didn't rely on winning T first) but the threshold for the perm will probably be pretty high

The last thing is that I'm always really annoyed when K affs change what they are halfway through the debate to skirt links.

Theory

this is a question of models, interp and a counter interp. contextualize your offense and defense to the interps, people never do!

misc

I can understand almost any spreading, if I need I will yell clear three times and if I still can't understand I will stop flowing.

I will evaluate anything that goes dropped as true, but you still have to extend the entire argument in your last speech and tell me why it makes you win.

VOTERS ARE HUGE, 2NR 2AR it is your job to tell me why you won this debate. It makes it way easier for the judge and is just generally good practice.

Tech > truth

Condo is probably good. I don't particularly understand why more advocacies spreads the aff thin but more t-shells, aspec, etc don't

I don't flow cross but I do think it's binding.

pet peeves

your plan text should mean something. recently one of the best teams in the country read this plan text "The United States federal government should adopt a socialist job guarantee, financed by fiscal policies designed to facilitate regulated market socialism." what on earth are fiscal policies designed to facilitate regulated market socialism. same thing goes for cp's. i once saw a cp that was "the united states federal government should dedicate itself to regulated capitalism". what. They do that already. xecgvhjkj;lkj.i would probably vote on vagueness/spec against these types of things if the arguments are made and won

You cannot just reinsert rehighlightings, you have to read them

off time roadmaps that make arguments and are more than just telling me where to organize my flows

"I stand in the firmest of affirmations/negations"

reading out the resolution at the beginning of the 1AC as if I don't know

Introducing yourself and your partner in the 1AC. I can see who you are on the ballot

Being called "judge". please call me henry or don't refer to me at all, but also I get that it's engrained in your head so I won't be upset if you do

avid hater of rules that Utah middle school debate has (no theory, no K's, its an auto loss if you're untopical (like that's objective lol), no verbal feedback, basically grab all of what makes policy work and get rid of it). waiting for the day that someone reads a 1NC that's one CP and 5 minutes of conditional planks because theory isn't allowed so that's not cheating. if I'm your judge at MS state I believe these rules do not apply

the end

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=370052

I vehemently disagree with everything in this^ paradigm and if you make references to how terrible it is I'll boost your speaks

Feel free to ask me anything

I won't vote for any theory about what the other team is wearing, don't try it.

If you bring me chocolate milk (or hot chocolate in the winter) I'll give you an extra .1 speaker points

I also have many references to other paradigms, ill give you speaks boosts if you know who they're from. (i am now realizing i have forgotten what many of the references are so uh oops ig)

Being racist, sexist, homophobic, violent, etc = L and 0.

Ilan Boguslavsky (he/him)

Head-Royce '24

UC Berkeley '28

2x toc qualifier, 2024 toc quarterfinalist, 10x career bids

Add me to the chain: ilan.boguslavsky@gmail.com and hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Top-level:

read what you want. I read a policy aff my first two years of high school and a k aff my last two years

tech > truth, I'll pretty much vote for anything if won technically and will do my best to minimize judge intervention

judge instruction in the rebuttals is crucial and slow down if its something important

well researched and specific neg strats > generics

quality of cards > quantity of cards

Topicality:

good for t debates. A lot of my 1nr's were extending t

specific and well thought out t debates > generic t violations

competing interps > reasonability

Counterplans:

good for advantage cp's and aff specifc pic's. Not great for competition debates

judgekick is fine but the 2nr needs to say it and justify it

Disadvantages:

good for most da's just make sure you mitigate some of the case

do explicit turns case analysis

Kritiks:

good for k's and i'm familiar with most literature

throughout high school we went for: afropess, black feminism, racial cap, security, deleuze, cybernetics, beller, etc.

i'll probably know what you're talking about but you should have a coherent explanation of your theory of power

specific links to the aff >>> generic links

explain your impacts. a lot of times teams k teams read a link without doing any impact calc

i'm fine if you go for framework + a risk of a link or a material alt that solves the links but I think the latter requires a lot more work on mitigating the case and answering da's to the alt

framework usually the most important part of these debates

K-Affs:

good for k-affs that are unique to the topic

explain what your aff does and how it resolves the impacts of the 1ac

if you are vague about your advocacy or shift what your aff does throughout the debate to skirt da's or case turns i'll err neg

k-affs need to affirm something not just say that the topic is bad

I don't think you need to win spill-up claims or that debate shapes subjectivity but I want to knowwhy the ballot is good

Framework vs K-Affs:

good for fairness or clash/skills, fairness can be an internal link or an impact

debate has game-like elements but I can be convinced that it's more than a game

I prefer a counter interp but am fine for a straight impact turn strategy

the counter interp will never solve the neg's offense but it can mitigate limits explosion arguments

affs need specific answers to tva and ssd

its an uphill battle for the aff if the neg wins that the tva allows for a discussion of the aff's harms and they can read the aff on the neg in other debates

neg case debating is key because most aff fwk da's are embedded in the case

K v K:

k affs probably get perms but I can be convinced otherwise

these debates usually come down to the perm so the neg needs specific links that are opportunity costs to the aff

affs need to defend their literature and authors instead of no linking arguments that probably link to the aff

Theory:

anything but condo is probably a reason to reject the argument not the team

condo is good up until 5 or 6 then its probably abusive

what even is dispo?

I have a low threshold for answering cheap theory arguments

Random stuff:

racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. = auto L and lowest speaks

wont vote for racism or genocide good but the death k is a valid argument

will reward kindness and humor during rounds

you can probably insert rehighlightings if the card has already been read but the other team can contest it

tell me if you want to stake the round on an ethics violation and I will stop the round, otherwise debate it out

funny references to head-royce debaters = +.1 speaker points

Lowell 23' Berkeley 27'

Email: lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail.com for email chains and tournaments.

TLDR: Speed is fine but clarity > speed. Prefer a policy debate instead of a K v K debate.

Background: Hi, I'm Michael. I was a 2A/1N at Lowell High School. Jenny Liu has carried me as my 2N/1A partner, with both of us under the watchful eye of the Mr. Debnil Sur. Don't call me judge to quote the person who dragged me into policy "I am at most three years older than you, and am a child myself."

Circuit

Topicality: Sure. I evaluate T through competing interpretations. Reasonability is not a real argument ... unless it's dropped ...

K Affs: Limited experience. Too often in these debates there is not clear warranting / impacting of things like fairness, clash etc. The team with the better high level storytelling and clearer explanation of arguments that matter will pick up my ballot.

Neg K: Framework Ks are awesome! Ks with an alt are cool too, but it seems that the alt never gets developed or explained sufficiently to overcome the status quo. Affirmatives that exploit this and negatives that explain why this doesn't matter (dropped, floating pics, having an actual alt that overcomes the links) will have a stronger chance of picking up my ballot.

CP: would love to see a case specific cp with a decent solvency advocate, +0.2 speaks if you have a case specific cp with a rehighlighted piece of their ev that says your plan solves (and the rehighlighting actually says what you want it to say).

DA: Sure, I'll vote on them if your ahead, generic links are bad but it doesn't matter if the 1AR drops them, explain why your impact outweighs. I do not think you need evidence to make an argument. Many bad DAs can be reduced to noise through smart analytics. Doing so will improve your speaker points. Better evidence will require your own.

Case: I think that evidence comparison on the case page just did not exist for the NATO topic. More likely to be convinced by smart analytics and evidence rehighlightings then impact defense alone. Warrant comparison is so important -- make the 2AR actually have to spend time on the case page pls!!

CX: I flow it so use it to poke holes and get concessions. Don't be rude, cutting people off is fine but do it in a polite way. Open CX is cool.

Condo: More sympathetic to the AFF then typical. Would much prefer to judge a well warranted and high clash 3-off debate than a 11-off 1NC where the 2AC gets like 4 arguments on every flow at best.

Friv T: I view it as a reason to reject the argument not the team.

+0.1 if you follow @lowellpolicyheg on insta, tell me before the round!!

+0.1 for your team if you title one of your docs "lay-debate-is-not-dead".

+0.2 if you make a funny joke about Debnil, Jessie, Taylor, Taytum, Eloise, Win, or Jenny (the seven of them have taught me everything I know about debate so you can look at their paradigms if you really want to understand where I am coming from as a judge).

Policy (Lay / GGSA): Circuit's fine ifboth teams agree to do so, throughout my career there have been too many circuit teams that agree to a lay debate and then run 10 off -- it's not cool.

Ethos matters! Looking at me instead of your computer can get you a long way especially when writing my ballot in the 2nr or 2ar.

Case in a lay debate setting: Honestly totally go for case with me, I have a pretty high threshold that the aff has to pass, if you can prove to me beyond the preponderance of the evidence that the aff can't solve or access their impacts I'll vote for you. Use their ev against them. If you are going for just case in the 2nr say at the top "Russell Brand would vote on stock issues so you should too" it will remind me that GGSA is a lay tournament so I can pull the trigger on solvency, plus it will boost your speaks 0.1

Parli stuff:

Ethos > logos; I'm sorry but if your doing parli I have 0 respect for your ev so I vote on your rhetoric and delivery of arguments.

That said make your arguments logical not going to vote on something insanely stupid just because you said it well.

Perms are a test of competition, running one in 2a does not lock you into it for the VI.

I'll strike new arguments but call a POO the first time they make one, I'll say taken into account and be strictly looking for new arguments through out the rest of the VI. That said if your wrong I'll be very sad so make sure your right that it's new.

+0.1 if you follow @lowellpolicyheg on insta, tell me before the round.

+0.1 if you make a joke about anyone who's done Lowell parli

Layla Hijjawi

Rowland Hall '23

laylahijjawidebate@gmail.com

- tech > truth

- prioritize clarity over speed

- DA and K debates consistently need more investment in the link debate-- if you spend time here to make specific links to the aff you will benefit immensely!

- i value case debate and wish it was more present in rounds

- don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc.

- you do you and have fun!

abby.holland.ut@gmail.com (please add me to the email chain!)

CCHS '24 (2N all 4 years)

she/her

middle school

most of this probably doesn't apply beyond the general notes. Please extend warrants and evidence from speech to speech. Impact calc and judge instruction is super important! if you're interested in high school debate I'd love to answer questions!

general

tech>truth

I'm fine with any speed just please enunciate and slow down on analytics. if I can't understand you I'll call clear twice and then stop flowing

please explain acronyms at least once so I know what you're talking about

I've been told its pretty easy to tell what I'm thinking based on my facial expressions, I don't know how much this translates to debate rounds

TL;DR: I'd rather watch a good round than a round that's worse because you overadapt to me, so do whatever you want just explain it well. Everything below are just my preferences and ramblings. Impact calc and judge instruction in the 2ar/2nr are really important to me, line-by-line is great, the more work you do to minimize judge intervention the easier my decision is and the less confused/frustrated you will be with my decision.

DA

DAs are great, run whatever as long as you run it well. Case-specific DAs make me very happy and super generic DAs make me sad but I understand their use.

I LOVE politics DAs! That being said I think generic links such as PC are usually really poorly explained and make me sad (PC is fake change my mind). I have a higher threshold for voting for vague links. Specific links are amazing here and I think you should know how key politicians would vote in the world of the DA. (bonus points if you have a CP that avoids the ptx DA with specific evidence key politicians would support the CP)

I'm not a huge fan of intrinsicness but I'll vote for it

IMPACT CALC please! zero risk is a thing, framing can take out a DA if its done well

CP

Great, you do you. Specific CPs are better. Please have solvency advocates and a net benefit. I don't like boring process CPs but I'll vote on it if you're winning the argument. Stop writing CP plan texts that are multiple paragraphs long (looking at you 2Ns).

I lean neg on most theory, except I'm aff leaning on multi-actor fiat. uniform 50-state fiat is silly. condo is good

you should debate judge kick

T

These aren't my favorite debates, but if this is your strat go for it. contextualized interps are better. Please slow down a little on analytics

I won't vote for aspec hidden at the bottom of a T-flow, label it clearly. This also means I'm more lenient on 1ar answers to hidden aspec

Case

Case debate is really underrated! Utilize in-depth case debate and case turns!

K v. Policy Aff

I love these debates, a one-off k debate against a soft left policy aff is probably my ideal debate.

I've read cap, queerness, security, and anthropocentrism. I have some knowledge of afro-pess, fem, setcol, and a little bit of baudrillard (although I really dislike baudrillard). Feel free to read other Ks, just make sure to explain them clearly!

if your K is secretly just a CP + DA in a trench coat pretending to be a K it probably loses pretty easily. I'm going to pick a framework based on the flow, not a middle ground. Line-by-line debate is better than super long, not contextualized overviews.Also please be able to actually articulate what the world of the alt looks like and how it interacts with the aff.

If you have an element of performance, make sure to link it back to your solvency (also I think performance is super cool and would love to see more of it!)

K affs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dnTLx4XQDI

I don't have much experience with K affs, but I think they're great! Just make sure to explain it well. I think they should have some link to the topic

I don't think I'm qualified to have a leaning on K affs v. FW, I'll vote for either. fairness is an impact, but I prefer it as an internal link

KvK

I have almost no experience with these debates but I think they're cool, so do what you will with that information.

Policy Affs

I love soft left affs! Please have a solid framing page

2as please make your plan text mean something, wtf are fiscal polices designed to facilitate regulated market socialism

LD

I'll probably judge this similarly to how I would a policy round, please explain how your value/criterion frames your impacts!

Misc

Be a good human! Don't be racist, sexist, homphobic, transphobic, etc.

Read re-highlights don't just insert them

your off time roadmap should tell me what order my flows go it

I'll evaluate dropped arguments as true, but you still have to extend a warrant and explain why it means you win for me to vote on it

I'll probably dock 0.1 speaks if you say "I stand in firm affirmation/negation"

I'll give +0.1 speaker points for mean girls or legally blonde references in context (movie or musical)

feel free to ask me anything

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=244725

I vehemently disagree with everything in this^ paradigm and if you make references to how terrible it is I'll boost your speaks

Put me on the email chain: Lawsonhudson10@gmail.com

Cabot '19

Baylor '24 - 3x NDT Qualifier

From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free

TLDR: Do what you want and do it well. Paradigms can be more dissuasive than informative so let me know if you have any questions before the round. I've almost exclusively done K debate so more judge framing in policy v policy rounds is very helpful. Depth over breadth, if your strat is 7+ off Im probably not the judge for you. I'll always read ev and be engaged in the round but it's your responsibility to tell me how to evaluate the round/impacts. Debate is fundamentally a communicative activity, I usually flow on paper and if you want me to evaluate your args I need you to explain your warrants rather than just extending tags/card names. If there's disputes over what a piece of evidence says I'll read evidence but I shouldn't have to sift through a card doc to resolve a debate. If there's anything I can do to make debates more accessible for you, please let me know before round either via email or a pre-round conversation. Debate well and have fun!

TOC Update:

LDers: DO NOT ASK TO DO SPEECHDROP. READ THE FIRST LINE ABOUT PUTTING ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN

I honestly don't care what you do or say, just please have fun and value the time you have at tournaments; and don't say messed up things. I've been a 2n most of my career but I've also been a 2a at times. I've read everything from baudrillard to disability and performance arguments on the aff to cap, spanos, necropolitics, semiocap, set col, and hostage taking on the neg (this isn't an exhaustive list). I can count on 1 hand the number of times I've went for fw since hs (one time). This doesn't mean I won't vote on it, but it is to say I will have have a hard time being persuaded by "K affs set an impossible research burden" or "procedural fairness is the only thing that matters in debate." More thoughts on fw below. I want to see and will reward with increased speaks the following: argument innovation, specificity, quality ev, jokes/good vibes, good cx, examples, and judge instruction. Please give me judge instruction. Write my ballot in the beginning of your final rebuttal and make sure to resolve the offense on the flow. I want to see clash, the more you clash with your opponents, the more likely you are to get my ballot.

K affs

Go for it. Affs that defend doing things in the direction of the topic tend to do better in fw debates but if your aff doesn't do that, just win why not doing that is good and you'll be fine. I'm honestly down for whatever. Whether your strategy is to have a connection to the topic and a method that results in topical action, or you read your aff to impact turn fw I've done it and will evaluate anything. I tend to thing presumption is a strategic strategy against k affs that at least forces teams to explain what they are defending. Tell me what my role in these debates is, what the ballot does, and what the benefit to debating the aff is. If you do these things, you're good.

T

Go for it. I think T is especially underutilized against certain policy affs. Contrary to some belief, I will vote for fw and will evaluate it like any argument. I usually evaluate fw debates through the lens of competing models of debate but can be convinced otherwise. For the neg, I find arguments about clash and advocacy centered on the topic generally more persuasive than arguments about procedural fairness. Especially on this topic, I think having offense as to why debating fiscal redistribution is good would be beneficial for the neg. TVA's probably need to have at least texts, can be convinced they need solvency advocates too. I can be convinced affs make clash impossible, but if your only idea of clash is the politics da and the states cp I'll be less persuaded. In my opinion, the best way to go for fw is to win your interp creates a model of debate that is able to solve the affs offense (either through the tva or ssd). For the aff, its usually easier to win impact turns to fw but having a solid defense of your model/counter interp goes a long way in mitigating neg offense. I enjoy creative we meet args/counter-interps. New, innovative approaches to fw are always exciting as these debates can get very stale.

K's

These debates are where I have the most background and feel the most comfortable judging. The two biggest issues for the negative in K debates tend to be link application and alt explanation. Focusing on these areas along with round framing i.e. fw (for both the aff and the neg) will largely determine the direction of my ballot in these debates. Affs needs to explain how the permutation functions in the context of the alternative rather than simply extending a perm text as well as net benefits to the perm while the negative should equally spend sufficient time explaining why the aff and the alt are mutually exclusive. I don’t think the neg necessarily needs to go for an alt but if that's your thing you need to make sure you win the framework debate. Affs tend to do better when they engage with the actual content of the K and extend offense in addition to the case. If your aff obviously links to the K i.e. cap vs an innovation aff, you're probably in a better position impact turning the K than going for the no link/perm strategy in front of me. Aff teams would benefit from spending less time on framework/reading endless cards and more time engaging with the links/thesis of the K.

CPs/DA's

Make sure to explain how the counterplan is mutually exclusive with the aff and what the net benefit is. When going for the disad the negative needs to have a clear link, preferably reasons why the disad turns the case, and Impact Framing. Both the 2nr and the 2ar need to explain to me why your impacts outweigh theirs because I don't want to do that work for you.

LD:

While I've done LD, I have done exclusively progressive LD so I'm not familiar with some of the traditional LD norms. I'm fine with general theory arguments like conditionality and disclosure theory but if your strat relies on your opponent conceding a bunch of blippy, unwarranted statements that don't mean anything I'm probably not the judge for you. I'd much rather you see you win on the content of the debate than extending a blippy 1ar theory argument so you don't have to debate the substance of the case. Go as fast as you want as long as you are clear. I'm not likely to vote on tricks/spikes and long underviews in 1acs are annoying. If the 1ac involves reading 5 minutes of preempts with 1 minute of content I’m probably not the judge for you. I'm a policy debater at heart. I ultimately don't care what you do or say in round as long as it's not racist, sexist, ableist, or transphobic. Just make arguments - claim, warrant, impact - and tell me why you're winning the debate in the rebuttal speeches. I judge LD rounds slightly differently - I flow on my laptop. I first evaluate the fw debate which only ends up mattering when it does I guess? I then evaluate the 2nr/2ar to resolve key points of offense. I find LD debaters are often too defensive in their rebuttals and if that's you its not likely to work in your favor. Have offense. Be willing to impact turn your opponents position. I want to see ~clash~.

My pronouns are He/Him. I am a Junior at Rowland Hall. Have fun!

My email is zacharyklein@rowlandhall.org

My paradigm is similar to those of Micah Sheinberg and Daniel Luo

Strike me if you read Baudrillard.

Tech>Truth

I will not vote on your 'dropped' 4 second aspec shell hidden within your topicality block unless your extension of ii goes conceded as well.

I should be able to understand what you are saying.

I default to judge kick including your aff plan, your perm, and your cp/alt.

I don't understand the point of disad turns the case arguments when the disad has a super low risk against a soft left aff with a high risk.

You should explain not only how to weigh impacts and why your impacts outweigh in your specific model.

Speaker points are reflective of your strength of arguments and the clarity of your voice.

+ 0.5 speaks if you make a Neville Longbottom reference.

My email is lorileiml@gmail.com please add me to the email chain! Don't be a terrible person!! Thank you

Winner of the 2023 Harvard College Tournament Costume Contest

Former Debater at University of Wyoming - I now debate at Baylor

K affs - should have a tie to the topic in some way, well explained affs are important - how do you solve x issue?

K - I think block dependency is high in these debates too - i want nuance arguments tell me why the aff is bad, on the aff side i want reasons the aff is good idea, other than that these debates are enjoyable to watch!!

Fw- Could go either way, i find myself in a bit of these debates where both sides just read their blocks at each other and don’t engage with the other person - i’ll reward someone who engages with the nuance of the arguments being made -- you can win a counter interp or an impact turn -- justify why you get to read FW - i’d rather vote for clash than fairness

Case- I love a good case debate. I think this part of debate is under utilized and can get good wins if you have a good case neg.

Da- Disad’s can take out an aff and I love turns case stuff. If you don’t know who switches their votes on a politics da that’s a little sad. you should explain the story of the da.

Cp- Counterplans are cool! Adv cp’s are not being used enough - a lot of people write affs that can be beat by a simple counter plan. Explain the process of the counter plan please :)

T- Im not a big fan of broad t definitions but I know they have to be used sometimes. T debates are also super messy so keep it clean. Tell me why them being untopical is bad. I haven’t judged a lot of T debates on this topic so explain it well.

Tech over truth :)

Clipping - I want video or recording otherwise this can be hard to verify unless i already know it’s happening

Other events- I enjoy judging other events besides policy! Please don’t worry about me being your judge I love all events of speech and debate and would love to learn more about them.

Eliana McLaughlin

Debated 4 years at CK.McClatchy (2023) - SUDL

Currently debating for UC Davis (2027)

pmo the chain: elianagracemclaughlin@gmail.com

--

tldr/

tech > truth

Do whatever it is you do best. This paradigm is short because I will vote for any argument as long as it actually wins the debate. With that being said, I will try my best to flesh out my inevitable biases below. While in high school, I largely went for the K on both the aff and neg. I would say I am pretty comfortable with a large body of literature, specifically; settlerism, cap, fem, Baudrillard, and cybernetics. That being said, I am perfectly comfortable judging policy rounds.

Judge instruction in 2ar/2nr is incredibly important and will play a huge role in my decision-making

Pls don't go rapid fire speeding through your analytics --

My evaluations are limited to the flow, I will not vote on anything that happened outside of the round

--

some specifies/

Kritiks:

Aff- go for it. If you go for an impact turn to T without a c/i, then you need to win offense against model v model rounds/explain why the debate is bad. I find that c/i often loses to limits the majority of the time. Winning your impact by turning their model of debate/debates under the rez while proving that you maintain some form of debatability is probably the quickest way to my ballot. Know your lit!!!

Neg—I largely went for settlerism but am comfortable judging anything. I am a huge fan of a very contextualized, robust link story that turns case coupled with judge instruction—frame my ballot. You probably will not win without some form of in-depth case debate.

FW:

Fairness is either an impact or an internal link

Case debate is still very much necessary in these rounds

Da / CP:

I'm good for these debates. The most important aspect of these debates is probably judging instruction/ impact calc. Don't stop at “disad turns the case” - explain the broad stroke implication of that claim through comparative impact calc. evidence quality is realll important

If you can help it don't go for CP theory

Prior experience:

Debated as a 2A for James Logan High School for 4 years. Went almost exclusively for K’s on the aff and the neg. Currently debating as a 2A for the University of California. I exclusively go for policy arguments now.

Judging:

emiliomenotti@berkeley.edu

Jameslogandebatedocs@gmail.com

A majority of my debates have been one off/K Affs so do with that what you will. Im a sucker for a good Security/Cap/Settler Colonialism Kritik. However, this does not mean I wont vote for a policy argument. I love debate and do not have a predisposition towards particular styles. At the end of the day my rfd is a referendum on who debated better. That being said, do not try and over-correct for me. I think debate is a space for you to pursue whatever you want (as long as it’s not overtly violent like racism/sexism/discrimination good).

Don’t bomb through analytics its annoying to flow and you will lose speaks. The less you act like a jerk the better. Theres a time and place for everything.

Rebuttals are often the most frustrating part of debate. This is when people have to get off the blocks and start thinking big picture. I like debaters who write their ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. More judge instruction will not only get you better speaker points but dramatically increase your chances of winning. Im more than likely not going to vote on ticky tacky arguments, but who has a better big picture analysis for why they’ve won the debate and can flush out the benefits to granting them a ballot. In close debates, impact calc goes a long way. I will read evidence at the end of the round, but that is not an excuse for lazy debating.

extra .1 speaks for making fun of a current cal debater

—College debater & policy debate captain @ Davis

—NDT Qualifier 2024

—Former Assistant Coach @ Sonoma Academy, graduated '22.

—Add me to the email chain: mateodebates@gmail.com

Background:

Did 4 years of debate at Sonoma, mostly went for Ks, qualled to TOC, coached for a year and coached mostly policy stuff, now lead UC Davis policy team.

General:

—Do whatever you're good at; I enjoy and am willing to judge nearly any type of round. I will likely vote for the team who is best able to isolate the central question of the round and explain why the arguments in the round mean they’ve won.

K + FW stuff:

—I have gone for the K in most of my debates. Specific Ks are always best, but read whatever you want.

—Link specificity is important, and will often win you the debate. My favorite K strategies are highly organized, structured, and specific.

—You can read K Affs in front of me. I ran K Affs throughout high school and now in college and wrote several dozen of them. Do whatever you want.

—I believe debate is a game with unique pedagogical values.

—Procedural fairness can be convincing to me if explained well with terminal impact calculus in the 2NR; however, I am more likely to vote on a model with limits and clash as the impacts

I debated for 4 years in policy at Head-Royce as a 1A/2N and went for the K on both the aff and the neg for my last 3 years. I now debate at UC Berkeley and go only for policy args.

Put me on the email chain:

rileyreichel@gmail.com

hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com

please name the chain something reasonable.

Do what you do best. This paradigm is short because I will vote for almost any argument so long as it is won in debate. Below are predispositions but every single one can be overcome by debating well. I know everyone says this but I will try my hardest to stick to the flow and judge as objectively as I can. I have also realized I tend to make faces when I like or do not like something.

I read all the evidence mentioned in the final rebuttals. I put a lot of weight in evidence quality and you should be very loud about telling me if your evidence is good, I'll reward it with high speaks.

FW v K aff: Fairness is an impact but I usually prefer skills/clash. I do think that this activity has some effect on debaters and judges but to what extent is up to debate. I have a pretty good understanding of most critical theory but have gone for more security/cap rather than identity args in the past. I like to think I am 50-50 in these debates and can be convinced of almost anything pretty easily.

K v K: Never heard a convincing arg for why K affs don't get perms. Most reasons are predicated off of winning T. I think these debates tend to devolve into perm vs link which seems hard to win for both sides. I like affs that stick to their theory and go for impact turns rather than just becoming whatever the neg read. While your author probably does agree that capitalism/the LIO/hegemony/whatever is bad, it is unlikely that they fully agree with what the negative has said. Debate those intricacies and prove that your model of debate creates nuanced and in-depth clash. The more you run towards no link/perm, the more I buy FW arguments about clash and skills.

Theory: I have been confused by judges who arbitrarily choose not to vote on theory even when fully conceded. Cheap theory violations are easily answered and I am rarely convinced by one liner theory violations in the 2AC becoming 2-3 minutes of the 1AR. That being said, if the negative drops it, go for it. I won't choose not to vote on it just because it's theory, it was short in the 2AC, or because what the negative did was "reasonable".

Random stuff so that you can't get mad at me when this happens:

won't vote on stuff that happened outside the round

will drop you and give 0s for anything blatantly offensive done in round and am willing to end debates early if I think something unsafe is happening

I think reading extinction arguments and not being able to defend against the impact turn is cowardice

I have become increasingly annoyed with people acting like jerks in round. It's a communicative activity and everyone is spending their time here willingly, try to keep that in mind.

I think you can reinsert rehighlighting if it's just saying the other team miscut the evidence. If you're trying to make a new arg, you should prolly read it.

Some people and paradigms to look at to better understand the way I view debate: Larry Dang, T Weddington, Nathan Fleming, Nick Fleming, Katie Wimsatt, Emilio Menotti, Cat Jacob

extra .1 speaks for references to old/current Head-Royce or Cal debaters

Lowell '20 l UCLA '24

Yes, email chain: zoerosenberg [at] gmail [dot] com, please format the subject as: "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"

Background: I was a 2N for four years at Lowell, I qualified to the TOC my senior year and was in late elims of NSDA. I don't debate in college due to a lack of policy infrastructure. I judge somewhat frequently on the west coast so I have a good sense of arguments being read on the circuit.

GGSA/State Qualifier: I will still judge rounds technically, as one does for circuit debate. However, I believe adaptation is one of the most important skills one can get out of debate so I encourage you to speak slowly, especially with parents on the panel.

--

Tech before truth. It's human nature to have preferences toward certain arguments but I try my best to listen and judge objectively. All of the below can be changed by out-debating the other team through judge instruction and ballot writing. Unresolved debates are bad debates.

Speed is great, but clarity is even better. If I'm judging you online please go slightly slower, especially if you don't have a good mic. I find it increasingly hard to hear analytics in the online format.

Be smart. I rather hear great analytical arguments than terrible cards. I generally think in-round explanation is more important than evidence quality.

I'm very expressive, look at me if you want to know if I'm digging your argument!

Call me by my name, not "judge".

Debnil Sur taught me everything I know about debate so check: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=debnil&search_last= for a better explanation of anything I have to say here.

Longer Stuff

What arguments does she prefer? I went for mostly policy arguments and feel more in my comfort zone judging these debates. That being said, I moved more to the left as my years in high school came to a close and am down to judge a well-defended kritikal affirmative. I think debate is a game but it's a game that can certainly can influence subjectivity development. Note: I would still prefer to judge a bad policy debate, over a bad kritikal debate.

Online Debate Adaptions

Here are some things you can do to make the terribleness of online tournaments a little less terrible.

1 - I really would like your camera to be on, wifi permitting. Debate is a communicative activity and your persuasion increases by tenfold if you are communicating with me face to face.

2 - Please use some form of microphone or slow down by 20%. It is really hard to catch analytics with poor audio quality.

3 - The benefits of sending analytics vastly outweigh the cons of someone having your blocks to a random argument.

4 - If it takes you more than a minute to send out an email chain I will start running prep. I genuinely don't understand how it can take up to five minutes to attach a document to an email chain lmao

K Stuff:

K Affs: I read a kritikal affirmative all of senior year but on the negative went for framework against most K affs. I don't have a definite bias toward either side. However, kritikal affirmatives that defend a direction of the topic and allow the negative to access core topic generics jive with me much more than simply impact turning fairness and skirting the resolution.

Framework: Fairness is an impact. By the 2NR please don't go for more than two impacts. Having a superior explanation why the TVA resolves their offense and doing impact comparison will put you in a good spot. Switch-side debate is a silly argument, but feel free to convince me otherwise.

Neg: I know the lit behind security, neolib, psychoanalysis, and necropolitics. Make of that which you will. I'm not going to be happy listening to your 7 minute overview. Explain the thesis of the kritik and contextualize the link debate to the aff and I will be quite happy. Winning framework means you probably win the ballot. And as Debnil puts it, "I believe I'm more of an educator than policymaker, which means representational critiques or critiques of debate's educational incentive structure will land better for me than most judges."

Competing interps or reasonability? Competing interps. Asserting a standard like limits needs to be warranted out, explain why your impacts matters. Have a clear vision of the topic under your interp, things like case-lists and a solid understanding of arguments being read on the circuit are important. T before theory. Also a good topicality debate is my favorite thing ever.

Is condo good? Yes, most of the time. Things like amending stuff in the block, kicking planks, fiating out of straight turns are sketchy. But in most debates, unless it's dropped or severely mishandled I lean neg. To win condo the affirmative must have a superior explanation why multiple advocacies made that debate unrecoverable. Going for condo only because you're losing on substance is not the move. Hard debate is good debate. Other theory preferences (I-Fiat, Process CPs, etc.) are likely determined by the topic. However, they're almost always reasons to reject the argument not the team.

Policy stuff? I like it. Link centered debate matters the most, so focus on uniqueness and link framing. Do comparative analysis of the warrants in your evidence. I really dislike bad turns case analysis, link turns case arguments will sit better with me. I think most types of counterplans are legitimate if the neg wins they are competitive. I'll judge kick if you tell me to do it.

My name is pronounced loo-CHI-uh. They/ them

Email chains > speech drop. lucia.scott at barstowschool.org

Previous debating: K-State (2013-2016), Kapaun Mt. Carmel (2009-2013)

Coaching: Barstow (2018-Present), Baylor (2017-2018), Kapaun Mt. Carmel (2013-2017)

Meta things

Speaks start at 28.5 and move up or down from there. If I think you should clear, I'll give you at least a 29. 27.9 cap on speaks if any of your docs are PDFs. Like, stop. Just stop.

I have almost certainly voted on everything I say I don't like in my paradigm at some point. At the end of the day, my goal is to intervene as little as possible. Might I be grumpy if I have to judge a 10 off debate with Deleuze, a Gregorian calendar procedural, an anarchy counterplan, and whatever that omnipotent AI that's going to kill us all is called? Yes. So grumpy. Will I vote on these arguments if you win the debate? Also yes. Will it affect your speaks? No. Grumpy adults shouldn't get to determine what debaters do.

I appreciate scrappy debate. If you like to use tricks to win, fine by me. If you think an argument is silly, it shouldn't be too hard to beat.

What I don't appreciate is cowardly debate. I don't love watching rounds where the core strat seems to be defending nothing. Debate is about arguments and controversy. Embrace it. It's awesome.

Tech over truth, but the less true an argument is, the less tech you need to beat it. This is particularly true of 1NC strats the just shove a bunch of garbage non-arguments in to try to freak out the 2A.

My threshold for explanation on un-answered arguments is incredibly low. I don't think the 2A should have to spend time explaining the internal links of an advantage that has one impact d card on it, or the 2N should have to spend time explaining a dropped alt. You do, however, need to tell me what the IMPLICATION of those dropped or mostly dropped arguments is in order for me to know how to evaluate them and how they interact with other flows.

Quality over quantity; what constitutes quality is, of course, up for debate.

Questions are not arguments. I see way too many 2NRs/2ARs that say, "What does the alt/aff even do?" instead of just explaining why it wouldn't do anything.

I read cards to make sure you aren't clipping, but what they actually say doesn't factor into my decision unless there's some contestation by the debaters about the content of the evidence. Don't let a team get away with reading garbage cards that don't say anything; I'm not going to make that argument for you.

Procedurals/ Theory

I get grumpy about arbitrary interps of theoretical arguments (conditionality, ROB's, really anything). This means I do think "conditionality bad" is a better interp than "they get three conditional advocacies." Relax, I don't actually think conditionality is bad, but I also don't think there's really a difference between three vs four or four vs five or five vs six conditional advocacies.

With the exception of conditionality, I default to theoretical objections are reasons to reject the argument or reasons that justify you also doing some theoretically illegit thing, like "perm do the counterplan." This includes perf con; I don't think perf con is a reason to reject the team, I just think it's a reason they don't get links off 2AC/1AR answers to the contradictory position in question. Pef con is distinct from an actual double turn; double turns are not theory arguments y'all.

For topicality, you need impacts. You're saying this team should lose the debate. That's a pretty steep punishment. You need to win more than just a violation here. What affs would be allowed under their interp that you shouldn't have to prepare for? What off case positions do you lose access to? Why does that matter?

I think "lit checks abuse" solves 90% of policy-based limits arguments. Aff teams should also make more arguments about why whatever ground the neg loses isn't ground they should have had in the first place. I think big topics are better than small topics provided those big topics have good neg generics. Politics and the states counterplan are not good neg generics.

Reasonability, to me, means that the neg had a reasonable amount of predictable ground, not that the aff is "reasonably topical," whatever that means. I don't think that means the aff's counter interp has to be "reasonable."

Case Debate

My favorite part of debate. I frankly like to vote neg on presumption, but the work done needs to be specific. I'm more likely to assign a low or no risk of the aff if there's a compelling internal link debate than if the 1AR dropped the third impact D card that's non-specific and two lines long.

I also think a well-leveraged aff can do a lot on other sheets of paper, especially when comparative work with the neg's offense is done.

Big pet peeve of mine is treating the aff like it's just one big page if it isn't. E.g. the 1AC had an advantage and a solvency contention, but the 1N just says "case" in their roadmap. Where on case? If it doesn't matter, you're not doing very good case debate. Same thing with the 2AC order. Why did you make the 1AC more than one page if you're not going to treat the pages as separate???

Your 2AC and 1AR advantage overviews are probably a waste of time in front of me. Overviews should frame, not merely explain.

DA's

This is where "quality over quantity" and "the less true and argument is, the less tech you need to beat it" become really important. Affs can beat bad disads on defense if affs explain why that defense is more important than everything the neg is saying (same goes for the neg with bad aff advantages). In terms of impact calc, I think probability is generally the most important. Zero risk is a thing. I default to uniqueness determines the direction of the link.

CP's

On balance, I think counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive. A 2A who's good at theory can win process counterplans just go away with enough work.

I think counterplans should have solvency advocates, especially if you've added seven planks just designed to fiat out of solvency deficits.

I will not kick the counterplan unless the neg makes an actual judge kick argument.

I am willing to vote aff on zero risk of a net benefit even if the counterplan solves 100% of the aff. In that scenario, the counterplan is no longer disproves the aff.

K's

I don't have any preferences about lit bases; I'm not afraid of the big bad Baudrillard.

My threshold for a link is comparatively low. I think reps links are probably good if the aff gets to weigh their impacts.

My threshold for the alt is relatively high. Examples are good. Structural analysis with examples is better. Under no circumstances should the aff let the neg get away with fiating the alt. That's absurd.

Framework strats are also viable in front of me, e.g. I will vote on "any risk the 1AC is a settler project means you vote neg" assuming you are, in fact, winning the framework debate. I can be persuaded not to weigh the aff, but you really have to commit to this strategy.

I think most affs are best off going for extinction outweighs and the state is good; I think you're more likely to win that than a perm or link turn strategy.

The floating pik you didn't catch in the block will lose you the debate.

Aff framework arguments that compare world-views (i.e. "extinction outweighs epistemology") are far more compelling than framework arguments about procedural fairness (i.e. "the K is cheating").

K Affs

I think it's reasonable for K affs to say that all they have to do is prove their method is good; if the method is good, I should vote for the aff. I don't think they need to "spill out" or whatever. I am generally not persuaded by "winning is key to our method" arguments. Probably means you've got a bad method. Similarly, not of fan of consciousness-raising arguments. I don't know why that means I should vote for you.

I think T violations that deal with substantive parts of the resolution are better than violations about the fg. I think affs should be making the argument that any education claims about the fg are non-unique; it's part of the topic every year. I think the neg should make arguments about why policy education on this specific topic is good and explain how the aff bypasses that.

Anything can be an impact if you tell me it's an impact and explain why it outweighs your opponent's impacts. I generally think, for the neg, fairness-based impacts provide the best external offense, and education-based impacts provide the best in-roads to the aff. Both the aff and the neg should be doing some comparative work about how education, fairness, and ethics implicate one another.

On balance, I think impact turn strats are better than counter interp strats for the aff in these debates. I think ethics arguments are the best offense for the aff. Affs can also internal link turn the majority of the neg's standards if they spend the time doing it instead of extending a wreck of random disads that are all basically the same.

I think the TVA and switch side are the best defense to the aff's impacts. I conceptualize TVAs as counterplans (an alternate mechanism to solve the same impacts while avoiding the net benefit, e.g. under limiting). That means I hold a TVA to similar standards; I think it should have to solve all or most of the aff and that the TVA should have a solvency advocate. Half the TVAs I hear aren't topical; not enough aff teams make this argument.

Other things:

New word Ks in the 2AR - okay, so this is tricky. I think if you do this, I think it needs to be the whole 2AR, and I think you should be held to an exceptionally high explanation standard. I think you should have to pre-empt the 3NR the neg doesn't get.

Arguments about micro-aggressions - Fine as long as you explain the implication for this debate/ perhaps the community as a whole. Tell me what you want me to do about it and what that does about the problem. You still have to answer the trivializing arguments, but they are not an auto-loss.

Arguments that compare conditionality to structural privilege - Fine as long as you warrant them. Just saying, "This is the logic of..." isn't enough; tell me why and how the reproduces that logic in debate and what the impact to that is for debaters.

So clipping. If you have somehow misrepresented what you have read/ if there is not a way to tell from the speech doc what was read, you have clipped. If I catch clipping, I will make sure I'm sure (usually during prep time), and then stop the debate. If a debater accuses someone of clipping, the debate stops right then. If the challenger is correct, they win. If they are not correct, they lose. I will give the person who clipped a 0, but everyone else is probably going to get somewhere between a 28.5 and a 29.5 depending on how much of the debate happened.

I've had some recent judging experiences that are moving me toward clarity being a clipping issue. If I can't understand any of the words in your cards, and it seems like this is to get in more cards, that's probably clipping. I've decided this means I'll never stop clearing you no matter how tired I get of it.

Mike Shackelford
Head Coach of Rowland Hall. I debated in college and have been a lab leader at CNDI, Michigan, and other camps. I've judged about 20 rounds the first semester.

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible.

Key Preferences & Beliefs
Debate is a game.
Literature determines fairness.
It’s better to engage than exclude.
Critique is a verb.
Defense is undervalued.

Judging Style
I flow on my computer. If you want a copy of my flow, just ask.
I think CX is very important.
I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions.
Add me to the email chain: mikeshackelford(at)rowlandhall(dot)org

Feel free to ask.

Want something more specific? More absurd?

Debate in front of me as if this was your 9 judge panel:

Andre Washington, Ian Beier, Shunta Jordan, Maggie Berthiaume, Daryl Burch, Yao Yao Chen, Nicholas Miller, Christina Philips, jon sharp

If both teams agree, I will adopt the philosophy and personally impersonate any of my former students:

Ben Amiel, Andrew Arsht, David Bernstein, Madeline Brague, Julia Goldman, Emily Gordon, Adrian Gushin, Layla Hijjawi, Elliot Kovnick, Will Matheson, Ben McGraw, Corinne Sugino, Caitlin Walrath, Sydney Young (these are the former debaters with paradigms... you can also throw it back to any of my old school students).

LD Paradigm

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of my expectations and preferences. I spend most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I do teach LD and judge practice debates in class. I try to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: I'm unlikely to vote here. Most theory debates aren't impacted well and often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: Clarity > Speed. That should be a no-brainer. That being said, I'm sure I can flow you at whatever speed you feel is appropriate to convey your arguments.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.

Umar Shaikh

Debated at James Logan High School (RS)

Debating at UC Davis (lmk if you wanna talk college debate)

Currently Coaching: Berk Prep

Email Chain: umardebate@gmail.com

Tech>Truth

--TLDR--

You do you, anything and I mean anything goes, tech over truth, if you can debate/explain it I'll vote on it.

Judge Instruction: Can't emphasize its importance enough, good judge instruction in the 2ar/2nr will always be rewarded with high speaks and likely the ballot. Write the ballot for me.

I read the K my whole high school career and am reading it in college if that matters to you

--Specifics--

Ks - absolutely love them. There’s so much space to get creative and generate unique arguments. I’ve gone for arguments ranging from set col to Bataille. Strong link debating with a cohesive strategy and good judge framing will always take you a long way. I love examples. Please don’t just read your blocks. I am a huge sucker for unique and specific examples on the link and ontology debate. Most of my frustration with k teams comes from a lack of specificity and contextualization to affs. If you’re giving the same 2nr vs 3 different affs something should probably change.

Policy Affs vs Ks- I’m persuaded by the more “generic” arguments people make vs the k. Specifically heg good, fairness/clash on FW, ontology/psychoanalysis wrong, extinction o/w’s etc. Policy teams often have excellent cards on these arguments but struggle to utilize them past the 2ac, make the neg teams life hard.

K affs- love them and read them all of high school. I probably have a higher threshold for teams saying that t in of itself is violent. That’s not to say I won’t vote on it if explained well. If you want my ballot all you need is a strong impact turn to the topic/their model of debate and that you either preserve some form of debate through the counter interp or have a substantive reason for why debate is bad. Honestly, when it's done correctly I think the counter interp is a pretty good argument, it is defensive but having some semblance of what debates look like under your model can soak up a lot of the limits stuff teams go for. That said, having a bad counter-interp will probably link to the limits stuff they're going for, just depends on how you debate it.

Neg vs K affs- my 2nr's vs k affs have almost exclusively been going for topicality. That being said, I’ve been in my fair share of k v k rounds mostly reading the cap k, Afro pess, or set col vs teams. Go for fairness. Neg terror is good, spam those off and dare them to go for condo lol.

DA’s/CP’s- I read my fair share of DA’s and CP’s at NSDA Nationals and State but my experience with them ends there. For reference, those rounds were at about half the speed of a normal circuit round. I’m probably not the best for super high-level rounds but I can keep up with you. This is not to dissuade you from reading these arguments in front of me, it’s to be transparent and let you know that you might need to over-explain some things for me to keep up. I think of DAs pretty similarly to the k, strong links and impact calc are the way to go. For counterplans I’m working on understanding competition better but as of now, I’m going to be lost. Having a good solvency advocate and explanation will likely get you my ballot.

Theory- Most of these debates are a wash and annoying to judge but if you explain it I'll vote on it

--Misc.--

At the end of the day debate is a game like no other and I want you to have fun. Cracking a joke or two will probably get you higher speaks but these should never be at the expense of anyone else. Treat others how you wanna be treated and let’s make this a positive and educational environment.

Hi, I'm Micah and I use any pronouns.

My email is Micah.sheinberg@gmail.com

I graduated in 2023, so I am not a very experienced judge. I will flow and pay attention, but if you are not clear enough to understand, I will not make your arguments for you. You should explain in the 2NR/2AR why you should win, make it easy for me to write my ballot. Signpost and make it clear where one argument ends and the next begins.

My topic education is approximately none, so just be understandable.

I mainly ran policy arguments in my five years at Rowland Hall so if you are going to run a K you should explain what your framework, what the impacts of not voting on that framework is and talking about the role of the ballot. Don’t be abusive in rounds.

Truth < Tech

Remember that debate is a game, so have fun. Funny, clear, and effective debaters will get high speaks. If you don't take yourself too seriously and can make fun of yourself I will respect you more.

If an argument is not extended by either team I default to judge kick.

(if you ever feel like I made a bad decision, I get it, but also if you lost a round its because you didn't explain your position in a way that I felt comfortable voting on)

Pretty much everything else is similar or the same as Mike Shackleford, Zachery Thiede and Zachary Klein.

polahs & lamdl '22

liberty '25

i debated for 4 years in an urban debate league (yes we know how to debate)

micheladebate@gmail.com

top level:

TURN YOUR CAMERA ON I am not listening to a debate podcast

give roadmap, signpost, have clash, make me laugh

S L O W D O W N on analytics my hand is slow

if you run more than 5 off I will dock your speaks

I cannot hear that well so if youre mumbling im not flowing that arg

dont spread blocks at me I need round contextualization

I vote on theory I think it's important

I make lots of facial expressions... they're a good indicator of how well you're doing

I need judge instruction tbh im lazy (you should do this for every judge anyways)

if you make someone uncomfortable im docking your speaks and giving that person higher speaks (being in a round where that has happened to be several times I am very sympathetic)

please make cx funny

don't steal prep bruh it's not that serious

ngl I can barely keep up with my own time in round so im def not gonna keep it as the judge. but if you seem sus with the time imma call you out

policy (cx):

~ depth over breadth so if you run a bunch of offs please explain them thoroughly bc I get annoyed having to flow a bunch of offs that get kicked in the block as a "strategy" but it really just makes the debate messy and no one knows what they're talking about

~ long overviews are a waste of time

~ saying kritiks are bad for debate will never be a good "arg" in front of me. get with the times. your model of debate is bad.

~ case debate is fun tbh

~ I like case turns

~ dont tell me to judge kick- you're the one debating

~ ballot pik/k/turn: if youre gonna sit here and tell the other team that asking for the ballot from a non white person is bad - u need to check urself this is the one arg im definitely not tabula rasa on... everybody wants the ballot - just debate that's how u get the ballot youre wasting ur time debating about the ballot cuz im gonna give it to someone whether they specifically ask for it or not it's an inevitable portion of debate

~ I dont have any hs hierarchical awareness so dont think imma vote for u bc ur that school or that team stop being pretentious this is a niche activity worry abt school more

policy v policy

~ do not pref me plz (im not incompetent or whatever but ur style of debate is just very bland)

~ i.e. "our ___ card is really good on this" LOL what does the card say???

policy v k

~ I love a good soft left aff v a critique

~ impact weighing is good but it ultimately comes down to a util debate anyways

~ I will vote on cap or fw btw so don’t be scared to run that

~ K teams don’t just be like fwk is racist u have to justify it use YOUR impacts

k v k

~ these are my fav debates to be in esp method debates

~ reject the alt – bruh u gotta tell me what mechanisms youre rejecting

~ I feel like yall be scared of each other – be confident!!!

other formats:

I don't know a thing about ld, speech, congress,pf, or parli so please explain things to me very simply

im still learning pf slowly but surely (weighing is fine but it shouldn't be in your rebuttal speech)

be interesting

tech vs truth is not real

reading cap ≠ k debater

being a k hack is not a thing

being a policy hack is a thing

good luck

k affs: absolutely not

anything else: go for it

I debated for most of high school on the national policy circuit for Rowland Hall - I can follow along in debates well but might be rusty on topic specific jargon so if you’re reading T maybe put some extra attention into the interp and violation.
tech over truth as long as it has a spec of reality.
be nice to your opponents.
I will not time you or your prep.
have fun

do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. doing so will land you an L and 0 speaker points

*PLEASE READ IF YOU ARE AT CAL*: I need you to bring me pens and flow paper. doing so will show me you read my paradigm but also I need it. Lol.

:)

Dartmouth, Interlake. He/him.

Email Chain

Add me: ant981228 at gmail dot com

College people, add: debatedocs at googlegroups dot com

Please include the tournament, round, and teams debating in the subject line of the email.

Key Things to Know

I will flow and vote based on the things you said. Negs can say whatever but the more it says the plan is bad the better. Conditionality and judge kick are good. Affs should be T and are likely to lose if they aren't. If you say death good you lose. If you ask for a 30 you will get a 25.

I do a lot of work during tournaments and will be tired on their last few days. I have found that this makes it harder for me to focus. To counteract this, I have gone back to flowing on paper, which I have found helps me process the debate as it is happening. You will benefit if you make my paper flowing life easier (give me time to flip the page, warn me if you're going to make an abnormally large number of arguments about part of the flow, tell me to make an overview or framework page if I need one, etc.).

Online

I STRONGLY prefer that all cameras be on whenever anyone in the debate is speaking, but I understand if internet or other considerations prevent this.

If my camera is off, assume I am away from my computer and don't start talking. If you start your speech while I am away from my computer you do not get to restart. That is on you.

Here is how to successfully adjust to the online setting:

1. Inflect more when you are talking.

2. Put your face in frame. Ideally, make it so you can see the judge.

3. Get a microphone, put it close to your face, talk into it, make sure there is an unobstructed line between it and your mouth.

4. Talk one at a time.

T/L

Tech determines truth unless it's death good. If you tell me to embrace death because life is bad I will vote against you even if you do not go for the argument. More broadly, all else being equal, I strongly prefer to solve problems without resorting to violence or force if possible.

Otherwise, unless my role as a judge is changed, I will attempt to make the least interventionary decision. This means:

1. I will identify the most important issues in the debate, decide them first based on the debating, then work outward.

2. What is conceded is absolutely true, but will only have the implications that you say it has. Unless something is explicitly said, conceded, and extended, or is an obvious and necessary corollary of something that is said, conceded, and extended, I will attempt to resolve it, rather than assuming it.

3. I will intervene if there is no non-interventionary decision.

4. I will attempt to minimize the scope of my intervention by simplifying the decision-making process. I would prefer to decide fewer issues. If an issue seems hard to resolve without intervening, I will prioritize evaluating ballots that don't require resolving that issue.

This procedure typically means (for example):

1. I will prioritize resolution of impact claims.

2. I will deprioritize resolution of claims that do not affect the relative magnitude of two sides' offense. For example, in a DA/case debate where turns case is conceded, uniqueness is often irrelevant since aff solvency is reduced to the same extent neg offense is inevitable.

I am aware that this procedure can influence my assessment of substance. Given infinite decision time, I would decide every question in the debate. However, shrinking decision times make this impractical. Minutes spent resolving complex or under-debated issues that are not outcome-determinative trade off with the quality of my assessment of issues that are. I believe this process net reduces error costs.

As of end-of-season 2024, I have voted aff 47% of the time, and sat on 11% of panels.

I often vote quickly. This does not necessarily mean the debate was lopsided or bad; more likely, it is a sign that the teams clearly communicated the relationships between their arguments, allowing me to perform evaluations as the debate is happening. If I take a long time that means I was unable to do this, either because there was significant complexity in the debate or because communication was poor.

The following are my inclinations - if you don't like them you can change them through debating.

DAs

The agenda DA will usually not survive a rich, accurate description of the current legislative agenda based on thoughtfully reading the news.

CPs

If no one says anything I will assume I can judge kick. It is very hard to use theory to stop me from thinking about the status quo. Nothing but conditionality is a voting issue. Pretty neg on most theory, except fiating out of your own straight turned offense.

Competition is usually more impactful than theory. Theory arguments that logically presume you have won a competition argument ("CPs that steal the aff are a voting issue" assumes you have demonstrated that the CP has stolen the aff, which is a competition argument. "CPs that are not functionally and textually competitive are a voting issue"... come on, what are we doing here) are a waste of time. Just win the competition argument.

Functional competition + explaining what your plan does + definitions + reasons to prefer your definitions >>>>> anything involving the concept of textual competition. Textual competition is mind poison that corrupts any competition model it touches. "Should =/= immediate" with a real card should be a crush.

If I can't explain what a CP does and how it accomplishes whatever the neg says it does, I am unlikely to vote for it. You can avoid this by writing a meaningful CP text AND explaining it in the speech.

T

I like judging good T debates. I really don't like judging bad ones. What sets these apart is specific application of broad offense to interpretations and impact debating that is specific to internal links, grounded in a vivid vision for debates under your topic.

I do not think the intrinsic value of being "factually correct" about your T argument is very high.

Many parts of a T argument can be enhanced with cards - e.g. link to limits, claims of aff/neg bias in the literature, predictability via prodicts/indicts.

Argue by analogy and comparison to other affs, especially in CX.

Ks / Planless Affs

Good for specific Ks on the neg, bad for random backfile slop, bad for K affs, death good = L.

If your K is secretly a DA, refer to the DA section. If your K is not a DA, it needs a framework and alternative (you don't have to use those words, but some argument needs to serve those functions).

I do not judge many debates involving nontraditional affs. The biggest hurdles to voting aff for me are usually: 1) why can't the aff be read on the neg, 2) why is the aff's offense inherent to resolutional debate or to voting neg on framework instead of some avoidable examples, and 3) how do I reconcile the aff's vision of debate or the topic with debate's inherently (even if not exclusively) competitive nature.

I am very willing to entertain arguments that attempt to denaturalize debate as competition but struggle when these critiques lack an alternative or a theory of why debate as a way of putting two teams and a judge in conversation with one another is nevertheless useful.

I think affs that creatively reinterpret the resolution in a way that does not create excessive curricular demands would be more up my alley, but no one has tested this, so proceed with caution.

For whatever it's worth, I do most of my thinking about debate arguments through the lens of competition theory. This includes neg K framework arguments (which, in front of me, would benefit from disaggregating the questions of what about the aff is a basis for competition, what alternatives are legitimate, and what impacts are the most important). If you say "ontology first," what I will hear is that the aff's ontology is a basis for competition. I will expect the link arguments to be about the aff's ontology, and I will expect to hear about an alternative ontology. When these components are misaligned, my struggle with neg perm answers tends to increase. To me, this is no different than saying "CPs must compete functionally, and here is my argument for why this one competes textually."

I am open to different understandings of what it means for things to compete if there is no plan. However, "no plan, no perms" is nonsense.

The only effect of my ballot is to decide the winner.

Speaker Points

Strong strategy, being fun/engaging to watch, being smart, being classy, being clear = higher speaks.

Making wrong strategic choices, being underprepared or ignorant about substance, making CXs annoying/pointless, making bad arguments, being needlessly mean, being a mumbler... = lower speaks.

I do not view speaker points as divorced from substance.

My points are slightly below average.

Asking for a 30 will yield a 25.

You can find my ethics and conduct policies here.

top level predispositions (Update 2024 Emory):

I'd truly prefer that you don't debate if you're sick. If you must debate, I travel to every tournament with headphones and a laptop sufficient to allow you to debate from a hotel room or space separate from other judges and debaters. If you are symptomatic (nausea, persistent cough, runny nose, etc.) I will stop the debate and politely ask your coach to see if we can set up a remote debate setup for the round.

I won't be reading along with you, and won't spot either team args from pieces of evidence that weren't made in speeches. I'll resolve comparative evidentiary claims, if necessary, after the round. If you feel so compelled my team's gmail is hrsdebatedocs.

Plan texts nowadays aren't really descriptive of what the aff will defend and I think negative teams don't take advantage of that enough. I will expect aff teams not to dodge simple questions about jobs they provide, how the plan is funded, etc. I will also tend to read the debate through answers to such questions in CX. Being forthcoming and orienting your strategy around what the aff does is a much better basis for a win in front of me than trying to hide your hand.

I don't like generic neg strategies, if you're going to do this don't pref me please - - this means nonspecific process counterplans, disads, CPs with only internal net benefits, etc.

No, CX can't be used for prep lol.

I'm not going to judge kick. You make a decision about the world you'll defend in the 2nr and I'll follow accordingly.

For many of you reading this, speaker point inflation is the probably norm. I think the standard for what makes a good speech is a. too low and b. disconnected from strategy. My average speaker point range is 28.3-28.7, average meaning you're not doing any work between flows, not making the debate smaller for the sake of comparative analysis, not reading especially responsive strategies, not punishing generic strategies with pointed responses. On the other hand, I reward teams that have ostensibly done the reading and research to give me concrete analysis.

Given the above (and oodles of macrohistorical reasons), we probably are already in the world that the PRL warned us about. I'm more persuaded by empirical analysis of models of debate than the abstract nowadays.

Longer meditations below:

I've found that the integrity in which some high school debaters are interacting with evidence is declining. Two things:

1. Critical affirmatives that misrepresent critical theory literature or misrepresent their affirmative in the 1ac. I'm very inclined to vote against a team that does this on either side of the debate, with the latter only being limited to the affirmative side. Especially in terms of the affirmative side, I believe that a floor level minimum prep for critical affs should be that the affirmative clearly has a statement of what they will defend in the 1ac and also that they stick to that stasis point throughout the debate. If a critical aff shifts drastically between speeches I will be *very* inclined toward to any procedural/case neg arguments.

2. Policy affs that have weak internal links. I understand that a nuclear war scenario is the most far fetched portion of any advantage, but I've been seeing a lot of international relations scenarios that don't really take into account the politics of really any other countries. If your international conflict, spillover, modeling, etc. scenario doesn't have a semblance of the inner workings of another party to the conflict, I'll be *very* inclined to solvency presses and presumption arguments by the negative in that scenario.

I don't want to be on the email chain. If I want to, I'll ask. You should debate as if I'm not reading a speech doc.

I almost exclusively view debate as an educational / democratic training activity. I think rules are important to that end, however. This is to say that I ground much of what I think is important in debate in terms of how skills critical thinking in debate rounds adds into a larger goal of pursuing knowledge and external decisionmaking.

i've been in debate since 2008. at this point i'm simultaneously more invested and less invested in the activity. i'm more invested in what students get out of debate, and how I can be more useful in my post-round criticism. I'm less invested in personalities/teams/rep/ideological battles in debate. it's entirely possible that I have never heard of you before, and that's fine.

you should run what will win you the round. you should run what makes you happy.

Impact scenarios are where I vote - Even if you win uniqueness/link questions, if I don't know who's going to initiate a war, how an instance of oppression would occur, etc. by the end of the round, I'll probably go looking elsewhere to decide the round. The same thing goes for the aff - if I can't say what the aff solves and why that's important, I am easily persuaded by marginal negative offense.

Prep time ends when you email the file to the other team. It's 2024, you've likely got years of experience using a computer for academic/personal work, my expectations of your email prowess are very high.

Competing methods debates don't mean no permutation, for me at least. probably means that we should rethink how permutations function. people/activists/organizers combine methods all the time.

I've found myself especially unwilling to vote on theory that's on face not true - for example: if you say floating PICs bad, and the alternative isn't articulated as a floating PIC in the debate, I won't vote on it. I don't care if it's conceded.

I think fairness is an independent impact, but also that non-topical affs can be fair. A concession doesn't mean an argument is made. your only job is to make arguments, i don't care if the other team has conceded anything, you still have to make the argument in the last speech.

Affs I don't like:

I've found myself increasingly frustrated with non-topical affs that run philosophically/critically negative stances on the aff side. The same is true for non-topical affs that just say that propose a framework for analysis without praxis. I'm super open to presumption/switch-side arguments against these kinds of affs.

Affs that simply restate a portion of the resolution as their plan text.

I'm frustrated by non-topical affs that do not have any sort of advocacy statement/plan text. If you're going to read a bunch of evidence and I have to wait until CX or the 2AC to know what I'm voting for, I'll have a lower threshold to vote on fw/t/the other team.

Finally, I have limited belief in the transformative power of speech/performance. Especially beyond the round. I tend to think that power/violence is materially structured and that the best advocacies can tell me how to change the status quo in those terms.

Negs I don't like:

Framework 2nr's that act as if the affirmative isn't dynamic and did not develop between the 2ac and the 1ar. Most affs that you're inclined to run framework against will prove "abuse" for you in the course of the debate.

Stale politics disadvantages. Change your shells between tournaments if necessary, please.

Theoretically inconsistent/conflicting K strats.

I don't believe in judge kicking. Your job is to make the strategic decisions as the debate continues, not mine.

if you have questions about me or my judge philosophy, ask them before the round!

he/him/his