Hi!

My name is Sabina Cross!

- 2nd year policy debater at Woodward Academy

Please add me to the email chain!27scross@woodward.edu

Pronouns: she/her

(please call me Sabina not judge! If you have questions about pronunciation ask before the round!)

Feel free to ask any questions before the round and about my decision!

Things I believe in for novice debates:

Tech > Truth

• you guys are just learning, so it is important that you're making arguments with evidence and explanations
• If you do make an analytic (total fine!) please slow down so it is easier to flow

Please be kind! I do not tolerate any meanness or hate in round, debate is a safe space for all and please keep it that way!

Flow! I will be flowing based off what you say, not the doc so please do the same!

• especially when you're learning flowing is super important! If you want me to I will check your flows after the round and give advice!

Try to be as clear as possible!

• clarity > speed
• if i can't understand you, I can't flow it and vote on it

Please don't try to do anything cheaty to win a round, everyone in the round is here to learn so let's make it as educational as possible!

Have fun! We are all here to learn and have some fun!

Specifics:

Cross-x

• extra speaker points if you ask questions off the flow!
• try not to tag-team! I want to see how well you know the arguments and evidence

Counterplans

• Please explain how the counterplan solves the affirmative and answer any solvency deficits on it!

Case

• I love good case debating!
• Aff: please answer all arguments made against case
• Neg: please extend the case arguments you made in the 1NC

Impact Calculus:

• I love to see good impact calc from both sides!
• I want to hear the words; Risk, Magnitude, Timeframe in both the 2NR and 2AR

Speech Docs

• please try to send them out as fast as possible!

Clash

• interact with your opponents arguments as much as possible
• I want to here evidence comparison, author comparison, and line by line!

Procedural Stuff

Email chain: blako925@gmail.com

Please also add: jchsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Add both emails, title the chain Tournament Rd # Your Team vs. Other Team ex) Harvard Round 4 Johns Creek XY vs. Northview AM.

1AC should be sent at round start or if I'm late (sorry in advance), as soon as I walk in the room

If you go to the bathroom or fill your waterbottle before your own speech, I'll dock 1 speaker point

Stealing prep = heavily docked speaks. If you want to engage your partner in small talk, just speak normally so everyone knows you're not stealing prep, don't whisper. Eyes should not be wandering on your laptop and hands should not be typing/writing. You can be on your phone.

Clipping is auto-loss and I assign lowest possible speaks. Ethics violation claims = round stoppage, I will decide round on the spot using provided evidence of said violation

Topic Knowledge

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE.

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I debated in high school, didn’t debate in college, have never worked at any camp. I currently work an office job. Any and all acronyms should be explained to me. Specific solvency mechanisms should be explained to me. Tricky process CPs should be explained to me. Many K jargon words that I have heard such as ressentiment, fugitivity, or subjectivity should be explained to me.

Spreading

I WRITE SLOW AND MY HAND CRAMPS EASILY. PLEASE SLOW DOWN DURING REBUTTALS

My ears have become un-attuned to debate spreading. Please go 50% speed at the start of your speech before ramping up. I don’t care how fast or unclear you are on the body of cards b/c it is my belief that you will extend that body text in an intelligent manner later on. However, if you spread tags as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If you read analytics as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If I do not flow an argument, you’re not going to win on it. If you are in novice this probably doesn't apply to you.

While judges must do their best to flow debates and adjudicate in an objective matter that rewards the better debater, there is a certain level of debater responsibility to spread at a reasonable speed and clear manner. Judge adaptation is an inevitable skill debaters must learn.

In front of me, adaption should be spreading speed. If you are saying words faster than how fast I can move my pen, I will say SLOW DOWN. If you do not comply, it is your prerogative, and you can roll the dice on whether or not I will write your argument down. I get that your current speed may be OK with NDT finalists or coaches with 20+ years of experience, but I am not those people. Adapt or lose.

No Plan Text & Framework

I am OK with any affirmative whether it be policy, critical, or performance. The problem is that the 2AC often has huge case overviews that are sped through that do not explain to me very well what the aff harms are and how the advocacy statement (or whatever mechanism) solves them. Furthermore, here are some facts about my experience in framework:

• I was the 1N in high school, so I never had to take framework other than reading the 1NC shell since my partner took in the 2NC and 2NR.
• I can count the number of times I debated plan-less affs on one hand.
• As of me updating this paradigm on 01/28/2023 I have judged roughly 15 framework rounds (maybe less).

All the above make framework functionally a coin toss for either side. My understanding of framework is predicated off of what standards you access and if the terminal impacts to those standards prove if your model of debate is better for the world. If you win impact turns against the neg FW interpretation, then you don't need a C/I, but you have to win that the debate is about potential ballot solvency or some other evaluation method. If the neg wins that the round is about proving a better model of debate, then an inherent lack of a C/I means I vote for the better interp no matter how terrible it is. The comparison in my mind is that a teacher asked to choose the better essay submitted by two students must choose Student A if Student B doesn't turn in anything no matter how terrible or offensive Student A's essay is.

Tech vs. Truth

I used to like arguments such as “F & G in federal government aren't capitalized T” or “Period at the end of the plan text or the sentence keeps going T” b/c I felt like these arguments were objectively true. As I continue to judge I think I have moved into a state where I will allow pretty much any argument no matter how much “truth” there is backing it especially since some truth arguments such as the aforementioned ones are pretty troll themselves. There is still my job to provide a safe space for the activity which means I am obligated to vote down morally offensive arguments such as racism good or sexism good. However, I am now more inclined to vote on things like “Warming isn’t real” or “The Earth is flat” with enough warrants. After all, who am I to say that status quo warming isn’t just attributable to heating and cooling cycles of the Earth, and that all satellite imagery of the Earth is faked and that strong gravitational pulls cause us to be redirected back onto flat Earth when we attempt to circle the “globe”. If these arguments are so terrible and untrue, then it really shouldn’t take much effort to disprove them.

Reading Evidence

I err on the side of intervening as little as possible, so I don’t read usually read evidence. Don't ask me for a doc or send me anything afterwards. The only time I ever look at ev is if I am prompted to do so during speech time.

This will reward teams that do the better technical debating on dropped/poorly answered scenarios even if they are substantiated by terrible evidence. So if you read a poorly written federalism DA that has no real uniqueness or even specific link to the aff, but is dropped and extended competently, yes, I will vote for without even glancing at your ev.

That being said, this will also reward teams that realize your ADV/DA/Whatever ev is terrible and point it out. If your T interp is from No Quals Alex, blog writer for ChristianMingle.com, and the other team points it out, you're probably not winning the bigger internal link to legal precision.

Case

I love case debate. Negatives who actually read all of the aff evidence in order to create a heavy case press with rehighlightings, indicts, CX applications, and well backed UQ/Link/Impact frontlines are always refreshing watch. Do this well in front of me and you will for sure be rewarded.

By the 2AR I should know what exactly the plan does and how it can solve the advantages. This obviously doesn't have to be a major component of the 1AR given time constraint, but I think there should at least some explanation in the 2AR. If I don't have at least some idea of what the plan text does and what it does to access the 1AC impacts, then I honestly have no problem voting on presumption that doing nothing is better than doing the aff.

Disads

Similar to above, I think that DA's have to be fully explained with uniqueness, link, and impact. Absent any of these things I will often have serious doubts regarding the cohesive stance that the DA is taking.

Topicality

Don't make debate meta-arguments like "Peninsula XY read this at Glenbrooks so obviously its core of the topic" or "every camp put out this aff so it's predictable". These types of arguments mean nothing to me since I don't know any teams, any camp activities, any tournaments, any coaches, performance of teams at X tournament, etc.

One small annoyance I have at teams that debate in front of me is that they don't debate T like a DA. You need to win what standards you access, how they link into your terminal impacts like education or fairness, and why your chosen impact outweighs the opposing teams.

Counterplan

I have no inherent bias against any counterplan. If a CP has a mechanism that is potentially abusive (international fiat, 50 state fiat, PICs bad) then I just see this as offense for the aff, not an inherent reason why the team or CP should immediately be voted down.

I heavily detest this new meta of "perm shotgunning" at the top of each CP in the 2AC. It is basically unflowable. See "Spreading" above. Do this and I will unironically give you a 28 maximum. Spread the perms between cards or other longer analytical arguments. That or actually include substance behind the perm such as an explanation of the function of the permutation, how it dodges the net benefit, if it has any additional NB, etc.

I think 2NR explanation of what exactly the CP does is important. A good 2N will explain why their CP accesses the internal links or solvency mechanisms of the 1AC, or if you don't, why the CP is able to access the advantages better than the original 1AC methods. Absent that I am highly skeptical of broad "CP solves 100% of case" claims and the aff should punish with specific solvency deficits.

A problem I have been seeing is that affirmatives will read solvency deficits against CP's but not impacting the solvency deficits vs. the net benefit. If the CP doesn't solve ADV 1 then you need to win that ADV 1 outweighs the net benefit.

Judge kick is not my default mindset, neg has say I have to judge kick and also justify why this is OK.

Kritiks

I don't know any K literature other than maybe some security or capitalism stuff. I feel a lot of K overviews include fancy schmancy words that mean nothing to me. If you're gonna go for a K with some nuance, then you're going to need to spend the effort explaining it to me like I am 10 years old.

Theory

If the neg reads more than 1 CP + 1 K you should consider pulling the trigger on conditionality.

I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise told.

Define dispositionality for me if this is going to be part of the interp.

Extra Points

To promote flowing, you can show me your flows at the end of a round and earn up to 1.0 speaker points if they are good. To discourage everyone bombarding me with flows, you can also lose up to a full speaker point if your flows suck.

email: zakiyaqub@gmail.com

Pace 2026

I have decided that I am probably not well-versed or experienced enough in the debate community to have my own predispositions about arguments, so I will vote on pretty much anything. That being said, I firmly believe that tech>truth. Arguments must have a claim, warrant, and an impact, or else they aren't complete. I won't evaluate "ad homs" (because I don't believe they are arguments) or arguments about something that happened outside of the round. If you genuinely think there is an ethics violation in the round, stop the round and tell me. Persuasive speaking, bold strategic decisions, and good evidence will be rewarded in your speaker points, but may not influence the decision I give in round.

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

he/him

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

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

FOR PF/LD:

I am primarily a policy judge. This means

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

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

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

4. Ask me any specific questions you have.

FOR POLICY:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rishi Jain

Put me on the chain — 27rjain@woodward.edu

2nd Year Policy Debater for Woodward Academy — Class of 2027

I'm best for judging policy arguments. I hold tech > truth to the highest standard possible and try to minimize judge intervention.

I have a bunch of miscellaneous, top-level thoughts here that should be enough to gloss over and figure me out during the pre-round without taking enormous amounts of time:

I also bolded areas that you should look at regardless.

Novice Debates — these are different. I value good debating. That means hiding theory, splicing together cards in packet to change arguments, etc. are not appreciated.

That also means that if I find you did something non-educational, I might disregard it. I know that sounds arbitrary, but if there's a packet, you should be able to figure out what is and isn't educational pretty quickly.

Chain titles should have useful info. This format should work:

[Tournament Name] — R[# round here/elim round name] — [School] [Code] [[Side]] v. [School] [Code] [[Side]]

Ex:

MBA — R1 — Woodward JT [Aff] v. Woodward NP [Neg]

Everything I think can be changed with good, solid debating.

Online debates — if my camera is off, I’m not there. Alwaysverbally confirm I’m there before starting.

Tech over truth.

I believe debate is a game and we're all here to win, though that belief can be changed through some good debating, as can all of my biases.

If a team asks to end the round because of [x], I will give both sides the chance to present evidence and then decide the winner of the round, but only if there isn't a rule in place or instructions given by tab.

If the team that asked to end the round loses, they will both receive 0 speaks. The other team will receive 28.5 speaks.

If the team that asked to end the round wins, they will both receive 28.5 speaks. The other team will receive 0 speaks.

I promise to follow the easiest path to the ballot.

You can defend extremist positions but you must be able to protect it from everything, including other extremist positions technically. I'm willing to vote on them.

To say it bluntly, if I have to vote on the most untrue, horrendous, ethically concerning arguments,I will.

I'll intervene if:

1 — the '-isms'. You should know what these are — sexism, racism, lgbtqphobic, etc.

2 — someone is incapable of continuing the round, whether it be physically or mentally. No, this does not mean you should make up a psychic violence claim to try to get them voted down on.

3 — forced by tab, or laws, or really anything else.

4 — this one probably most concerns you — if there is not a possible decision absent intervening. You can expect low speaks if this happens.

No card doc — but don't assume I won't read your evidence.

Similarly, highlight your evidence! When I read the evidence, I strictly read the highlighting.

An argument has a claim, warrant, and reasoning. Reasoning can be assumed — it's their burden to disprove.

I don't care about things that aren't arguments.

Try-or-die is incoherent to me. I'm open to voting on it if told to, but without strong framing, I default to weighing risks. That also means there is a very high chance I'm going to zero or hero your impact arbitrarily if you don't do it for me.

There is a bar to neg terror. Don't cross it.

Similarly, there is a bar to aff terror. This one is a bit more vague. Don't cross it [new affs are below the bar, obviously].

I do not evaluate arguments or parts of arguments that deal with or relate to out-of-round issues.

I do not judgekick by default. That is a debate to have.

Please send docs using Microsoft Word. Verbatim formatting would be appreciated too.

If you use Google Docs, I will think you are a complete coward if you disable copy-pasting and unshare post-round. That also limits my access to your evidence.

Impact weighing is appreciated. I weigh impacts — but that's nearly impossible to do fairly and without bias absent your input during the 2NR/AR.

Dropped arguments are true. They mitigate the risk of an impact and/or provide offense to be sufficient to vote on.

(That means that, if you drop a link takeout to a DA, no matter how much impact weighing you do and how many times you say your impact went dropped, you'll probably still lose because the link takeout, which went dropped, probably mitigates a lot of the DA.)

Zero risk is possible, but "zero is a small number." Same goes for 100% risk.

Does this mean I'll float arbitrary numbers when trying to explain how I evaluated impacts? Probably, but you should analyze the numbers relative to one another, not in a vacuum. Me saying I thought the scenario was at 10% risk means I thought it had a bigger risk than the 5% risk scenario, not that it's just a bad impact because everything [hopefully] is contextual to the debate.

Counterplans:

Love them.

Lenient on solvency advocates. I think some counterplans — like advantage counterplans — do need solvency advocates, but logical rehighlightings of 1AC evidence definitely qualify.

To be more specific, if a piece of 1AC evidence says we shouldn't do [x], then counterplan: don't do [x] with that card as the solvency advocate does actually have a solvency advocate.

Counterplans that result in the aff? Ew. Cut a case neg. These counterplans definitely lose on perms and theory.

However, it's worth noting that they also probably can't solve the aff, especially on this topic — I would like to judge those debates because they're fun, but I'm not biased against the delay perm or PDCP or PDB debates.

I default to normal permutation theory: a legitimate permutation is one that includes all of the plan and part or all of the counterplan.

Of course, severance and intrinsicness need to be impacted out. Can't just say it’s severance and then move on. You'd be kinda in a weird place if they extend it and say that the internal link to severance perms being bad wasn't said, so there isn't a reason it's bad.

K's (both aff and neg):

(neg) K's are fine, but make sure you explain it to me. I'm not completely well-versed in K's. I’m good with understanding Framework arguments usually. Please make the links easy to understand. Similarly, K-AFFs are fine with me. I love a good K debate. Don't hyper-speed through your framework blocks, or really anything — being clear and concise is great. Also, define words. Please don't expect me to know some random word that the K makes up with a really vague definition. They're kinda interesting when well debated and explained! I’ve gotten better at them recently. If your framework doesn’t moot the aff, get a better framework please because it’s hard to evaluate the aff impacts v. Aff Reps/Epistemology. No framework read = default to evaluating the plan vs. alt and I’ll intervene when necessary if I don’t find any path forward to a decision given by either side. K tricks don’t really work for me without a really good top-level explanation, because most of the time I’m too dumb to understand them.

I tend to think of the K team as just spreading through blocks with incoherent buzzwords reading Ks where framework is just a bunch of repetitive, wrong, and bad garbage. Don’t be that team. There’s a reason I prefer policy arguments more: they actually make way more sense (though everything typically makes 0 sense in debate).

TLDR, default ROB = evaluate plan vs. the alt, default ROJ = determine winner of the debate. explain to me because I'm dumb with high-theory. Cap, Racial Cap, SetCol, Psycho, and Death Ks are the Ks I'm familiar with. I'm slightly familiar with Anti-Blackness and Afropessimism, but not 100%, more like 35.29%.

I think framework is a strong 2AR v. Ks that exclude the aff. Fairness seems quite true to me.

Performance is only critical if you have evidence (this one is a maybe) and you tell me it is (do this one).

(aff) K affs == cool. be understandable. Saying a bunch of buzzwords and debate jargon isn't an argument, and if it's explained that way in the 1/2AR then idk what your argument is and I'll probably vote neg.

It is my opinion that novices shouldn't be reading a K Aff.

I personally think that W/M and a C/I on T is a terrible strategy compared to impact turning T. The aff has a reason why debating the rez is bad, now go figure out a way to apply it to T (even though, most T impact turns are wrong truth-level)

Make smart impact turns of T. It's not framework. So don't treat it like framework. That means content based DAs to T are probably on the worse side of 2ARs for me.

I think K v. K Affs is cool, so long as it doesn't become confusing. I think performance is able to be evaluated, but you gotta tell me that, and also I think that your performance can just be terrible being a reason I shouldn't evaluate it.

I think I've become more receptive to K v. K aff but honestly topicality v. K Affs is probably more true however also very technical.

(general) Please utilize CX against the K. I think it's interesting when a K team explains their argument, but they should remember: buzzwords/fancy complex words that aren't things a typical high schooler would know about/understand are always bad. They get lower speaks from me too. AKA, anything ending with "-ology" should be explained, and anything with like over... idk 3 syllables? Just use your judgement.

I'm better for fairness than education in general, and especially against 'epistemology first' interpretations. I simply cannot coherently understand why education is lost in that round through discussing something else, and why that education is valuable.

But if you explain it well enough, sure I'll vote on it.

DA's (aff and neg):

Always great. Maybe it would be fun to just bombard somebody with like 4-5 DAs, but I wouldn’t know. I especially love the all DA 1NR — I think a good 2AC makes it pretty time-pressured which gets all the good arguments and cards read on a position.

Remember the entire DA when answering it. I like to see good offense and smart arguments on all places of the DA. If somebody reads a huge 10-card uniqueness wall in the 2NC for a DA, why bother with the uniqueness debate when you could do a UQ o/ws the link?

Yes, yes, you can win 100% risk of defense. You can zero the DA, but "zero is a small number." I'm not offense-defense.

When going for offense, please do in-depth clash.

Also, I love these nice turns case people are always making! Do them analytically. If the 1AR drops them, make it the ballot! Turns-case is lovely.

UQ CPs need to be well-crafted and have a reason that they can't be permed. Most lose to PDB. A contrived reason that they can't be permed is kinda stupid though.

*edit: Same thing above with UQ CPs, but after some thought, they just don't make sense to me...I might be missing something, I might not, but please explain how the two worlds — the plan and the UQ CP — interact/what happens in one that isn't in the other.

Politics DAs == Love them. Elections and PC tradeoff/Agenda PTX is what I'm familiar with most.

Easily one of the best DAs if you know how to debate it well. That being said, bad politics speeches hurt my soul — both aff and neg. Yes, you can go for theory against them. They're not that legitimate, which is exactly why I love them.

In general, I think that on most DAs the 2AC should have both analytics and cards. Preferably keep the analytics to truth-level claims about how illogical the DA is, and cards go to technical claims that get debated. Analytics are a strong tool for 2As to use against a DA, but making them reinforce technical claims (your cards) with truthful facts means I'll probably lean more aff than neg because the DA doesn't make sense according to those truth-based claims + whatever tech thing you're winning

Impact Turns:
Love them!! Especially the ludicrous ones. Not much to say. They're a really underused and OP strategy (well, it's only super good if there's good evidence. That's the basis of all argumentation — evidence)

Imo, unethical impact turns aren't a voting issue. Tech over truth means what it means. I'll vote on death good, spark, etc.

kicking case and going for an impact turn is kinda underutilized on the aff but its a fire move.

Ts/Theory:

No preferences for Ts. I like running them, but unless the aff is like egregiously untopical or they just drop T, I think it's hard to win. Just tell me in the 2NR/2AR why your model of debate is good and why their model is bad. This goes for all theory: All theory is is just a debate about models. Why is your model good? Why is their model bad?

Predictability v. Debateability is definitely a debate to have.

T's are good. Convince me. It’s especially interesting when the AFF is definitely 100% topical but you still argue T. Theory arguments are fine, but I would prefer you don't go all in on theory if you still have some other chances of winning elsewhere in the debate. It takes time to understand and, even though the impacts are evaluated first, I would prefer theory as an end-of-the-debate-all-in-nothing-to-lose sort of thing. No, this doesn't mean I err to reasonability, it just means that if I think you could've gone for something else, or had you been winning somewhere else, why would you take the time and extend that theory? I get it if they drop it, but just going for theory for giggles isn't going to get some cool speaker points in lieu for that nice in-depth econ DA debate you could've had rather than the boring condo debate.

Of course, if you're losing, I guess theory is your savior. Just don't forget theory crossapplications.

Save T for the 2NC not the 1NR. It isn't that much of a deal if you run the same old T an aff has seen 100 times against it and all the 1A has to do is pull out some blocks and that's it. At least in the 2NC they think there's something important going on.

General:

Open CX/'Tag-Team' CX is allowed. Don't bulldoze your partner. You're both supposed to know your arguments.

Don't cheat. I always prefer 0 downtime in debates, so do you really need that marked doc? If I can't understand your argument, you should either go for another one or consider a different argument. I won't vote on it if I can't understand it. If you say it, I evaluate it, and I try my best not to do work for you. Slow down on analytics please I'm decent at flowing but I'm not the godly listener-hyper-typer flower. Be clear please!

Rehighlighting theory. It's safer for you to just read it, but I think if you don't want to, the best interp is just "we'll read it if it's not in the original paragraphs of the card we rehighlighted it from" so you punish them for miscutting cards and just researching bad but you get the rehighlight even if they didn't as a deterrent. That's just my frame on it.

Sometimes I flow on paper. Sometimes I don't. That shouldn't affect how you give your speech. Give me pen time and time to switch between flows and clarity, please. Justify new arguments if they’re in the 1AR/2NR/2AR. New 2AR arguments aren’t evaluated (the ones that are really new and unjustified; new warrants also count this way). Time yourself. I will time you as well. Use Microsoft Word & Verbatim please for sending docs. At the very least, use Word and I’ll convert to verbatim. Unformatted docs are not appreciated, and if you don’t send out some cards, chances are I won’t read them. I won't dock speaks if you don't use word + verbatim, I'd just prefer it this way.

I'm fine with fast spreading, but make sure you are clear when you do it. If I can't understand you, I won't count the argument; please make an overview, but don't have a 5-minute long overview. Tech > True unless both sides are over on tech, then I evaluate the truthfulness of the argument. Explain K's completely, don't expect me to know huge vocabulary words (like seriously, what is floccinaucinihilipilification?). I flow and I use speech docs. If you're going to remove analytics from speech docs, slow down on them.

Comprehensive case defense > running as many off-case as possible and practically dropping both advantages

(and extend that case defense too! I love an in-depth case debates! Affirmatives should be ready for in-depth case defense, not just count on too many off-case and low case defense. The way some affs are crafted is just horrifying to me.)

Double DA block == overpowered.

I don't really like laundry list impacts. If you spread at top speed through some of them, chances are I'll flow "laundry list" and that's it.

Speaker Points:

Mainly based off of CX and Rebuttals (unless something sticks out to me during the constructives [including 1NR, yes the block is a constructive]). Immediate loss + 0 speaks if any racism, sexism, or any lgbtqphobic things occur (+ cheating). Basically, don’t be offensive and I won’t give you low speaks. Don't do the '-ism's

Just do your best and you'll do well!

hi i’m caroline (she/her)! i debate at galloway

pls add me to the email chain clackey025@gallowayschool.org

main things:

1. FLOW

2. respond to your opponents' arguments

3. be clear!! speaking fast is cool until i can't hear your arguments on why i should vote for you...

4. don't steal prep or clip

5. make jokes! debate is a learning activity and is supposed to be fun :)

if you have any questions just ask!

McQueen High School ’21

Emory University ’25

Email chain: miarleutzinger@gmail.com

I have floated over to the educational side of debate, I find it more rewarding than competing. Still, I have done a lot of debate so do whatever you want, just do it well. I love framework and T debates. Fairness is an impact. I have a lower tolerance for K affs that just summarize or describe a theory without any sort of normative approach. K affs are better when they can explain/solve something larger than just “framework bad.”

Most importantly, have fun and learn something!

Arnav Maddineni

Pace Academy 2026

Email (add me to the email chain): arnavmaddineni1@gmail.com

Updated November 7 2024

Introduction:

If there’s one thing you should know about me as a judge, it’s that in my eyes, technical debating comes before everything else. I firmly believe that debate is a game of strategy and tactics in which both sides’ primary (and, in the vast majority of cases, only) goal is to win. You should do whatever you need to do to win the debate in front of me. This means that I’ll vote on “bad” or “untrue” arguments without hesitation if you are winning on the flow and you have adequately explained your argument. If you win on the flow, you will win the debate, irrespective of what style of argument you have chosen to go for. That said, be sure your final rebuttals clearly explain why you win; the 2NR and 2AR should attempt to write a winning ballot for your side. Speaker points are awarded not based on the quality of argument you go for, but the quality of their in-round execution.

However, claiming to have no bias at all in terms of judging different styles of arguments is, quite frankly, a lie. Therefore, the rest of my paradigm will outline my views on certain types of arguments.

DAs/Impact Turns:

A good DA + case debate can be the best kind of debate to judge, but a bad one often makes it incredibly difficult to make a decision. Usually in these debates both sides are winning some risk of their offense (unless something has gone horribly wrong), so impact calculus is incredibly important. Impact calculus is NOT just explaining why climate change outweighs nuclear war or vice versa; it’s also about comparing the risk of a link/internal link to the risk of the affirmative’s advantage.

I believe that the link is the most important part of the DA and I’ll evaluate it first. Specific links to an affirmative coupled with good in-round execution will almost certainly win a debate. I will vote on zero risk if you don’t read a link about the aff and the aff points that out. However, in most cases, there’s probably a risk of a link.

Uniqueness for DAs is extremely difficult to win on this topic because there are literally hundreds of thumpers, so uniqueness counterplans and uniqueness tricks should be utilized. However, in the case of uniqueness CPs, there are a few responses that the affirmative can make that render the counterplan virtually unwinnable if debated well, so uniqueness tricks for DAs are almost necessary on this topic unless you’re going for a straight turn to an advantage.

Generic DAs like politics win debates and they will continue to win debates. Link contextualization is extremely important in these debates because the affirmative probably has an easier time winning their arguments absent contextualization.

Debate the case, and don’t just read impact defense. One well-researched and well-executed case takeout or turn can wreck an entire affirmative and make the debate a cakewalk.

For the aff, the most strategic option against disads that link and have uniqueness tricks on this topic are straight turns. These can be aff-specific link turns or recycled impact turns, but if you can find a way to generate offense, it makes the negative’s path to victory a lot more difficult.

Impact turns are good. It’s an argument that you can catch your opponent unprepared with and is strategically valuable, even if it isn’t academically valuable (and, surprisingly, in some cases, it is!). I won’t reject any of these because they’re “morally reprehensible” or “bad”; it is your burden to prove that they’re untrue.

CPs:

These are often the most strategic arguments for the negative to go for. A counterplan that solves the whole case is the easiest way to win a debate in most instances because you only have to win a low risk of your offense (which is sometimes all you can get on this topic).

A well-researched PiC with a net benefit based on that exclusion is probably the most strategic argument in debate. These types of arguments are so good because they mitigate almost all of the affirmative case, and the negative essentially only has to win some risk of their offense to win. For the affirmative, leveraging the part of the plan that is excluded from the counterplan against the negative offense is extremely important because it’s usually your only path to victory in these debates.

A lot of the same stuff applies to advantage CPs. Often, the crazier the advantage counterplan, the better, because if the affirmative has specific deficits to your counterplan, it makes it a lot harder to win. Against these types of counterplans, the affirmative should either go for competition OR read add-ons.

Process CPs are incredibly strategic because they usually solve the whole case and they operate independently of the rest of the debate. Solvency deficits against these types of counterplans are usually a waste of time. Affirmatives’ best paths to victory against process CPs are competition and theory; technical debating is extremely important here. Tricky permutations are good. A model of textual and functional competition is probably the best, but I can be persuaded otherwise by good debating.

Counterplans need texts; they don’t need solvency advocates, although they would certainly help. Perms (other than do both and do the CP) need texts; they aren’t advocacies, they’re tests of competition. Solvency deficits don’t need to be carded, but if the 1NC read a card and the 2AC doesn’t, the neg will probably have better warrants when evenly debated.

2NC counterplans are probably abusive, even if the affirmative reads an add-on. Similarly, counterplan amendments are also probably bad, and probably justify new 1AR perms. Kicking planks is probably fine provided you win that conditionality is good. Negative fiat has gone way too far in recent years, and affirmatives should make theory arguments about that. Affirmatives should definitely make these arguments in front of me, but by no means will I auto-reject these counterplans if this argument is presented; I will evaluate these theoretical questions based on the technical debating in-round.

Conditionality bad can be an extremely strategic argument because most negatives’ defenses of conditionality are atrocious. If the negative’s blocks don’t have critical answers like answers to your counter-interpretation, you should go for condo. I’ve been in too many debates (on both sides) in which the negative is crushing on substance but fails to provide an adequate defense of conditionality, and decisions have been largely judge-dependent in these debates. I personally will not hesitate to vote aff in these types of situations if the counterinterpretation is clear and resolves large swaths of negative offense. That said, conditionality is probably good, and if the negative defends their interpretation and reads offense to yours, it is pretty difficult to win these debates. As an aside, the negative wins more debates than the affirmative; I’m still trying to figure out if I think this is a result of conditionality or just structural advantages like the block.

Theory should be a question of models, but teams can persuade me otherwise with good execution in-round.

Any theory can be a reason to reject the team, but non-condo theory requires substantial explanation and impact work to warrant rejecting the team.

I will evaluate theory debates purely based on execution in-round; I will not vote for whichever side I ideologically agree with.

T:

Plan text in a vacuum is probably the best argument for affs to go for against T violations. It logically makes sense that if the negative defines a word in the resolution, and the aff plan includes that word, the aff meets their interpretation. Topical affs should not be losing debates on obscure T definitions as much as they are.

The 1NC needs a violation; if it’s not there, the 2AC can drop T without any consequences.

A framework of competing interpretations is better than one of reasonability, but I’ll vote for the side that wins on the flow.

Ks:

Kritiks are extremely strategic arguments because they have a variety of tricks that deal with the affirmative without actually debating the content of the affirmative. Framework Ks are probably the most strategic form of the K purely because of the time disparity between the block and the 1AR on this question. I won’t arbitrarily pick a “middle-ground” framework; whichever side is winning their arguments will win their interpretation.

If you’re going for links to the plan, they need to be about the affirmative, otherwise, you will almost certainly lose if the affirmative takes one look at your evidence. The alternative can be an advocacy or an ideological shift; the latter is often more strategic.

My knowledge of the content of most kritiks is extremely limited; negative teams need to explain their arguments well in front of me. I’m somewhat familiar with cap, security, set col, afropess, psychoanalysis, and the death K, but the extent of my knowledge about pretty much anything else is virtually zero.

Affirmatives need to leverage the aff against the links, and to do that you need to win framework. I’m good for both a fairness-based approach about why plan-focused debate is good or an education-based approach about why the pedagogy of the aff is good, but the negative has a massive time advantage in these debates, so be selective on what to extend. However, if you win framework and extinction outweighs, even if you drop every single link, you would theoretically win the debate in some instances.

Affs need to read the negative’s link cards and refute them accordingly, because K teams get away with way too many nonsensical links that aren’t supported by their evidence or literature. Read offense against the alternative; remember, your whole aff is a disad to the alternative. This in combination with the perm make for an effective strategy against kritiks. Also, don’t drop tricks like floating PiKs or root cause claims; I’ve lost way too many debates on these things and I don’t want the same fate to befall other unsuspecting affirmative teams.

Alternatively, impact turning kritiks or their scholarship is a massively underrated and underutilized strategy because it defeats the kritik on all levels and you eliminate the massive time disparity between the neg block and the 1AR.

K affs:

Kritikal affs are probably the style of argument with which I feel least confident in my ability to judge a debate. I tend to believe that the affirmative should have a plan that defends the resolution. Teams can do this in various ways, including reading a tricky affirmative that goes in the opposite direction of most affs on the topic, or reading a soft left affirmative, but kritikal affs do not meet this burden. That said, I have seen incredibly persuasive articulations of why a K aff should be debated in several instances, and I will vote for these types of arguments if won on the flow.

Topicality is what our teams go for the most, and I have a decent understanding of the arguments for both sides in these debates. I’m good for both fairness and clash; each has its own benefits and its own drawbacks. The TVA and SSD can be used to subsume large swaths of affirmative offense, and this should be articulated in the 2NR.

Presumption is also another incredibly persuasive argument; if the affirmative has rejected the idea of fiat, they literally don’t do anything, and you should say that and explain why their method can’t solve.

Alternatively, impact turning the aff or its scholarship is a massively underrated and underutilized strategy. Teams should do this more.

DAs against K affs are also a thing; I’ve taken a DA in the 1NR several times against K affs. In these debates, the link is everything; you should rehighlight their evidence to prove the link. DAs are especially persuasive if the affirmative defends their method outside of debate.

CPs against K affs are probably the least strategic, because on the T flow they’ve probably made arguments about why policy and engagement with the state is bad; you have to answer all of these in addition to the arguments on the CP proper to win the debate. That is a virtually unwinnable 2NR within 5 minutes.

Ks vs K affs are also a thing; I haven’t been in or seen one of these debates yet, and I have a feeling that I’m going to be incredibly lost in these debates. From what I hear, the permutation is overpowered, but I’ll evaluate it based on what I have on my flow.

Other:

Cross-ex is important; use it to set up your arguments. “Taking the rest as prep” is probably not great for your ethos, but I’ll allow it.

Inserting rehighlightings is strategic and it should be done more often; you force the other side to respond to a carded argument without investing the time to read a card.

I love new arguments; if you have a new style of argument or a new trick with an old one you want to read in front of me, go for it!

If you have any questions about something that was or wasn’t in here, just ask before the round or email me; I’ll be happy to give you more information. Good luck!

4rd year debater at pace academy

add me to the email chain! pacegmdebate@gmail.com

tech > truth

do what you do best, i will be as unbiased as possible... but don't read death good, or say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.

with that in mind i do have some thoughts about debate (that you may or may not care about)

general: have a claim and warrant to make a full argument, do line by line - it makes things so much clearer for everyone

theory: besides condo, it probably isn't a reason to reject the team

t: these debates are really fun! describe what your model of debate would look like and have offense against theirs

da: make sure to tell the story, and contextualize the link to the aff, please do not just spread uniqueness cards for 5 minutes straight, a good da+case 2NR can go a long way

cp: explain your solvency mechanism well, if 2As can make strategic arguments like perms or links to the net benefit those can be really helpful, a smart advantage cp or pic will probably be rewarded with high speaks

k: make sure to explain your thesis and the link to the aff well, don't read blippy da's that you can't explain, and engage the framework debate

bottom line: have fun and do your best! feel free to ask questions after the round, i feel one of the things that has helped me grow best as a debater has been talking to judges after a debate

A few things about me (TLDR version):

Former policy debater at University of Georgia ('20), Syracuse Law ('23)

Plans are good

Impact calculus is important. Tell me how to write my ballot.

Clarity > Speed

Cross-ex is binding

Have fun and don't be rude!

Long version:

Framework - I'm a good judge for framework. Debate is a game and framework is procedural question. I’m persuaded by negative appeals to limits and I think fairness is an impact in and of itself. I don’t think the topical version of the aff needs to “solve” in the same way the aff does. If there are DA's to the topical version of the aff, that seems to prove neg ground under the negative’s vision of debate. Tell me what your model of debate looks like, what negative positions does it justify, and what is the value of those positions.

Kritiks - I think it's really hard for the neg to win that the aff shouldn't get to weigh the plan provided the aff answers framework well. I've got a decent grasp on the literature surrounding critical security studies, critiques of capitalism, and settler colonialism. The aff should focus on attacking the alternative both at a substance and theoretical level. It's critical that the 2AR defines the solvency deficits to the alternative and weigh that against the case. Negative debaters should spend more time talking about the case in the context of the kritik. A good warranted link and turns the case debates are the best way for negative teams to get my ballot. Tell me how the links to the aff uniquely lead to the impacts.

Counterplans - They don't have to be topical. Whether you have a specific solvency advocate will determine if your counterplan is legitimate or not. There's nothing better than a well-researched mechanism counterplan and there's nothing worse than a hyper-generic process counterplan that you recycle for every negative debate on the topic. I generally think that 2 conditional options are good, but I can be persuaded by 3 condo is okay. PICs are probably good. Consult/Conditioning/delay counterplans, international fiat, and 50 state fiat are bad. Typically, if you win theory I reject the argument not the team unless told otherwise.

Disads- I love a good DA and case debate. I've gone for the politics DA a lot in my college career. Normally uniqueness controls the link, but I can persuaded otherwise. Impact calc and good turns cases analysis is the best!

Add me onto the e-mail chain, my email is miriam.mokhemar@gmail.com. If your computer crashes, stop the timer until you can get your doc back up.

Interlake 23, Emory 27.

Email: michi.debate@gmail.com. Appreciate this subject line: Tournament - Round X - Team Code Aff v. Team Code Neg.

TL: I've said both policy and K positions and am happy to judge either. I will try to minimize intervention as much as possible, flowing and evaluating the debate technically following explicit arguments and judge instruction that is flowed, absent that I will default to my own understanding of debate math/opinions to render a decision. I have opinions about debate (below) but am also incredibly gullible and tech > truth so any thoughts can be reversed through coherent, technical debating. I think I am a decent flow and do not flow off the document, sorry if I miss something :(. I think I am fairly expressive but don't read into it too much. I get to end the debate if something obviously objectionable happens.

Clash: I've said K Aff, but my AT: T win rate was abysmal, so good for either side! Aff notes: I find impact turns strategic, dislike when the 2AR is too new, impact comparison please. Neg notes: I find ballot scope arguments persuasive, limits DA needs a case-list, should adopt Aff language when answering offense.

K: Framework first, I will decide an interpretation and work from there. K teams should leverage tricks (framework, PIK, link turns case, ballot proximity, etc.) to moot/turn/outweigh the Aff. Aff teams should impact turn for wins or link turn for speaker points (lol).

Policy: No hot takes, slow down on T/theory/analytics.

Caileigh Pinsker

email: caileigh.pinsker25@paceacademy.org

please try to explain your arguments as clearly as possible. You're more likely to win the debate if I think you have a well constructed argument than with generic answers. don't just say the impact is extinction. Explain how your aff, or your disad causes it.

when it comes to your impact for both the aff and the neg, I'll be more likely to vote for you if you can thoroughly explain how that scenario comes to be in the first place. I will never vote on an argument without a warrant.

If I hear you be mean to your partner or opponents I'll deduct speaker points. I know debates can be intense but there's never an excuse for being mean to anyone. Debate is a game and should be fun, but if your partner or opponents are yelling at you the entire time that takes the fun of debate away.

Please speak slowly and clearly, especially when making new arguments. If I don't get the argument on my flow then I'm not going to be able to consider it. If you read an argument in earlier speeches, but I don't hear it I may think it's a new argument and won't be able to vote on it.

I'm not familiar with the arguments the novices have been reading so make sure you explain them well so that I'm able to understand them clearly.

clipping is very serious. If I believe it is an accident I'll give you a warning, but if it continues or is very clearly intentional it's an auto loss.

please send me marked copies of your speeches if you go out of order on the doc.

please signpost. If I don't know where to put stuff on my flows then it will be extremely difficult to get your arguments down and could significantly harm you in the debate.

Have a lot of fun, do your best and you'll do great whether you win or lose!

Emory 26, Lawrence Free State 22

serenajosephinerupp@gmail.com

I am extremely tech > truth, which frames the rest of my thoughts about debate. Every time I judge this paradigm gets shorter because my predispositions are weak and irrelevant to the vast majority of debates.

Only non-negotiables:

1. No death good.

2. I won't vote on things that happen outside of the round. I'm 20 years old and so unqualified to mediate high schoolers' interpersonal conflicts.

T:

Absolutely love T debates when debaters do impact comparison. Competing interpretations > reasonability.

Truthfully, I think that predictable limits are the gold standard. Limits for the sake of limits are bad. The most legally precise definition isn't necessarily the best one for debate. That being said, just debate.

Ks:

I am comfortable judging Ks like cap, set col, antiblackness, security, etc. I know basically nothing about postmodernism/poststructuralism/high theory.

My predisposition is that teams should get to weigh their aff and that framework interps that entirely exclude Ks are unpersuasive.

K affs:

In a close T debate, I’m a bit better for the neg. This is an issue with experience more so than bias. I’ve basically always been on that side of the debate, so I can subconsciously fill in more gaps when both teams lack judge instruction. With that said, I am so flow-oriented that this rarely matters. I’m just going to vote for the team that wins more of their impact and explains why it outweighs. Fairness is an impact so long as you can explain it as one. I don’t have a strong preference between clash and fairness. If you’re neg, I’m on par better for T than the K because that’s where my experience lies.

DAs:

Obviously great. Smart turns case explanation = good speaks.

CPs:

Functional and textual competition is the gold standard. Default to judge kick.

Theory:

Conditionality is the only reason to reject the team. I'm a 2N and personally believe that condo is good, but quality of debating matters most. The aff needs to clearly explain an impact prior to the 2AR, or else I’m very sympathetic to the neg. Please do line by line.

Evie Semaan - 2nd Year Policy Debater for Woodward Academy

Put me on the email chain: 27esemaan@woodward.edu

Call me Evie, not Evelyn or judge (pronounced Eee•vee)

she/her

General Things

Be kind! Debate should always be a respectful and safe activity - you will never win an argument by being rude.

Do not be racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, etc.

Feel free to ask me any questions you have before or after the round! Your goal in each debate should be to learn as much as possible.

Clarity > Speed. If I can't flow it, I'm not considering it in my decision.

Tech > Truth. I will generally vote for whoever debates the argument the best (unless that argument is an -ism or -phobia)

Clash! You should be interacting with your opponents' arguments the entire round.

Flow! It's always super obvious when teams aren't flowing. Flowing is very important for everyone in the round - you'd be frustrated if your judge wasn't flowing, right? I'm happy to check your flows after the round and give feedback.

Don't be cheaty - for example, if you remove the analytics from your doc, remember that I also can't see them!

Have fun! Please try not to stress too much - there's no point in doing an activity you don't enjoy.

Specifics

Case

Aff - make sure you're extending your impacts in all your speeches (this can usually be done on the line-by-line, but if for some reason you aren't confident that you won't drop an impact, give an overview). I'm a big fan of kicking an advantage in the 1AR, especially if it was a big block.

Neg - case definitely needs to be in the 2NR if you're going for a DA without a CP (aka defending the status quo) - otherwise I'm voting aff

Disadvantages

Neg - a well-developed disad is a very easy way to vote neg. Try to make a "DA turns Case" argument in the block!

Aff - I love "Case turns DA" or link turns on DA's, the more offense the better

Counterplans

Neg - CP's are defense, not offense! "Solving better" is not a net-benefit, and it is not a reason I am voting neg.

Aff - I think solvency deficits are the most valuable arguments you can make on a CP

Theory

Condo is probably a good thing - however, if you're just spamming a bunch of off in the 1NC as a time skew you are intentionally avoiding clash - that is a bad thing.

Speaker Points

If you want high speaks, these are some things I look favorably upon:

Being kind and respectful

Flowing

Sending out speech docs quickly and efficiently

Conducting/answering your own cross

Understanding your own arguments

Clashing with your opponents

Coach at Alpharetta High School 2006-Present
Coach at Chattahoochee High School 1999-2005
Did not debate in High School or College.

E-mail: asmiley27@gmail.com

General thoughts- I expect debaters to recognize debate as a civil, enjoyable, and educational activity. Anything that debaters do to take away from this in the round could be penalized with lower speaker points. I tend to prefer debates that more accurately take into account the types of considerations that would play into real policymakers' decision making. On all arguments, I prefer more specifics and less generics in terms of argument choice and link arguments.

The resolution has an educational purpose. I prefer debates that take this into account and find ways to interact with the topic in a reasonable way. Everything in this philosophy represents my observations and preferences, but I can be convinced otherwise in the round and will judge the arguments made in the round. I will vote on most arguments, but I am going to be very unlikely to vote on arguments that I consider morally repugnant (spark, wipeout, malthus, cancer good, etc). You should avoid these arguments in front of me.

Identity arguments- I do not generally judge these rounds and was traditionally less open to them. However, the methods and messages of these rounds can provide important skills for questioning norms in society and helping all of us improve in how we interact with society and promote justice. For that reason, I am going to work hard to be far more open to these arguments and their educational benefits. There are two caveats to this that I want you to be aware of. First, I am not prima facie rejecting framework arguments. I will still be willing to vote on framework if I think the other side is winning that their model of debate is overall better. Second, I have not read the amount of literature on this topic that most of you have and I have not traditionally judged these rounds. This means that you should not assume that I know all of the terms of art used in this literature or the acronyms. Please understand that you will need to assist in my in-round education.

K- I have not traditionally been a big fan of kritiks. This does not mean that I will not vote for kritiks, and I have become much more receptive to them over the years. However, this does mean a couple of things for the debaters. First, I do not judge as many critical rounds as other judges. This means that I am less likely to be familiar with the literature, and the debaters need to do a little more work explaining the argument. Second, I may have a little higher threshold on certain arguments. I tend to think that teams do not do a good enough job of explaining how their alternatives solve their kritiks or answering the perms. Generally, I leave too many rounds feeling like neither team had a real discussion or understanding of how the alternative functions in the round or in the real world. I also tend towards a policy framework and allowing the aff to weigh their advantages against the K. However, I will look to the flow to determine these questions. Finally, I do feel that my post-round advice is less useful and educational in K rounds in comparison to other rounds.

T- I generally enjoy good T debates. Be sure to really impact your standards on the T debate. Also, do not confuse most limiting with fair limits. Finally, be sure to explain which standards you think I as the judge should default to and impact your standards.

Theory-I am willing to pull the trigger on theory arguments as a reason to reject the argument. However, outside of conditionality, I rarely vote on theory as a reason to reject the team. If you are going for a theory arg as a reason to reject the team, make sure that you are impacting the argument with reasons that I should reject the team. Too many debaters argue to reject the team without any impact beyond the argument being unfair. Instead, you need to win that it either changed the round in an unacceptable way or allowing it changes all future rounds/research in some unacceptable way. I will also tend to look at theory as a question of competing interpretations. I feel that too many teams only argue why their interpretation is good and fail to argue why the other team’s interpretation is bad. Also, be sure to impact your arguments. I tend towards thinking that topic specific education is often the most important impact in a theory debate. I am unlikely to do that work for you. Given my preference for topic specific education, I do have some bias against generic counterplans such as states and international actor counterplans that I do not think would be considered as options by real policymakers. Finally, I do think that the use of multiple, contradictory neg advocacies has gotten out of hand in a way that makes the round less educational. I generally believe that the neg should be able to run 1 conditional CP and 1 conditional K. I will also treat the CP and the K as operating on different levels in terms of competition. Beyond that, I think that extra conditional and contradictory advocacies put too much of a burden on the aff and limit a more educational discussion on the merits of the arguments.

Disads- I generally tend towards evaluating uniqueness as the most important part of the disad debate. If there are a number of links and link turns read on a disad debate, I will generally default towards the team that is controlling uniqueness unless instructed by the debaters why I should look to the link level first. I also tend towards an offense defense paradigm when considering disads as net benefits to counterplans. I think that the politics disad is a very educational part of debate that has traditionally been my favorite argument to both coach and judge. I will have a very high threshold for voting on politics theory. Finally, teams should make sure that they give impact analysis that accounts for the strong possibility that the risk of the disad has been mitigated and tells me how to evaluate that mitigation in the context of the impacts in round.

Counterplans-I enjoy a good counterplan debate. However, I tend to give the aff a little more leeway against artificially competitive counterplans, such as consult counterplans. I also feel that a number of aff teams need to do more work on impacting their solvency deficits against counterplans. While I think that many popular counterplans (especially states) are uniquely bad for debate, I have not seen teams willing to invest the time into theory to help defeat these counterplans.

Reading cards after the round- I prefer to read as few cards post round as possible. I think that it is up to the debaters to give clear analysis of why to prefer one card over another and to bring up the key warrants in their speeches.

Maggie Stearns---Emory

She/her

maggiedebate@gmail.com

Won round 2 at the GFCA Novice Practice Tournament #1 on September 12th, 2020 which in my opinion is more important than the TOC and NDT combined.

Have fun

For K affs/Negs---If you dont send out analytics for the neg block and I dont understand the bajilion DAs and mini args ur saying, im not flowing them. Send ur analytics. Also dont just make a billion DA arguments with no cards. Choose a couple good ones to warrant out.

emerson waller - 4th year debater @ galloway - ewaller025@gallowayschool.org

odds are I'm barely older than you are, so please call me emerson and not judge

do your thing and I'll judge to the best of my ability

feel free to keep in mind:

- love a cheaty cp and politics da

- neg condo is limited by however many they can read & if that's 5+ props to them

- i lean toward policy over k, can totally do standard k's (fem, col, security, etc) and if you're doing something more fun (baudrillard, bataille, lacan) please please please assume I have never heard of your favorite niche philosopher before and explain everythinggg

- be nice? please? i want everyone to get long and enjoy a light and social debate much more than a tense and confrontational one

4x debater @Georgia, 2x NDT Attendee

Please send your hate mail to --> jhweintraub@gmail.com

I was a 2a for my entire 8 yr debate career, so i'm willing to do the work to protect the aff from what I see as abusive strategies.

I think I get a reputation for being a hack judge because I end up resolving debates by doing work for either team to try and untangle messy parts at the end, usually by reading a lot of evidence. My biggest issue is in these complex and messy debates when neither side is really making an attempt to clarify the story of what's going on and just speed through the line by line, so the debate ends and I have to make arbitrary decisions on evidence and internal link chains because neither side has told me what the ballot ought to be for. If you can do that I'm significantly more likely to vote for a scenario that is elucidated well and untangled for me.

Ex: Willing to vote on theory against arbitrary and contrived CPs that don't have a solvency advocate or try to skirt clash on the core issue. Willing to vote for the Aff on framework against the K because even though fiat isn't real the game of debate itself is useful.

I like good mechanism debates. Process CP's not my favorite cup of tea but if you've got a CP that you think does actually solve better than the aff i'd be pretty interested in hearing it.

Framework makes the game work and fairness is an impact. If the game isn't fair and both sides don't stand an equal chance of winning what's even the point of playing. At that point we're basically playing blackjack but one side gets to be the house and the other the player, and Idk about you, but I don't wanna play that game.

Coaching is not my full time job so I'm not as tuned in to everything going on on this topic as I would like to be, which means that if you wanna go for T It might be useful to do a little extra work to explain why the aff is far outside the bounds of what we know the topic is. That being said though, i'm definitely willing to pull the trigger on it if I think the aff is overly contrived in an attempt to skirt the core neg ground.

The aff almost always gets to weigh its implementation against the K. The neg gets to link representations but you also need to justify why that matters against the aff or some tangible impact of that.

My background and day job is in cybersecurity (blockchain and encryption engineering) so if you're gonna read arguments about technology i'm gonna expect you to have at least some understanding of how tech works and will almost certainly not be persuaded by tech > truth. Most cyber arguments are stupid and completely miss the nuance of the tools. If you want more explanation i am happy to explain why.

For Novice Only: To promote flowing, you can show me your flows at the end of a round and earn up to 1.0 speaker points if they are good. To discourage everyone bombarding me with flows, you can also lose up to a full speaker point if your flows suck.