I have been involved with competitive speech and debate for over 20 years now as a competitor, coach, and judge. I have a Master of International Affairs with a concentration in National Security and Diplomacy studies. My initial background is in high school policy debate, I also competed in collegiate Lincoln-Douglas for Western Kentucky and was part of their NPDA / NPTE parliamentary debate program.

By default my framework is net-benefits / cost-benefit analysis. Really this means weighing impacts and telling me who is winning in terms of magnitude, probability, and time frame.

NFA-LD Paradigm

I believe this event exists to be a single person policy debate which means defending a stable form of advocacy with a solvency advocate. I think there are ways that you can access kritikal impacts with this that

Performance Debate (specific for 2023-24 topic)- I don't like performance debates. But for this topic, I am very open to soft left affs as I believe this topic has some potentially strategic avenues to make the debate more competitive for the aff. It is going to be easier for you to get my ballot with a plan text and then a kritikal advantage (and that is not mutually exclusive to some of the kritikal schools of thought) that sometimes topics are written in such a way that there are strategic and literature-based reasons to pursue an affirmative that can play both in the world of policy impacts and in the kritikal world.

My view of the role of the ballot: Here is the short version of my philosophy on this, if you tell me that voting aff is a symbolic victory that buys currency for something greater than what happened in this round, as a judge I just don't see it that way. There are only 3 functions of the ballot as far as I am concerned: 1) An evaluation of how both debaters performed in this round 2) Which debater made the best arguments (OR WON) this debate and 3) to show I met my judging obligations for the tournament.

Case Examples:

A performance aff I will probably not vote for- Advocacy: Use your ballot as a tool to reject the patriarchal order of the nuclear age that envelopes the debate space and embrace a feminist international relations lens of nuclear weapons.

I am not opposed to FEMIR literature. In fact the sheer volume of the literature as it applies to this years topic makes it fair game. However, the reason I am not likely to vote for this is you are not going to find solvency that says rejection in a debate round is going to solve the fundamental problems and harms in the literature.

An aff that I am more likely to listen to- The USFG will adopt a no-first use nuclear policy.If you were to then run a threat construction advantage that had clear indicators of how no-first use leads to the deconstruction of threats and the literature supports that then that is a much more likely path to getting me to vote for a kritikal advantage.

Another aff I could see myself voting for- Plan: "The USFG will unilaterally disarm itself of its nuclear weapons". If you then ran the entire case with FEMIR literature and that was your advantage, I would be open to listening because this approach is heavily grounded in the literature.

Spreading-I can handle speed as long as it is clear. However, if I do not flow it because you were not clear then I won't go back and look at the email chain to do the work for you. That to me is intervention and doing extra work for you.

Topicality-I will vote on topicality if you can tell me what specific ground you have lost . Be able to articulate why the ground you have lost is key to your ability to debate. For instance, if we are in a foreign policy debate and the aff runs that "The USFG should consult NATO on __x__" that is taking away ground for you to test the effectiveness of the plan.

Compare that to "they have an advantage that should be the basis for negative disadvantage". It is possible the aff might have done better research to secure the internal links to solving for the impact. That doesn't mean that your ground was taken away.

If you can prove that the aff has taken away core negative ground then by all means run with it. But don't tell me it's a voter for the potential for abuse because that is not an impact.

Affirmatives- if you run a counter-interpretation on T, please remember to tell me how you meet your interpretation and have counter-standards. You could have the best counter-interpretation in the world but if you don't meet it then you have proven two different ways how you fall outside the topic.

I don't believe in RVIs for T.

Kritiks- I am fine with kritiks if: 1) Please give me some specific links. I get sometimes if a new aff is sprung on you that you need to run generic links but if you really understand the literature base, you should be able to write some sort of analytical link story. I am increasingly frustrated with links that are based on "you use the state therefore link"

2) Give me a textual alternative that has a solvencyadvocate. Don't just tell me "reject the aff", instead I need to know what this new world / paradigm looks like and how it solves the harms of the aff and avoids the impacts of the kritik.

Counterplans- I think that once a counterplan is run presumption flips aff and it becomes a question then of which side presents the better policy outcome. I believe to be competitive a counterplan must be mutually exclusive from the plan itself (yep I'll vote on PICs bad) and have a net benefit the plan can't capture. I am also old school enough to believe that a permutation requires solvency.

Theory-I won't vote on theory arguments unless you show me that actual damage has been done. I would prefer not being bogged down in you reciting theory arguments written by debaters who have long sense graduated that don't even pertain to the argument. I think too often theory debates become an excuse to not engage with the arguments that on a logical basis could be taken down.

Having said that, will I entertain theoretical objections to the plan such as vagueness, F-Spec, A-SPEC or minor repair? Yes because while they are theoretical, they are ultimately grounded on discussions of the policy. But I will only vote on these if you show that you have lost ground.

High School Paradigm

I think that in high school we have a division of the types of debate for a reason so my paradigm is broken up to help make it more reader accessible. I will start with some broader issues before moving to the specific events.

Flash / Prep Time / Email

I consider time spent with a flashdrive to be prep time until you hand the drive to your opponent or until the email has been sent. I do not want to be part of the email chain because my focus should be on the round and listening to your delivery, not a CSI style re-examination of the round after the fact to try and piece together what happened.

Spreading

I keep a pretty tight flow but please make sure you slow down for the tag lines. I will say clear once and if you continue to be incomprehensible then speaks will drop. Realize that articulation is just as important because if your judge doesn't flow it, it doesn't count.

Speaks:

I will not disclose speaker points after a round (until Tabroom posts it) please don't ask. In order to earn 30 speaks you have to have a nearly perfect combination of round vision, articulation, and refutation.

Performance Debate

Please don't run performance arguments in front of me. I personally think there are better forums for high school students to address the issues that are often encompassed in "performance debate" and those avenues are in the public speaking and interpretation events. In those events you actually have to change pieces

The ballot serves as a tool to show the tournament I judged the round and could make a decision. The ballot is not a form of currency that gives your arguments more power.

Kritikal Arguments

Having said that I don't like performances, I welcome a kritikal debate provided that the framework is sound, that there is a clear and specific link (please note just because a team was assigned to affirm is not reason enough to say they link). There also needs to be a clear alternative. Please don't take the lazy way out and just say "reject" or "discursively interrogate". Give me actual text with solvency for the alt.

Theory

I think that a theory debate is ok provided that there are actual warrants to the arguments and you can prove demonstrated abuse that has happened in the round to justify voting for or against the argument. Too often theory debates devolve into reading claims off frontlines someone long ago wrote for your team and don't have any meaning to you so you can't explain how it functions. I am not going to do the math for you on this so please make sure that the argument chain is clear.

Policy Debate

I think policy debate should be about actual policy with a plan. I default to the policy-making paradigm of cost benefit analysis unless I am told otherwise.

Topicality- I am not likely to vote on topicality unless you show me in round abuse. Just the potential of abuse is not enough for me to vote. Also please don't just use JARGON. If it is the first time I am judging you make sure that

Make sure that your counterplans or kritiks can actually solve the harms of the affirmative. Plan inclusive counterplans are pretty much an invitation for the rare vote for me on theory if the aff can demonstrate that there is lost ground.

Also make sure on disadvantages that you have uniqueness and that the direction of the link actually ties to the impact. Lastly, please make sure that your politics disads make sense. Don't just make the link jump to the impact to say we are going to have a nuclear war.

Make sure you IMPACT your arguments and compare.

Lincoln- Douglas

While I think there could be a place for a plan in a util framework I would prefer to see a value criterion-debate here. If you can explain adequately how a plan fits and is warranted then we can have that debate.

Please do not just take your policy teams kritik files and turn it into a case and assume that this is a way to win the round. There have to be actual implications as it relates to the round.

Public Forum

I am open to most ideas of how to approach Public Forum but tend to revert to cost benefit analysis as a default. Make sure that you give me clear arguments with clear impacts. Don't just throw out a debate buzz word and hope that I will interpret it as such. If you are going to use terms like "turn" make sure it is an actual turn.

Make sure that if there is an argument you think is going to win you the round that you carry it throughout the debate. Please don't magically resurrect an argument in final focus that has not been present since the constructives and then tell me it is the most important thing in the round.

Lastly when it comes to the final focus, I know that time is a major hurdle at times but you do not have to go for every argument in order to win. Please tell me how your argument compares to your opponents' and explain why your arguments matter more.

Updated 10/14/24 Post-Houston

Hi everyone, I'm Holden (They/He)!

University of North Texas '23, and '25 (Go Mean Green!)

If you are a senior graduating this year, UNT has debate scholarships and a program with resources! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via my email listed below and we can talk about the program and what it can offer you! If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!

I would appreciate it if you put me on the email chain: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

Most of this can be applied to any debate event, but if there are event specific things then I will flag them, but they are mostly at the bottom.

The TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. I think intervention is bad (until a certain point, those exceptions will be made obvious), and that letting the debaters handle my adjudication of the round as much as possible is best. I've been described as "grumpy," and described as an individual "that would vote on anything," I think both of these things are true in a vacuum and often translate in the way that I perceive arguments. However, my adherence to the flow often overrides my desire to frown and drop my head whilst hearing a terrible argument. In that train of thought, I try to be as close to a "no feelings flow bot" when adjudicating debates, which means go for whatever you want as long as it has a warrant and isn't something I flat out refuse to vote on (see rest of paradigm). I enjoy debates over substance surrounding the topic, it's simulated effects, it's adherence to philosophical principles, and it's critical assumptions, much more than hypertechnical theory debates that aren't based on things that the plan does. Bad arguments most certainly exist, and I greatly dislike them, but the onus is on debaters for disproving those bad arguments. I have voted for every type of argument under the sun at this point, and nothing you do will likely surprise me, but let me be clear when I encourage you to do what you interpret as necessary to win you the debate in terms of argumentive strategy.

I take the safety of the debaters in round very seriously. If there is ever an issue, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know in some manner (whether that be through a private email, a sign of some kind, etc.). I try to be as cognizant as possible of the things happening in round, but I am a human being and a terrible reader of facial expressions at that so there might be moments where I am not picking up on something. Misgendering is included in this, I take misgendering very seriously and have developed the following procedure for adjudicating cases where this does happen: you get one chance with your speaks being docked that one time, more than once and you have lost my ballot even if an argument has not been made related to this. I am extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells. Respect people's pronouns and personhood.

Tech > Truth

Yes speed, yes clarity, yes spreading, will likely keep up but will clear you twice and then give up after that.

Debate influences/important coaches who I value immensely: Colin Quinn.

Trigger warnings - they're good broadly, you should probably give individuals time to prepare themselves if you delve into discussions of graphic violence. For me, that includes in depth discussion of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide.

I flow on my laptop, and consider myself a pretty good flow when people are clear, probably a 8-8.5/10. Just be clear, number your arguments, and slow down on analytics please.

Cheating, including evidence ethics and clipping, is bad. I have seen clipping become much more common and I will vote you down if I feel you have done so even without "recorded" evidence or a challenge from another debater.

For your pref sheets (policy):

Clash debates - 1

K v K debates - 1

Policy throwdowns - 1/2 (I can judge and am fairly confident in these debates but have less experience in this compared to others and need a bit more hand holding)

For your pref sheets (LD):

Clash debates of any kind (Policy v K, K aff v framework, phil v k, etc.) - 1

K - 1

Policy - 1

Phil - 1

T/Theory - 1/2

Tricks - 4

Trad - 5/Strike

I'm serious about these rankings, I value execution over content and am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.

The Long Version:

Who the hell is this person, why did my coach/I pref them?

Hello! My name is Holden, this year will mark my 9th year in debate. I am currently a communication studies graduate student at the University of North Texas, where I also got my bachelors in psychology and philosophy. During my time as a competitor, I did policy, LD, and NFA-LD. My exposure to the circuit really began my sophomore year of high school, but nothing of true note really occurred during my high school career. College had me qualify for the NFA-LD national tournament twice, I got to octas twice, broke at majors, got gavels, round robin invites. I now coach and judge exclusively, where I have coached teams that have qualified to the NDT, qualified to outrounds of just about every bid tournament, gotten several speaker awards, have accrued 30+ bids, and made it to elimination rounds and have been the top speaker of the TOC.

I judge a lot, and by that I mean a lot. Currently at 650+ debates judged since I graduated high school in 2020. Those (probably too many) debates have ranged everywhere from local circuit tournaments, the TOC, and to the NDT, but I would say most of my time judging is in national circuit LD, with college policy debate coming in right behind that. I think the reason I judge so much is because I think judging is a skill, and one that gets better the more you do it, and you get worse when you haven't done it in a while. I genuinely enjoy judging debates because of several reasons, whether that be my enjoyment of debate, the money, or because I enjoy the opportunity to help aid in the growth of debaters through feedback.

I do a lot of research, academically, debate wise, and for fun. Most of my research is in the kritikal side of things, mostly because I coach a bunch of K debaters. However, I often engage in policy research, and enjoy cutting those cards immensely. In addition, I have coached students who have gone for every argument type under the sun.

Please call me Holden, or judge (Holden is preferable, but if you vibe with judge then go for it). I hate anything more formal than that because it makes me uncomfortable (Mr. Bukowsky, sir, etc.)

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays High School (my alma mater), and the University of North Texas. I currently consult for Westlake (TX). Independently, I coach Barrington AC, Clear Springs EG, Clear Springs MS, East Chapel Hill AX, Jasper SG, Plano West AR, Plano West RC, Riverside Independent JD and Vestavia Hills MH.

Previously, I have been affiliated with Jordan (TX) institutionally, and with American Heritage Broward CW, Bellevue/Washington Independent WL, Cypress Woods MM, Greenhill EX, and McNeil AS.

What does Holden think of debate?

It's a competitive game with pedagogical implications. I love debate immensely, and I take my role in it seriously. It is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I'm not ideological on how I evaluate debates because I don't think it's my place to determine the validity of including arguments in debate (barring some exceptions). I think the previous sentence means that you should please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability. There are only two concrete rules in debate - 1. there must be a winner and a loser, and those are decided by me, and 2. speech times are set in stone. Any preference that I have should not matter if you are doing your job, if I have to default to something then you did something incorrect.

To summarize the way that I think about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does it best, "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, faor, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."

I’ve been told I take a while to come to a decision. This is true, but not for the reason you might think. Normally, I know how I’m voting approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute after the debate. However, I like to be thorough and make sure that I give the debate the time and effort that it deserves, and as such try to have all of my thoughts together. Believe me, I consider myself somewhat comprehensible most times, I find it reassuring to myself to make sure that all my thoughts about the arguments in debate are in order. This is also why I tend to give longer decisions, because I think there are often questions about argument X on Y sheet which are easily resolved by having those addressed in the rfd. As such, I try to approach each decision from a technical standpoint and how each argument a. interacts with the rest of the debate, b. how large of an impact that argument has, c. think through any defense to that argument, and d. if that argument is the round winner or outweighs the offense of the opposing side.

If it means anything, I think most of my debate takes are in camp "2N who had to be a 2A for a while as well so I think mostly about negative strategy but also think that the aff has the right to counter-terrorism against negative terrorism."

What does Holden like?

I like good debates. If you execute your arguments in a technically impressive manner, I will be pleased.

I like debates that require little intervention, please make my job easier for me via judge instruction, I hate thinking.

I like well researched arguments with clear connections to the topic/the affirmative.

I like when email chains are sent out before the start time so that 1AC's can begin at start time, don't delay the round any more than it has to be please.

I like good case debating, this includes a deep love for impact turns.

I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this includes labeling your arguments (whether giving your arguments names, or doing organizational strategies like "1, 2, 3" or "a point, b point, c point, etc."), I find it harder to vote for teams that make it difficult for me to know who is responding to what and what those responses are so making sure I can flow you is key.

I like debaters that collapse in final speeches, it gives room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.

I like it when I am given a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can takes place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, framework, fairness v education, a meta-ethic, impact calculus, or anything, I don't care. I just need an evaluative lens to determine how to parse through impact calculus.

What does Holden dislike?

I dislike everything that is the opposite of the above.

I dislike when people make problematic arguments.

I dislike unclear spreading.

I dislike messy debates with no work done to resolve them.

I dislike when people say "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."

I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, it's your prep time, I don't care just tell me you're taking it.

I dislike when debaters posture too much. I don't care, and it annoys me. Debate the debate, especially since half the time when debaters posture it's about the wrong thing. There is a difference between being firm, and being performative.

I dislike when debaters are exclusionary to novice debaters. I define this as running completely overcomplicated strategies that are then deployed with little to no explanation. I am fine with "trial by fire" but think that you shouldn't throw them in the volcano. You know what this means. Not abiding by this will get your speaks tanked.

I dislike when evidence exchange takes too long, this includes when it takes forever for someone to press send on an email, when someone forgets to hit reply all (it's 2024 and y'all have been using technology for how long????). If you think email chains aren't vibe then please use a speechdrop to save all of us the headache.

I dislike topicality where the interpretation card is written by someone in debate, and especially when it's not about the specific terms of art in the topic.

I dislike 1AR restarts.

How has Holden voted?

Since I started judging in 2020, I have judged exactly 695 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff approximately 52.09% of the time.

My speaks for the 2024-2025 season have averaged to be around 28.518, and across all of the seasons I have judged they are at 28.525.

I have been a part of 207 panels, where I have sat approximately 12.56% of the time.

What will Holden never vote on?

Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.).

Arguments that say that oppression (in any form) is good.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.

Claims without warrants, these are not arguments.

Specific Arguments:

Policy Arguments

Contrary to my reputation, I love CP/DA debates and have an immense amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do good amounts of research on the policy side of topics often, and coach teams that go for these arguments predominantly. I love a good DA + case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. One of my favorite 2NR's to give while I was debating was DA + circumvention, and I think that these debates are great and really reward good research quality.

Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive with germane net benefits, I think that most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments about these issues and I greatly enjoy competition debates. Limited intrinsic permutations are probably justified against counterplans that don't say a word about the topic.

I am amenable to all counterplans, and think they're theoretically legitimate (for the most part). I think that half the counterplans people read are not competitive though.

Impact turn debates are amazing, give me more of them please and thank you.

I reward well cut evidence, if you cite a card as part of your warrant for your argument and it's not very good/unwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link/size of impact to that argument. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that often acts as a tie breaker between the spin of two debaters.

Judge instruction is essential to my ballot. Explain how I should frame a piece of evidence, what comes first and why, I think that telling me what to do and how to decipher the dozens of arguments in rounds makes your life and my job much easier and positively correlates to how much you will like my decision.

I enjoy well researched and topic specific process counterplans. They're great, especially when the evidence for them is topic specific and has a good solvency advocate.

I default no judge kick unless you make an argument for it.

Explain what the permutation looks like in the first responsive speech, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you.

For affs, I think that I prefer well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts much more than the shot gun 7 impact strategy.

Explanation of how the DA turns case matters a lot to me, adjust your block/2NR accordingly.

Thoughts on conditionality are in the theory section.

K's

Say it with me everyone, Holden does not hack for the kritik. In fact, I've become much more grouchy about K debate lately. Aff's aren't defending anything, neg teams are shotgunning 2NR's without developing offense in comparison to the 1AR and the 2AR, and everyone is making me feel more and more tired. Call me old, but I think that K teams get too lost in the sauce, don't do enough argumentative interaction, and lose debates because they can't keep up technically. I think this is all magnified when the 2NR does not say a word about the aff at all.

This is where most of my research and judging is nowadays. I will be probably know what you're reading, have cut cards for whatever literature you are reading, and have a good amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I've been in debate for 8 years now, and have coached teams with a litany of literature interests, so feel free to read anything you want, just be able to explain it.

Aff teams against the K should go for framework, extinction outweighs, and the alt fails more.

For aff teams answering the K, going for framework does not automatically make the risk of the link zero, especially when there is no judge instruction on why your interp would exclude their link arguments. That necessitates that you need to answer the link most often time, especially if there's a turns case argument. I have had too many debates where the 2AR was just framework with no link defense, and I end up voting neg quickly because of conceded link turns case arguments that the 2NR say directly affect the plan's implementation.

Framework only matters as much as you make it matter. I think both sides of the debate are doing no argument resolution/establishing the implications of what it means to win framework. Does that mean that only consequences of the implementation of the plan matter, and I exclude the links to the plans epistemology? Does that mean that if the neg wins a link, the aff loses because I evaluate epistemology first? Questions like these often go unresolved, and I think teams often debate at each other via block reading without being comparative at all. Middle ground interps are often not as strategic as you think, and you are better off just going for you link you lose, or plan focus. To sum this up, make framework matter if you think it matters, and don't be afraid to just double down about your interp.

My ideal K 1NC will have 2-3 links to the aff (one of which is a link to the action of the aff), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.

I have found that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how it interacts with the alts and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alternative does, your chance of getting my ballot goes down. Example from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense y'all are going for in relation to the alternative, the links, and the permutation. Please explain the permutation in the first responsive speech.

I've found that most K teams are bad at debating the impact turn (heg/cap good), this is to say that I think that if you are against the K, I am very much willing to vote on the impact turn given that it is not morally repugnant (see above).

I appreciate innovation of K debate, if you introduce an interesting new argument instead of recyclying the same 1NC you've been running for several seasons I will be extremely thankful. At least update your cards every one in a while.

Please do not run a K just because you think I'll like it, bad K debates have seen some of the worst speaks I've ever given (for example, if you're reading an argument related to Settler Colonialism yet can't answer the 6 moves to innocence).

K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC so they can be floating.

For the nerds that wanna know, the literature bases that I know pretty well are: Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Grove, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Marxism, Psychoanalysis, Reps K's, Scranton/Eco-Pessimism, Security, Settler Colonialism, and Weheliye.

The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Abolition, Accelerationism (Fisher, CCRU people, etc.), Agamben, Bataille, Cybernetics, Disability Literature, Moten and Harney, Puar, and Queer pessimism.

A note on non-black engagement with afro-pessimism: I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. Particular authors make particular claims about the adoption of afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you can do whatever. If you are reading this K as a non-black person, this becomes the round. If you are disingenious to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I am. This is your first and last warning.

K-Aff's

These are fine, cool even. They should defend something, and that something should provide a solvency mechanism for their impact claims. Having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers become much more persuasive, and makes me happier to vote for you, especially since I am becoming increasingly convinced that there should be some stasis for debate.

For those negating these affs, the case debate is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the negative develops a really good piece of offense by the end of the debate then everything else just becomes so much easier for you to win. I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, and other impact turns, and quite enjoy judging these debates.

Presumption is underrated if people understand how to go for it, unfortunately most people just don't know how. Most aff's don't do anything or have a cogent explanation of what their aff does to solve things and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should probably utilize that.

Marxism will be forever underrated versus K affs, aff's whose only responses are "doesn't explain the aff" and "X explains capitalism" will almost always lose to a decent 2NR on the cap k. This is your suggestion to update your answers to challenge the alternative on some level.

Innovation is immensely appreciated by both sides of this debate. I swear I've judged the exact same 2-4 affs about twenty times each and the 1NC's just never change. If your take on a literature base or negative strategy is interesting, innovative, and is something I haven't heard this year you will most definitely get higher speaks.

Performance based arguments are good/acceptable, I have experience coaching and running these arguments myself. However, I find that most times when ran that the performance is not really extended into the speeches after this, obviously there are some limitations but I think that it does give me leeway for leveraging your inevitable application of the performance to other areas of the debate.

T-Framework/T-USFG

In my heart of hearts, I probably am very slightly aff leaning on this question, but my voting record has increasingly become negative leaning. I think this is because affirmatives have become quite bad at answering the negative arguments in a convincing, warranted, and strategic manner. If you are an aff debater reading this, my response to you is toinnovate and to try to emphasize technical debate rather than posturing, you have an aff and you should definitely use it to help substantiate your arguments.

It may be my old age getting to me, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that fairness is a viable impact option for the 2NR to go for. I think it probably has important implications for the ballot in terms of framing the resolution of affirmative and negative impact arguments, and those framing questions are often mishandled by the affirmative. However, I think that to make me enjoy this in debates negative teams need to avoid vacuous and cyclical lines of argumentation that often plague fairness 2NR's and instead

Framework isn't capital T true, but also isn't an automatic act of violence. I think I'm somewhat neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I am of the belief that the resolution should at least center the debate in some way. What that means to you, though, is up to you.

Often, framework debates take place mostly at the impact level, with the internal link level to those impacts never being questioned. This is where I think both teams should take advantage of, and produces better debates about what debate should look like.

I have voted on straight up impact turns before, I've voted on counter-interps, and I've also voted on fairness as an impact. The onus is on the debaters to explain and flesh out their arguments in a manner that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging specific warrants of DA's to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is no engagement in either side in the debate.

Counter-interpretations seem to be more persuasive to me, and are often underutilized. Counter-interpretations that have a decent explanation of what their model of debate looks like, and what debates under that model feature. Doing all of the above does wonder.

In terms of my thoughts about impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills.

"Fairness is good because debate is a game and and we all have intrinsic motivation to compete" >>>> "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate your arguments so hack against them," if the latter is more in line with what your expalantion of fairness is then 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose.

Topicality (Theory is it's Own Monster)

I love T debates, they're absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. They've certainly gotten stales and have devolved to some model of T subsets one way or another. However, I will still evaluate and vote on any topicality violation. Interps based on words/phrases of the resolution make me much happier than a lot of the LD "let's read this one card from a debate coach over and over and see where it gets us" approach.

Semantics and precision matter, this is not in a "bare plurals/grammar means it is read this" way but a "this is what this word means in the context of the topic" way.

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the resolution. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, and you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

Theory

I have judged numerous theory debates, more than the average judge for sure, and certainly more than I would care to admit. You'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I ask that you don't blitz through analytics and would prefer you make good in-depth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to your offense. I find that a well-explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me conceptually more persuaded by your impact arguments.

Conditionality is good if you win that it is. i think conditionality is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it should be robust if you plan on abusing the usage of conditionality vehemently. I've noticed a trend among judges recently just blatantly refusing to vote on conditionality through some arbitrary threshold that they think is egrigious, or because they think conditionality is universally good. I am not one of those judges.If you wanna read 6 different counterplans, go ahead, but just dismissing theoretical arguments about conditionality like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. I evaluate conditionality the same no matter the type of event, but my threshold of annoyance for it being introduced varies by number of off and the event you are in. For example, I will be much less annoyed if condo is read in an LD round with 3+ conditional advocacies than I will be if condo is read in a college policy round with 1 conditional advocacy.

Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:

- Shells abiut the appearance and clothing of anoher debater.

- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this

- Reading "no i meets"

- Arguments that a debater may not be able to answer a new argument in the next speech (for example, if the 1AR concedes no new 2AR arguments, and the 2NR reads a new shell, I will always give the 2AR the ability to answer that new shell)

Independent Voters

These seem to be transforming into tricks honestly. I am unconvinced why these are reasons to reject the team most of the time. Words like "accessibility," "safety," and "violence" all have very precise definitions of what they mean in an academic and legal context and I think that they should not be thrown around with little to no care. Make them arguments/offense for you on the flow that they were on, not reasons to reject the team.

I will, however, abandon the flow and vote down that do engage in actively violent practices. I explained this above, but just be a decent human being. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Evidence Ethics

I would much prefer these debates not occur. If you think there is a violation you either stake the round or don't make an argument about it.If you stake the round I will use the rules of the tournament or whatever organization it associates itself with. Debater that loses the challenge gets a 25, winner gets a 28.5.

For HS-LD:

Tricks

I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments based on getting into the weeds of logic (think the philosophy logic, IE if p, then q). I took logic but did not pay near enough attention nor care enough to have a deep understanding or desire to understand what you're talking about. This means slow down just a tiny bit and tone down the jargon so my head doesn't hurt as much.

My thoughts about tricks can be summarized as "God please do not if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate it you can go ham."

I can judge these debates, have judged numerous amounts of them in the past, and have coached/do coach debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not deal with them. There's little to no innovation, and I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1N do not expect me to be very happy about the debate or your strategy. If I had to choose, carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am."

Slow down on the underviews, overviews, and impact calc sections of your framework (you know what I'm talking about), Yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory argumetns like they're card text. Going at like 70% of your normal speed in these situation is greatly appreciated.

Be straight up about the implication and warrant for tricks, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether I feel like evaluating them or whether I'm tanking your speaks. This extends to disclosure practices, you know what this means.

Tricks versus identity-based kritikal affirmatives are bad and violent. Stop it.

Phil

I love phil debates. I coach plenty of debaters who go for phil arguments, and find that their interactions are really great. However, I find that debate has trended towards a shotgun approach to justifying X argument about how our mind works in favor of analytical syllogisms that are often spammy, underwarranted, and make little to no sense. I prefer carded syllogisms that identify a problem with ethics/metaphysics and explain how their framework resolves that via pieces of evidence.

The implication/impact of the parts of your syllogism should be clear from the speech they are introduced in, I dislike late breaking debates because you decided to hide what X argument meant in relation to the debate.

In phil v phil debates, there needs to be a larger emphasis on explanation between competing ethics. These debates are often extremely dense and messy, or extremely informational and engaging, and I would prefer that they be the latter rather than the formr. Explanation, clear engagement, and delineated weighing is how to get my ballot in these debates.

Hijacks are cool, but once again please explain because they're often just 10 seconds long with no actual warrants.

Slow down a bit as well, especially in rebuttals, these debates are often fast and blippy and I can only flow so fast

For those that are wondering, I'm pretty well read in most continental philosophy, social contract theorists, and most of the common names in debate. This includes the usual Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Spinoza, and Deleuze as well as some pretty out of left field characters like Leibniz and Berkeley.

I have read some of the work regarding Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Particularism, and Constitutitionality as well.

I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with people reading Deleuze as an ethical framework, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe moral claims but is a question of metaphysics/politics, proceed with caution.

Defaults:

- Comparative worlds > truth testing

- Permissibility negates > affirms

- Presumption negates > affirms

- Epistemic modesty > confidence in skep debates, confidence > modesty in phil v phil debates

Trad/Lay Debate

I mean, sure, why not. I can judge this, and debated on a rather traditional LD circuit in high school. However, I often find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. If you think that you can change my mind, please go ahead, but I think that given the people that pref me most of the time I think it's in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, for your sake and mine.

NFA-LD:

Everything above applies.

Don't think I'm a K hack. I know my background may suggest otherwise but ideologically I have a high threshold for execution and will punish you for it if you fail to meet it. Seriously, I've voted against kritikal arguments more than I've voted for them. If you are not comfortable going for the K then please do not unless you absolutely want to, please do not adapt to me. I promise I'll be so down for a good disad and case 2NR or something similar.

"It's against NFA-LD rules" is not an argument or impact claim and if it is then it's an internal link to fairness. Only rules violation I will not roll my eyes at are ethics challenges.

Yes non-T affs, yes t - framework, yes cap good/heg good, no to terrible theory arguments like "must delineate stock issues."

Why are we obsessed with bad T arguments that do not have an intent to define words in the topic in the context of the topic? Come on y'all, act like we've been here.

Speaks:

I don't consider myself super stingey or a speaks fairy, though I think I've gotten stingier compared to the rest of the pool.

I don't evaluate "give me X amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad then perform well or use the methods I have outlined to boost your speaks.

Here's a general scale I use, it's adjusted to the tournament as best as possible -

29.5+ - Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament

29.1-29.4 - Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 - Good round, you should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 - About the middle of the pool

27.6-28 - You got some stuff to work on

27-27.5 - You got a lot of stuff to work on

Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it

Background: I am currently the Director of Debate at Illinois State University. I have been involved in debate since 2001. I was awarded the 2020-2021 Fulbright Award to coach debate in Taiwan.

DISCLOSURE THEORY IS LAZY DEBATE AND I WILL GIVE YOU NO HIGHER THAN 15 SPEAKER POINTS IF YOU RUN THIS POSITION (this means at best you will get a low point win). I will also NOT evaluate it OR flow it.

I believe that the debate is yours to be had, but there are a few things that you should know:

1. Blippy, warrantless debates are mind numbing. If you do not have a warrant to a claim, then you do not have an argument even if they drop it. This usually occurs at the top of the AC/NC when you are trying to be "clever." Less "clever," more intelligent. I do not evaluate claims unless there are no real arguments in a round. Remember that a full argument consists of a claim supported by warrants with evidence.

2. I CANNOT flow speed due to an issue with my dominant hand. I will give you two verbal "speed" if you are going too fast. After that I quit flowing and if I do not flow it I do not evaluate it. Additionally, I do believe that the speed at which you go should be accessible to everyone in the round, this means your competitor, other judges on a panel, AND audience members. I am very open to voting on accessibility and/or clarity kritiks. SPEED SHOULD NOT BE A TOOL OF EXCLUSION!!!!!!

3. I often vote for the one argument I can find that actually has an impact. I do not evaluate moral obligations in the round (if you say "Moral Obligation" in college LD Debate I stop flowing, take a selfie, and mock you on social media). This does not mean I will not vote for dehumanization is bad, but I need a warrant outside of just telling me I am morally obligated to do something. Moral obligations are lazy debate, warrant out your arguments. HIGH SCHOOL LD DEBATERS- IGNORE THIS, I will vote for moral obligations if they are explained and well warranted.

4. Run whatever strategy you want--I will do my best to evaluate whatever you give me in whatever frame I'm told to by the debaters--if you don't give me the tools I default to policy maker/net benefits, if it's clearly not a policy maker paradigm round for some reason I'll make something up to vote on...basically, your safest bet is to tell me where to vote and why to vote.

5. If you are rude, I will not hesitate to tank your speaker points. There is a difference between confidence, snarkiness, and rudeness.

6. When running a kritik you need to ensure that you have framework, impacts, links, an alternative text, alt solvency, and role of the ballot (lacking any of these will make it hard for me to vote for you)...I also think you should explain what the post alt world looks like. I'm very easily persuaded by arguments about the post-alt world not being possible if the debater running the K does not explain the post-alt world to me.

7. If you are going to run a CP and a kritik you need to tell me which comes first and where to look. You may not like how I end up ordering things, so the best option is to tell me how to order the flow. I do not like operating in multiple worlds as I believe that is abusive to the affirmative, especially given the speech times in NFA-LD. I am easily persuaded to vote against a debater that does this if their opposition makes it a voting issue.

8. Impact calc is a MUST. This is the best way to ensure that I'm evaluating what you find to be the most important in the round.

9. Number or letter your arguments. The word "Next" or "And" is not a number or a letter. Doing this will make my flow neater and easier to follow and easier for you to sign post and extend in later speeches. It also makes it easier for me to make a decision in the end.

10. I base my decision on the flow as much as possible. I will not bring in my personal beliefs or feelings toward an argument as long as there is something clear to vote on. If I have to make my own decision due to the debaters not being clear about where to vote on the flow or how arguments interact, I will be forced to bring my own opinion in and make a subjective decision rather than an objective decision. I do reserve the right to intervene when any -ist argument is made or advocated for.

11. If you advocate for a double win I automatically vote for the other person, issue you 1 speaker point, and leave the room. This is a debate, not a conversation. We are here to compete, so don't try to do something else.

12. Wilderson has stated that he does not want his writings used in debate by white individuals. He believes that the use of his writings is contradictory to what he overall stands for because he feels like you are using his arguments and black individuals as a tool to win (functionally monetizing black individuals). So for the love of all that is good please stop running these cards and respect the author's wishes. If you are white and you run his evidence I will not evaluate it out of respect for the author.

13. I will give you auto 30 speaker points if you read your 1AC/1NC out of a black book with page turns. (this is still offered for digital debates)

Really, I'm open to anything. Debate, have fun, and be engaging. Ask me any questions you may have before the start of the round so that we can all be on the same page :) I also believe this activity should be a learning experience for everyone, so if after a round you have any questions please feel free to approach me and talk to me! I truly mean this because I love talking about debate and the more each debater gains from a round will provide for better rounds in the future for me to judge. If you ever have questions about a comment or RFD please ask. My email is sjcarl3@ilstu.edu

Put me on the Email Chain- debate.taylor@gmail.com

Currently Debate at the University of North Texas in NFA LD, similar to a one person policy debate.

About me: I competed in Policy debate for 4 years at Princeton high school, primarily on the TFA circuit. Better with policy debates because that is what I did in high school, but please do what you are most comfortable with. Tech>truth most of the time.

Speed: Slow down on tags and authors, I am generally okay with speed, since every judge is different I will say clear twice before I stop flowing.

Evidence: I might be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis. That being said my reading of the evidence will have not have any weight on my decision unless both teams make it a point of contention. It is not my job as a judge to vote against a team for reading bad evidence it is your job to tell me their evidence is bad and why that's important.

AFF: Plan less affs are fine. I enjoy ones that relate to the topic in some way but if they don't that is cool too. Fairness could be an impact but I am usually persuaded by the impact turns.

Disadvantages: The more specific to the aff the better. I am good with politics disadvantages, fiat does not resolve the link ever. Saying "Uniqueness overwhelms the link because of how many cards the neg read" is not an argument. I am okay with hearing rider/horse trading disadvantage. You should always be doing specific impact comparison with the aff, disad turns the case arguments are convincing.

Counter-plans: Any counter-plan is fine, but if you read a delay, consult or any other counter-plan that may be seen as cheating by some, be prepared to defend the theoretical objections against it. You need a net-benefit to the counter-plan internal, a disad, or a case turn there must be some net benefit. Judge kick- 2NR Needs to tell me other wise I default to no judge kick.

Topicality: Topicality is fine. I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. The most important thing in these debates are the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts.

Theory: Fine go for it if you want. Only theory I have a bias for is, conditionality, it's good in most cases. You should have an interpretation for your theory objections, absent that there is no violation.

Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am less familiar with the literature than you. In these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff, examples are good for me. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou and aff. I believe that long overviews that explain the kritik are okay, and for me important. Kicking the alternative is fine. I have gone for cap a lot.

LD:I do not know what tricks are. Please read an impact to T-FW.

Email chains: eagrisham13@gmail.com

I still flow on paper so I would appreciate going like 75% speed on tags and analytics to allow me some pen time.

I competed in UIL Policy for four years in high school and 3 years of NSDA Policy. After graduating, I went to Texas A&M and competed in NFA-LD for 3 years.This is my 3rd year as a GA at Western Kentucky for

Overall, you do you. Debate in your style. I, like anyone, have preferences of arguments but will try to evaluate everything fairly. Run the arguments you want to run. As long as the arguments are warranted and you can give me clear voters on why the argument matters, I am willing to vote for nearly anything. Don't be racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

T- I was a very heavy T debater and am willing to hear just about any T argument that is imaginable. I just ask that you make it reasonable. FX and Xtra T are arguments that I like and enjoy hearing on both sides of the round. If you are going to debate T, explain the voters more than just saying "Fairness and education." Explain why those things matter in debate.

DA- Please explain why the disad outweighs the aff and impact it out. Affs, respond to more than one part of the disad. Don't lose because you only put defense on the flow that the neg was prepared for.

K- I am open to almost any and all k's. I am not super well read in a lot of k lit so if you are able to inform me of the lit, I am okay with you running it. I just ask that if you are running a k, you clearly articulate the links and explain some of the lit, as it is likely that I have not read a lot of it. I have ran as a competitor and am willing to vote on arguments like death good.

CP- I will listen to and vote on CP's if they are run well, but they are my least favorite argument overall. This doesn't mean that you cannot run them. On some topics, CPs are necessary and I understand that.

TL;DR: I am open to just about anything as long as it is done well and warranted. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. Run what you feel is best for the round. Please don't be rude or problematic in your speeches or arguments. I will vote you down if you say something that is blatantly problematic or offensive. Just because it is an argument does not excuse any racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.

Updated for IPDA and Policy judging

Craig Hennigan
University of Nevada Las Vegas

TL/DR - I'm fine on the K. Need in round abuse for T. I'm fine with speed. K Alts that do something more than naval-gazing is preferred. Avoid running away from arguments. Actual dropped arguments will win you the round. I vote a lot on good CP/DA combinations.

I debated high school policy in the early 90’s and then college policy in 1994. I also competed in NFA-LD for 4 or 5 years, I don't recall, I know my last season was 1999? I then coached at Utica High School and West Bloomfield High school in Michigan for their policy programs for an additional 8 years. I coached for 5 years at Wayne State University. I was the Director of Forensics at Truman State University for 7 years and now am the Director of Debate at UNLV and started in 2022.

Dropped arguments can carry a lot of weight with me if you make an issue of them early. This being said, I have been more truth over tech lately. Some arguments are so bad I'm inclined to do work against it. If its cold conceded I will go with it, but if its a truly bad interpretation/argument, it won't take a lot to mitigate risk of it happening. I have responded well to sensible 'gut check' arguments before.

I enjoy debaters who can keep my flow neat. You need to have clear tags on your cards. I REQUIRE a differentiation in how you say the tag/citation and the evidence.

With regard to specific arguments – I will vote seldom on theory arguments that do not show significant in-round abuse. Potential abuse is a non-starter for me, and time skew to me is a legit strategy unless it’s really really bad. My threshold for theory then is pretty high if you cannot show a decent abuse story. Showing an abuse story should come well before the last rebuttal. If it is dropped though, I will most likely drop the argument before the team. Reminders in round about my disposition toward theory is persuasive such as "You don't want to pull the trigger on condo bad," or "I know you don't care for theory, here is why this is a uniquely bad situation where I don't get X link and why that is critical to this debate." Intrinsic and severance perms I think are bad if you can show why they are intrinsic or severance. Again, I'd drop argument before team.

I don't judge kick. If the CP is in the NR, the SQ isn't an option anymore.

I don’t like round bullys. If you run an obscure K philosophy don't expect everyone in the room to know who/what it is saying. It is the duty of those that want to run the K to be a ‘good’ person who wants to enhance the education of all present. I have voted for a lot of K's though so it's not like I'm opposed to them. K alternatives should be able to be explained well in the cross-x. I will have a preference for K alts that actually "do" something. The influence of my ballot on the discourse of the world at large is default minimal, on the debate community default is probably even less than minimal. Repeating jargon of the card is a poor strategy, if you can explain what the world looks like post alternative, that's awesome. I have found clarity to be a premium need in LD debate since there is much less time to develop a K. Failing to explain what the K does in the 1AC/NC then revealing it in the 1AR/NR is bad. If the K alt mutates into something else in the NR, this is a pretty compelling reason to vote against the K.

Never run from a debate. I'll respect someone that goes all-in for the heg good/heg bad argument and gets into a debate more than someone who attempts to be tricksy in case/plan writing or C-X in order to avoid potential arguments. Ideal C-X would be:

"Does your case increase spending?"

"Darn right, what are you gonna do about it? Catch me outside."

I will vote on T. Again, there should be an in-round abuse story to garner a ballot for T. This naturally would reinforce the previous statement under theory that says potential abuse is a non-starter for me. Developing T as an impact based argument rather than a rules based argument is more persuasive. As potential abuse is not typically a voter for me and I'll strike down speaker points toward RVI's based on bad theory. Regarding K's of T, it is a high bar and you probably shouldn't do it.

Anything that you intend to win on I need to have more than 15 seconds spent on it. I won't vote for a blip that isn't properly impacted. Rebuttals should not be a laundry list of answers without a comparative analysis of why one argument is clearly superior and a round winner.

Performance: Give me a reason to vote. Make an argument still with the performance. I don't typically want to do extra work for a debater so you need to apply your performance to arguments your opponent makes. I don't place arguments on the flow for you through embedded clash.

Small note: If you're totally outmatching your opponent, you're going to earn speaker points not by smashing your opponent, but rather through making debate a welcoming and educational experience for everyone.

Policy:Most of this is the same. Know that I'm getting older. I used to be around an 8 on the scale of speed and its probably dropped down to a 7. This means don't spread analyticals if you want me to vote on them. If you group 4-5 perms at once very quickly I may not get them all. I'm only in the game 2-3 times a year so some of the newer terminology or tricks I may not be as up to speed on. I won't vote on short blip arguments. Not the biggest fan of too many conditional worlds, 1 K and 1 CP is my default. I don't do judge kick either. I'm probably a bit of a dinosaur in this area now.

IPDA: IPDA is not policy nor should it resemble policy. I'm much less flow oriented. I'm of the belief that IPDA is far more of a speech activity and judge it accordingly. Dropped arguments carry weight, but less weight for me if they aren't really quality arguments. I'm of the opinion that a debater can win even if they aren't winning "on the flow" by being persuasive and speaking well. This is a publicly oriented event, so being cordial and good natured is important. This is a showcase to what debate ought to look like for the public, so treat it that way. I aim to be a judge that tries to leave behind my Policy/LD experience to substitute my speech experience and quality argumentation knowledge.

Card Clipping addendum:

Don't cheat. I typically ask to be included on email chains or ideally a speechdrop so that I can try to follow along at certain points of the speech to ensure that there isn't card clipping, however if you bring it up I in round I will also listen. You probably ought to record the part with clipping if I don't bring it up myself. Also, if I catch clipping (and if I catch it, it's blatant) then that's it, round over, other team doesn't have to bring it up if I noticed it. If its obviously unintentional then I'll warn you about it. (like you're a novice or you skipped a non-strategic line by mistake).

I do not shake hands

TLDR / Overview

I have experience with Novice to Varsity IPDA debate as well as Novice to Varsity NFA-LD debate. I have taken a class on Policy debate. I highly value logical lines of argumentation, impact framing, and dropped arguments. Be clear in your delivery and be as organized as possible. (I am probably the in-between of a parent judge and an experienced judge).

Preferences

I try to keep a decent flow.

Truth (logical argumentation) over Tech

Being mean = terrible speaks. Please keep the rounds respectful.

By all means, swear in your cases! As long as it's not at your opponent.

Try and keep me entertained! I am always open to cases or arguments that deviate from the norm. Bonus speaks if you can make me laugh.

Safety

If you feel as though you cannot continue the round for any reason and have the ability to knock on the table 3 times please do so and the round will end immediately and a discussion can occur about where to go from there.

I’ve been involved in competitive forensics in one way or another for 30+ years. I competed primarily in pre-merger CEDA and have coached CEDA/NDT, NPDA, IPDA, BP, and NFA LD at various points during that time.

I don’t think I’m absolutely ideologically opposed to any particular type or form of argument.

I’m probably a bit behind the times in terms of theory.

Topicality: I think the proposition matters. I’m more open to discussions about how it matters or what role it plays in the debate but, in my opinion, the proposition is a critical stasis point that encourages argumentative clash. I don’t have a good answer for what my threshold on topicality is. I think it’s a viable check for the negative. However, if the affirmative interpretation is reasonable, I probably wouldn’t spend much time on T. If you don’t think the affirmative interpretation is reasonable, you should spend time explaining and comparing implications of the competing interpretations.

Critical Arguments: Link work is important. I’m more flexible in terms of alternatives. Explanation is important. Don’t assume that I’m familiar with the esoteric literature base that your argument is grounded in. I’m a fan of performative consistency.

Counterplans: The neg should invest time in explaining and applying standards for competition. The aff should do the same with permutations and relevant theory. Because participants often take those theory debates for granted and make assumptions about what is known, agreed upon, and understood, I tend to prefer substantive debates on counterplans.

Stylistic Preferences

I like judging debates when I can keep up and when I feel like I’m in the loop. I haven’t been in a lot of fast or highly technical debates in a while. Plus, I never had the best flow. So, you’ll want to slow down and give me pen time. I’ll stop flowing if this is a problem.

I enjoy debates when there is a clear and well justified framework for how arguments interact with each other and, as a result, should be evaluated. My default is to put procedural questions first, critical questions second, and policy questions third. The lines between those are sometimes blurry. Feel free to make arguments that would rearrange that hierarchy or, assuming you have an alternative, that suggest those categories are outdated, arbitrary, exclusionary, etc.

I like listening to debaters who see the big picture and are able to figure out which arguments matter and which ones don’t. Make (smart) choices. World building and comparison is appreciated.

I don’t have fun judging when arguments are underdeveloped or lack explanation, when you assume that I’m going to do work for you, when you assume that we’re all on the same page about some theoretical precept, when you make ten blippy claims when two or three well developed arguments will do, when you throw everything at the wall and expect me to figure out what sticks, when you continue to talk about an argument even though I’ve turned that page over and haven’t been flowing for a minute.

I don’t like watching debates where participants are smug, rude, overly aggressive, dismissive, mean, etc.

Policy: I am tabula rasa in the sense that I believe my judging paradigm is an issue to be debated in the round. I default to a policymaker paradigm if the issue isn't debated. I don't prejudge arguments; I'm open to listening to any kind of argument you care to make. Be kind and respectful of others. I prefer quality of evidence to quantity. Warrants, impacts and clash are important. I don't like time to be wasted.

LD: I tend to be somewhat of a traditionalist when it comes to theory, though I can be persuaded. I consider the standards debate (value, criterion -- and please don't refer to a "value criterion") to be very important. Big picture is as important as line-by-line. Warrants and impacts are crucial.

PF: I adhere to the NSDA rule that prohibits plans and counterplans. My primary background is policy debate, so I tend to look for impacts to arguments. The appropriate paradigm I should use to judge the round is an issue to be debated in the round. I'm not a fan of paraphrased evidence.

Brian Lain

University of North Texas

 

 

I work very hard in debates. I concentrate. I teach courses about argumentation and rhetoric at both grad and undergrad level. This greatly influences my thinking in debates. I do not feel that debates are necessarily won by ushering forth the truth. Debates are won by doing the best communicating in an argumentatively competitive setting. I am not a slow thinker, However, I do encounter several debates where speakers are so unclear that I cannot follow critical points in the debate. This happens at the peril of those speaking. I do not think I am a truth machine whom you submit evidence to and ask me to find out which side is correct. I am a critic of argument and as such try to listen and compare arguments as the debate is going on.

 

I am not a fan of voting on theory, however, I'll do it if you are behind or if its very in-round. Predispositions: counterplans have to be a reason to reject the Aff. Plan- Inclusive Counterplans are ok, Dispositional counterplans are  OK. I think the Aff has a small burden that they must overcome in terms of presumption, then the Neg must usher forth arguments in order to disprove the affirmative.

 

I try to work hard to make good decisions. I'll only read cards that I can understand the first time that they are presented. I try as much as possible to let the debaters characterize their and each other's arguments. I prefer to hear people comparing warrants as opposed to a list of names of authors. I do believe the name of the game is persuasion and eloquence. The qualifications debate is a lost art and I do think it is

important. You have to be fair and I really prefer it if people are nice.

-

 

I try to be as objective as possible, with the above predisposition included. In general, I prefer arguments which contain good reasons and strategies which make logical sense. I am less likely to be tricked by the use of big words and I often like to hear justifications.

 

I am not a person who thinks policy debate is always right. The need to constantly defend the burden of rejoinder has left me battle-weary after these many years. Perhaps the second speech, the rebuttal, has actually encouraged debaters to be lackadaisical and lazy in first speeches and encourages strategies based on bait and switch and sandbagging the best arguments until later. I tire of such things. The persuasive case should be made at the first available opportunity, and this has been said for over two thousand years. I have had the good fortune of working with a great many good debaters, including two top speakers at the National Debate Tournament. In each case, I found their skill and proficiency to exceed any particular piece of evidence or argument and I think that has formed my standard for what I consider good debate.

4 years of debate (KDC) at Lansing High (2017-2021)

KCKCC Debate (NPDA/NFA LD) (2021–2024)

Assistant Coaching at Olathe North, KCKCC (2024– current)

Formally assistant coaching at Lansing (2021–2024)

I'm down for speech drop or email whichever works best for you. christopherlapeedebate@gmail.com

TLDR: I've learned that as I judge more the more I realize I don't particularly care for certain arguments over others. Rather, I care more about debaters doing what they're good at and maximizing their talents. Granted to whereas I'm ok with you reading whatever, do keep in mind that the experience I've had with debate/arguments might not make me the best decision maker in the back of the room for that round. So if you get me in the back of the room read what you want but be mindful it might need a little explanation in the Rebuttals.

Speed–I'm cool with it if I can't keep up i'll say speed if you arent clear i'll say clear. People never slow down on analytics so imma just start clearing folks if I cant understand what your saying without the doc. This will allow me to keep up better. If you ignore my speed/clear signals I'm gonna be bound to miss stuff so if you get an rfd you don't like after the round thats prolly why.

LD– All of the stuff below applies if you wanna read a plan and have a policy debate do it idc its your debate have fun!

More in depth version of how I evaluate

Top level:I default tech over truth. The only time I'll use truth as a means of decision making is to break a tie in an argument which usually will only happen if the debate is very messy.

T: On T I'll default to competing Interps unless I get a good reason to favor reasonability or if reasonability goes conceded. I think T is a debate about models of a hypothetical community agreement to what the the topic should look like, in this I think the debate comes down to the internal links like who controls limits and ground and who's limits/ground is best for education and fairness. I don't think you need proven abuse but if there is you should point that out.

CP: I think CP's can be a good test of solvency mechanisms of the aff I wont vote on a cp unless it has a net benefit. I think the CP is a reason why 1% risk of the DA means I should probably vote neg if the CP solves, even if case outweighs. I don't think the CP alone is a reason to vote neg, just because there is another way to solve the aff doesn't mean I shouldn't give it a try. Internal net benefits are real and I'll vote on a CP with one.

Condo: I tend to think condo is good unless the neg is just trying to time suck by reading like 5 CP's and then just going for whichever you cant get to in time

DA's: I have quite a bit of experience with these but not a lot to say on them, I think a DA being non uq means no risk. I think no Link means the same, I think the I/L strat is commonly underrated if the link doesn't actually trigger the mpx then there is probably no risk, MPX turning a DA is underrated too. If you go for the DA in front of me focus on the story of the DA and form a coherent story and focus on the internals if I understand how the plan actually causes the MPX I'm more likely to vote for the DA.

Spec: If you go for spec go for it just like you would T. I'll listen to 5 mins of spec and vote on it. Same thing as T I view it as a models debate and you should focus on the internals because that tends to show who actually controls the mpx debate.

The K: On the link level first. I think the links to the k page operate in the same way as links to the Disad. What I mean by this is that the more specific the better. Just vaguely describing "the apocalyptic rhetoric of the 1ac" seems like a very generic link which is prolly not that hard for a turn and or no link argument.

On the impact debate. I think you need to be weighing the impact of the kritik in the round I find that a lot of debaters get jumbled up in line by line and forget to actually weigh the impact. Just extending it and saying "they cause xyz" isn't good because it isn't developed and lacks the warranting of why that matters and why I should vote neg because they cause that.

On the alt debate. It's a common stereotype of K debaters that we can't explain the alt. What does the alt look like? Why is that good? And so on so forth. I think that while I hate this stereotype I dislike even more that in the rounds I've watched debaters have tended to just read their tag line of the alt solvency and the alt whenever asked in cx what does the alt look like, and or do that to extend the alt in later speeches. This is not a good way to debate and doesn't help you convince anyone your alt is good, you should be able to articulate the method of your alt whatever that may be and how that changes the debate space or the world. I don't think this means you need to be able to tell me exactly what goes on at every waking point of the day.

K aff:

On the case debate– I think k affs should link to the topic/debate in some way shape or form otherwise they feel very generic. specificity >>>>>>>> generics (on every arg tho). There should be a clear impact/impacts to the aff. I think where the aff falls short is in the method/advocacy debate I think that I should be able to understand the method and how it is able to resolve the impact in some way shape or form. I think the rob/roj should be clearly identified (the earlier in the round the better). That way I understand how I should evaluate the rest of the debate and process through things (I think in close debates both teams wind up winning different parts of the flow, I need to understand why your flow comes first). I think that performance K affs lose the performance aspect which sucks, I think that applying the performance throughout the rest of the debate is >>>>>> rather than losing it after the 1ac.

V FW– I tend to think debate is a game that shapes subjectivity – Ie y'all wanna win rounds and fairness is good, and also the arguments we make/debate shapes who we become as advocates. I will technically sway based off args made in the round (ie debate doesn't shape subjectivity/debate isn't a game) I think from the neg I need a clear interp with a brightline for what affs are and are not topical extended throughout the debate. I need a clear violation extended throughout the debate. I think standards act as internal links to the impacts of fairness and education. I think you should be able to win that your fairness is better than the affs fairness and that it outweighs their education. for the aff I also think you need a clear interp for what affs are and are not allowed under your model of debate extended throughout the debate. If you go for a we meet I think that the we meet should be clear and makes sense and also be throughout the debate. I think the aff should win that the TVA doesn't resolve your offense/education, that your fairness is just as good or better than the neg's model of fairness. And that your education outweighs. I think top level impact turns to t/fw are good. And use the rob/roj against the T debate (remember it all comes down to filtering what arguments are most important and come first)

KvK– uhhhhhhh I tend to get a little lost in these debates sometimes tbh bc I think its tough to evaluate and weigh two methods against each other especially if they aren't necessarily competitive with each other. I think in these debate the fw debate including the rob/roj is most important, and judge instruction is likely how you'd pick me up if I'm in the back of the room. If you don't tell me how to evaluate arguments and what they mean in context to the round we'll all prolly wind up frustrated at the end of the round bc I'll intervene or make a bad choice. (I'm not perfect and make mistakes so judge instruction is crucial to make sure I don't make them)

TL;DR: Don't be a dick, do whatever you want. I’ll evaluate the flow and I can hang.

Be respectful and don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Off time orders are preferred, don’t thank me before you speak or shake my hand. I will evaluate the flow with very few caveats. Pronouns: he/him/his.

I did policy in high school and NPDA at the University of Oregon. My partner, Gabe, and I won the NPTE in 2022.

Preferences that matter for my decision

1. Debate is a game
2. Hard debate is good debate
3. Lying won't get you very far, interpreting the truth will
4. You will be auto dropped if you defend a bona fide Nazi
5. Terminal no solvency is a voting issue, but takeouts are rarely terminal
6. Nonfalsifiable arguments are probably in bad faith
7. I default to magnitude first sans weighing
8. Spirit of the interp is not real, write a better interp
9. I default to competing interps but do not default to theory is a priori
10. Topicality violations are not derived from solvency
11. Collapsing is always better than not collapsing
12. For the love of god extend the aff
13. For the love of god answer the aff

Preferences that matter but less for my decision

1. Theory is a cop out - if you're winning theory and substance go for substance
2. Condo is good, PICs are justifiable if there are multiple topical affs, CP theory is far from a losing strat
3. Perms are defense, collapsing to defense is suboptimal
4. Going for RVIs is usually cowardice, cowardice is suboptimal
5. Links of omission are weak
6. Psychoanalysis is grounded in at best tautologies and at worst transphobia, you can win it but please be cautious
7. Decolonization is not a metaphor
8. Kritiks are a byproduct of good, nuanced, and educated debate; the existence of ks is good for the activity
9. I have yet to hear a compelling flow-based 'spreading bad' argument
10. Anthropogenic climate change is real as are extinction risks
11. Science is a very useful ideology
12. Lit based alts are better than alts you made up

HS Parli specific:

Spread if you can, don't if you can't. I will protect, but call POOs when you think necessary.

Parli is not a "common knowledge" format simply because of limited prep. I will not vote on something "germane" to the topic over something "not germane" to the topic absent an argument on the flow. I evaluate what is germane to the debate; if an impact stems from the action of an advocacy or the resolution, it is probably germane.

CARD specific:

CARD is a format built around accessibility and subject matter education. I will base my RFD on who wins the flow and all preferences above apply, but it is my job to ensure that cordiality, access, and educational value are maintained. In practice, this means I will be extra cognizant of proven abuse/reasonability, power tagging, overt rudeness in cross-x, and smart use of the evidence packet. It’s still debate – don’t pull punches, but at least make sure everyone in the room is having a good time.

Any questions about either my paradigm or my decision email me at skydivingsimians@gmail.com

dmarshall36@gmail.com

'24-'25 high school policy and NFA LD: I don't know what your plan text does. These topics are huge, I have no background in these areas, and I don't coach/didn't do a camp last summer. just be aware, these 1ac's are harder for me to keep up with than previous topics.

weird pet peeve. please don't tell me that time starts on your first word before your speech or cross-ex. i saw this in novice a few years ago and now varsity teams are doing it. judges know how timing works :)

copied from a former coach:
"I think 'previous debate experience' sections of judging philosophies are mostly for peculiar in group fronting and/or serve to reify fairly problematic norms of treating debate 'expertise' or whatever like a value neutral concept, so."


i love debate.


tell me how i should evaluate the round. tell me why you win if i choose to evaluate the round that way.


whatever style of debate you feel best doing: go for it. i usually flow by hand so please pop your tags.


keep it lovely. i take speaker points when debaters are mean.


i hate "perm do the counterplan." unless there's some theoretical reason why the cp is aff ground (text comp good or something) i just won't vote on it.

if the debate is lopsided and you're winning by a mile against more novice debaters, you'll get many extra speaks by going slower, explaining the debate to the other team clearly during cross-ex, and making the round educational.


im familiar with all styles of 1ac's. i consider role of the ballot arguments as framing, and dont necessarily weigh traditional standards and f/w voters above other frameworks unless told to with warranted arguments. using specific cards of a k aff to impact turn framework is undervalued in high school debate, for some reason.


im looking for warrant comparison in the rebuttals. i like to directly quote the 2nr and 2ar in my rfd, so impact stories and reading warrants from important cards are winning strategies to get my ballot.


i have little sympathy for debaters answering cards that are in the doc but are not read in the speech. this is worse than missing a card on your flow, it shows that you're just not flowing. i want to be added to the doc so i can read your evidence throughout the debate, but i will not flow off the doc.


please slow down on tags and interps. you should stop "hiding" interps in the 1nc. slow down on your interps.


High School LD

see above. i try my best to give leeway to the four minutes 1ar, but that can be difficult to discern. i notice a lot of cultural norms around theory debates. to be extra clear: if there is k offense in the 2n and the 2ar goes for theory without addressing the k offense, im probably going to vote that the impacts of the k outweigh fairness or whatever. i simply expect the 2ar to layer the voters for me, extend an apriori issue, or something of the sort. i think that assuming theory is layered before the impacts of the debate is intervening.


PFD

im somewhat familiar with pf. i will not evaluate advocacies in this event.


im bothered by the evidence norms of this event. i see debaters read authors and taglines as if that is sufficient, but debate should include analyzing evidence. that means reading warrants directly from the authors of the evidence. if your opponents are flying through taglines of evidence instead of reading parts of the studies/articles, i would be persuaded by an argument that told me to not evaluate taglines as evidence. if your style is name dropping as many authors as you can, im probably not the best judge for you.


here's some of NSDA Board Member Dave Huston's thoughts on this. i agree with what the paragraph below.

"The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. .........[redacted because im not Dave Huston]...
...If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up."

Active debater, public speaker and judge(2019–present)

He/Him pronouns

Always add me to your email chain olamilekanoderanti@gmail.com

I love PF so much and judge it more often.

FLOWING

I view myself as a flow judge, but the clarity and strength of your advocacy narrative is crucial. If you present in an organized, concise, and articulate manner, while also extending compelling arguments, you'll excel. A distinct and coherent advocacy narrative on the flow is invaluable. Such a narrative aids in shaping your responses and in constructing a comparative world, essential for analyzing and weighing the round during the Final Focus.

EXTENSIONS

Proper use and cutting of proofs is very crucial to me, while debate may be seen as a game, it takes place in the real world with real consequences. It matters that we properly represent what's happening in the world around us. Please, follow all pertinent tournament rules and guidelines - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.

SPEECH AND PACE

• I can’t follow everything in PF if you speak at a high pace. Your main goal should be clarity. Articulate your points so your opponent and myself comprehends you. Your efficiency and eloquence in subsequent speeches will shape your scores.
• Everyone should maintain civility and politeness. If situations escalate, it's everyone's duty to calm things down. Avoid shouting. Recognize your privileges and use them to uplift and respect others.
• Please provide trigger warnings when appropriate.
• I'm not particularly fond of theory becoming a standard in PF, especially disclosure theory. If there's a significant violation and theory is the only recourse, I might accept it, but expect reduced scores. Ideally, address the issue in a manner more aligned with traditional PF standards.

BREAKDOWN OF SPEAKER POINTS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

DECLAMATION

I’ve just judged a round of this and I’m so much in love with it. Be authentic with your topic, appeal to your audience’s emotions, be eloquent, use a good lighting so I can properly judge your gestures and body movements, have a good cutting, introduction and conclusion and you’ll be good to go. I’ll most likely give you a 100 if you prove yourself worthy of it.

I as well judge other formats like Lincoln Douglas, speeches, World schools and parliamentary debates. Before you conclude I can’t judge a format, KINDLY REACH OUT TO ME as I’ve got a good knowledge of numerous formats and I’m only hoping to judge them pretty soon. I hope to work with you soonest.

As a flay judge, my approach to evaluating debates is informed by both theoretical knowledge across various formats, including LD, PF, CX, and speech events, as well as practical experiences in these domains. I believe in creating an environment that fosters respectful and engaging discourse.

Speaker Conduct:
I value a calm and composed speaking style. It is crucial for speakers to articulate their arguments clearly and audibly, ensuring that their message is effectively communicated. While passion is appreciated, maintaining a respectful and controlled demeanor contributes to a more constructive debate.

Argumentation:
I encourage debaters to present well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence. The quality of evidence, its relevance to the topic, and the strategic deployment of arguments are key factors in my evaluation. Logical coherence and the ability to address counterarguments thoughtfully are highly valued.

Clarity and Structure:
A well-organized speech is instrumental in conveying ideas effectively. I appreciate debaters who provide clear signposts, adhere to logical structures, and create a coherent narrative throughout their speeches. A clear roadmap enhances both the understanding and flow of the debate.

Cross-Examination:
In formats that involve cross-examination, I appreciate debaters who engage in thoughtful questioning. It is an opportunity to demonstrate a deep understanding of the issues at hand and to strategically challenge opponents' positions. Respectful cross-examination is more productive and contributes positively to overall speaker performance.

Time Management:
Effective time management is crucial. Debaters should be mindful of allotted time for speeches and adhere to established time limits. Well-paced speeches contribute to a smoother and more organized debate round.

Adaptability:
I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategies based on the flow of the debate. Flexibility in responding to unexpected arguments and the ability to adjust one's approach contribute to a debater's overall effectiveness.

Respect and Sportsmanship:
Respect for opponents, judges, and the activity itself is fundamental. Demonstrating sportsmanship, regardless of the competitive intensity, is highly valued. Creating a positive and inclusive debating environment is essential for fostering a healthy and enriching experience for all participants.

I look forward to engaging in intellectually stimulating debates and witnessing the skills, strategies, and passion that debaters bring to the round. Remember that every debate is an opportunity for growth and learning.

Best regards,
Ogunniran Jesutofunmi Joshua

[last updated 10-1-2024]

Hi my name is Tanya (she/her), I'm a debate grad assistant coach at WKU. I did 2 years of NPDA parli and then 2 years of NFA-LD when I was a competitor.

Add me to the email chain: tanyaprabhakar1@gmail.com

!!! IF YOU'RE IN PF SKIP DOWN TO THE PF SECTION AT THE BOTTOM PLEASE !!!

Short version:

DA/ DA + CP > K > T > Theory (but it's a very close race)

I'm fine w non-t affs, I default to T-FW coming first. I think T is about accuracy over ground.

I'm fine with speed, but not amazing - if you're too fast I'll slow you.

More elaborate version:

How do you feel about speed?

I'll vote on speed bad in novice and JV. If your opponent slows you on something you should probably slow.

Should I disclose?

I am pro aff (wiki) disclosure. I am willing to vote on aff disclosure theory if it is not responded to properly. I don't like any disclosure shell that puts extra burdens on the aff beyond putting affs they read on the wiki (ex. you have to use full cites, no breaking new, needing contact info). I also expect people to share docs in round, even if you aren't spreading, either in an email chain or speech drop.

Substance

I like case/DA/CP debate, and I would consider myself more qualified to evaluate this than anything else.

K

I like and will vote on Ks, but there's a lot K lit that I'm not very deep on so I can't guarantee I'll pick on all the nuances of the K unless they're made very explicit.

To vote aff I need you to win: offense against the alt OR a perm

To vote neg I need: the aff to not win that stuff

Also, make sure that there are clear, ideally carded, links to the aff. I probably won't vote on just a no link, but it's a pretty good justification for the perm, which I will vote on. Links of omission are generally a no go for me, unless you have a well warranted (ideally carded) explanation for why not considering X in policy making is uniquely bad.

Can I read non T affs?

Yeah that's fine, as long as it has a topic specific link. As a default T FW comes before the aff.

T

I like T. You can read T and not go for it. You can read multiple Ts. I don't need proven abuse, but there does need to be some clear impact (ie link to fairness and education). Default to competing interps.

Theory/Procedurals -

I don't mind theory debate, and I don't need proven abuse. Again, default competing interps. You also have to win that kicking the arg doesn't resolve the offense. I think theory is frivolous based on the interp, not the amount of theory read (for example, time cube theory is frivolous even if its the only theory you read, but reading, like, disclosure and A spec and speed together isn't necessarily frivolous).

I don't vote on RVIs. Make sure your standards link back to your interpretation. Have fun and be yourself.

PF Only:

1 - Evidence sharing: If I don't have your evidence, I cannot evaluate it, and if you don't have each other's evidence I can't trust you and your opponent to evaluate it. And at that point it's going to come down to drops and analytics. The easiest way to resolve this is to send your docs to each other - it is more important to me that your opponent has your evidence than it is that I have it. If I don't have your evidence my cap for your speaks is gonna be a lot lower than it would be if I did, because for all I know you made everything up.

2 - Progressive/technical debate: I understand that I would be considered a tech judge in most PF pools. However, I have few caveats around tech in PF: Firstly, the norms on the circuit mean that most debaters have no idea how to respond to theory or the K and will completely mishandle awful theory or Ks because they don't know how to respond. You can still read these args, just know I will be much more likely to intervene if I think the argument is badly executed than I would be in LD or Policy, even if it is conceded/poorly responded to by the other team, simply because I think there's no educational value to bad technical debate in a lay event, and I don't want to incentivize that.

Secondly, a lot of technical args just don't translate well to PF (imo) because of the lack of plan texts. T doesn't work, and neither does a significant amount of (the most compelling) theory. The lack of plan also means you can't have a counterplan or alt. Without alts the k loses all uniqueness and no longer functions. I'm not saying that you can't read any technical arguments but you also can't just read old LD or Policy backfiles as-is and expect me to vote on them.

To all interested in a PhD program in communication

The University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) has a strong communication program that emphasizes rhetoric and public affairs, critical media studies and media theory (including: media criticism, media political economy, film, and media history), and argument. Our program only accepts students we can guarantee funding to (tuition remission, teaching assistantships/fellowships, and health insurance). The debate program is looking for high-character coaches that are interested in making debate accessible, educational, and inclusive. Grad students that work with the team receive at least one course release, work a relatively light coaching/judging schedule, and have opportunities to develop skills and competencies around directing a program and planning events. Applications are typically due by early January. For more information, email me atdebate@pitt.edu

Background

I competed in speech and debate at the college level from 2010-2014. My primary debate event was NPDA, but I also competed in some LD and attended policy camp and workshops. My favorite things to run were performance-based critical arguments (e.g., hip-hop), critical race theory, feminist criticism, queer theory-based arguments, but I mostly debated case in NPDA due to partner preference. I coached IEs and some NPDA at CSU Long Beach from 2014-2016. I have been the director of the William Pitt Debating Union since FA 2023.

I do not need content warnings for sensitive topics, but you should always check with your opponent, read other judge’s paradigms for elimination rounds, and consider providing them if there is an audience.

Labeling

I have realized that I have a strong preference for debaters to label the parts of their arguments (e.g., tell me if something is your link, your solvency, your impact, etc.) and when responding to your opponents arguments, let me know which specific aspect of the argument, or which card, or which claim you are responding to if engaging in direct refutation. I miss the days of "The link is... the internal link is... the impact is... on their solvency... In response to [Author, Date]..." Nowadays, I find I get lost sometimes when, for example, the 1NC does something like "On case" or the aff says "On the econ DA" and then the debater reads a ton of cards without indicating first the specific thing to which each card is being used as a response.

Speed

I prefer debates at a conversational rate of speech. Sometimes I struggle to hear or process spreading (I cannot actually make out the words, and the sound at that speed doesn't help me process the card information before me). Also, for how my mind functions, I have trouble communicating my need for people to slow down because I am so over-focused on trying to comprehend verbal messages.

Affs

I am open to anything, but regardless of the argument you run, you need to provide the grounds and warrant for your claims. Regardless of your aff type, be sure you also have your best, most relevant cards in your 1AC. There are too few speeches in LD to add too much to the backend.

Advantages/Disadvantages

I need a solid link story for ad/disads and I need clearly articulated impact calculus between them. I am a fan of analysis at the link level as I think there is a strong burden for the Aff to show a propensity for their ability to solve or garner an advantage, and I think the same rule applies to disads for the negative. I also prefer more specific evidence than generic evidence. Also, don’t make me do the work of impact calculus; that’s your burden.

Counterplans

I am open to all sorts of CPs, but the negative needs to defend a CP’s theoretical legitimacy if challenged. I also require a clear link story and explanation of exactly how a CP avoids a disad and/or garners a unique benefit that the Aff doesn’t. I do think it is ethically best if the neg is upfront about the conditionality of their CP (unconditional, conditional, dispositional) and I am open to argumentation about CP theory. Losing a CP is not an RVI as only the aff has the burden to prove their case.

Kritiks and Framework

I am open to K debate, but I need your K’s philosophical premises explained clearly. In all my days of performing critically oriented academic research and graduate coursework on queer theories, critical race theory, settler colonial studies, psychoanalysis, etc., I can tell you that everyone has their own “Lacan,” “Foucault,” "Butler," “Fanon,” etc. If you don’t want my very particular rhetorical interpretation of your critical argument to guide my evaluation of the round, then please summarize the key theses (or “common knowledge”) you want me to use when understanding your critical lens - even if it means putting that in your tag or an overview in your constructive speech. In other words, I do not want to intervene, so guide me clearly through the terrain of your argument so that I can reasonably follow without having to review my own version of the map I drew myself the last time I traveled in the critical territory you bring the round to.

All criticisms need to have a 1) strong link story to the specific thing being critiqued (the specific plan or take on the resolution, the specific language used in round, the specific aspects of intercollegiate debate being criticized, etc.; 2) a clearly defined alternative; and 3) an impact.

All criticisms also need a clearly articulated framework that includes: roles for the judge and debaters, role of the ballot, and an understanding of what our debate is. Try to avoid convoluted alternatives, or be ready to explain or "paint a picture" of what the alternative means. If you ask me to prefer deconstructive textual activism over the 1ac, I need to know what your definition of deconstructive textual activism is and how your K functions as that sort of activism or relates to the world of such efforts. You need to make clear to me what your advocacy or alternative is, what my role is in evaluating the round, and what function my ballot serves in the round. Additionally, I am not a fan of alternatives that cannot be enacted. I will take your alt or advocacy quite literally within the context of your argument.

Topicality

I like very specific and contextually relevant definitional work. I am not a fan of T debates where the interpretation comes from a lower-court ruling on an unrelated legal matter or the Merriam Webster's dictionary. Give me relevant legal interpretations (statutory or judicial), industry interpretations, or something actually related to the topic. All words have commonly understood meanings, but with respect to the resolution, we are working with contextually specific interpretations of terms.

If the aff is using the resolution's terms metaphorically, they should be up-front for that and have good responses for the standards debate (and should probably be pre-empted in the framework).

I like a very organized T. I also like T to provide specific articulations of abuse in round, how it might ripple out to the community, and possibly some examples.

If you are running a distinct kind of T (effects, extra, etc.), for the benefit of everyone in round, please explain how that is distinct from just regular T. It's not that I don't know it, but it's that sometimes in the middle of a round during a long day, any little bit of work you can do to reduce a judge's cognitive load is beneficial to you.

Cross Examination

I will typically flow cross-ex but I will not consider it within my evaluation of the round unless those comments are brought up within round (i.e., "In cross-ex they said [xyz], which means [abc])." I really do not like the performance of antagonism, hostility, or aggressiveness that often comes with cross-ex.

Rebuttals

Final rebuttals should provide the judge any necessary instructions for evaluating the round. I don't just need an overview of your argument (although that is helpful), but I need: your impact calculus, judge instructions, and a way to understand the framework/theory debate (if relevant).

Also, the best rebuttals tend to collapse and do great comparative work. Some of the rebuttals that are most difficult to evaluate attempt to go for everything.

Colin Quinn
University of North Texas

Highland Park High School (TX)

Please include me in email chains, thanks: aqof05@gmail.com

Framing how I should evaluate things is the most important thing to do. When that doesn't happen I have to intervene more and rely more on my predispositions rather than the arguments made.

Topicality: I like T debates. I think that for the neg to win a T debate there needs to be a well established competing interpretations framework and a good limits or ground argument. Affs need to have a reasonability argument paired with a decent we meet or counter-interpretation.

Counterplans: The neg needs to establish competition and a clear net benefit. I think i'm generally aff biased although they need to focus on what they can win (Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument except conditionality bad, I think most condition/consult-esque counterplans are legitimate but not competitive, etc).

Disadvantages: Impact calculus should be a priority. I do not think that there's always a risk of anything and can be persuaded that there's zero risk.

Kritiks: Impact framing arguments are the most important thing to win. They filter how I evaluate the rest of the debate in terms of deciding what is important to win and what isn't. I think that negatives need to make definite choices in the 2NR in terms of how to frame the K and what to focus on otherwise the aff is in a strategic place. Link/Impact scenarios that are specific to the plan make the debate much harder for the aff.

Affs: I think that framework is useful and can be won but I am sympathetic to affs that are topical without maybe defending a resolutional agent. I think a winning framework argument should be centered around a method that encourages the best discussion about the topic rather than just the government. When negs lose framework debates they fail to win links to the aff c/i or role of the ballot arguments. Topical version arguments are useful but negs need to remember to explain the reason they solve the affs offense; "you can still talk about x" often doesn't cut it. I think that affs that don't defend a plan need to focus on framing the ballot because that's how I will filter all of their arguments. I think that it is difficult for aff's to win framework debates without a we meet or counter-interp that can frame any other offense you have in the debate.

I may not know the very specific part of the topic/argument you are going for so make sure it's explained. I'm pretty visible in terms of reactions to certain arguments and it will be obvious if i'm confused as to what is going on.

Don't cheat.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

Matt Stannard

stannard67@gmail.com

Me: he/him, I participated in policy debate for West Jordan High School and Weber State University, I have coached multiple formats at Eastern Utah, Long Beach, Wyoming and Lewis & Clark, and have directed and/or taught at a vast multitude of institutes.

Delivery: I will, shockingly enough, miss your unclear analytics. Speak clearly no matter your rate of delivery. Over-enunciate. Don't leave comprehension to chance; control what I write down.

The (very important) game: all styles and formats of debate are good, policy/critical/procedural all valuable, I am not the state, topics and topic research are good, I vote for all kinds of arguments even when I intellectually disagree with them, debate should be both very accessible and very challenging.

Important needs and assumptions: besides clarity, I have these predispositions: (1) conditionality is fine until the 2NR; you need to explicitly tell me what advocacy you are kicking. (2) I seem to have a greater need than other judges for good solvency cards for affs, counterplans, and K alternatives. Many K alts I hear feel vague to me at the outset. Love voting for movements and don't think fiat is confined to the state, but the threshold is specific advocacy with solvency cards. (3) political and social implications of T and other procedural/framework interps can be reasons to prefer/reject them, weighable against other reasons. They aren't "genocide" per se, but they aren't ideologically neutral; debate it out. (4) aff should provide a clear statement of advocacy, neg should provide a clear reason to reject the aff.

Tech: If you're debating on Zoom or other online platform, please use the best mic tech you have and don't project your vocals directly into an internal laptop mic. Prep time ends when you say so and then IMMEDIATELY hit send, and in all debate tech scenarios if anything goes wrong don't panic, we'll be fine and figure out what to do.

Ethics: be chill to each other outside of your speeches (feel free to be vociferous during your speeches if that's your thing), don't cheat, let's all commit to dismantling classism, racism, sexism, heteronormativity, patriarchy, ageism and ableism, and to listen to those affected by exclusion--not just as debaters making arguments but as responsible and accountable human beings making our world. It's okay that debate is weird and different. Please make it a safe place for everyone.

Missouri State Debater (NDT-CEDA) 2007-2011; Judged NDT - 2011-2014; 2023-present

Greenwood Lab School - Middle and high school coach - 2011- 2023

Crowder College Director of Forensics (NFA-LD and IPDA debate formats) - 2015-2023

Missouri State Tournament Update

I have spent the last decade being around basically every other kind of debate besides NDT. I have judged at primarily regional and end of year national policy tournaments (NSDA and NCFL) for middle/high school and a ton of NFA-LD at the college level.

I have been working with novices and the packet this past month so I have some exposure to the topic (I also debated nukes) but you should assume I need a bit more explanation than the average judge about your argument.

Things I know to be true about myself as a judge:

1) I have a higher threshold for explanation and explaining how arguments interact than others. That is likely supercharged by the fact I haven't been around NDT in a few years. There are arguments that are just understood to mean certain things and I might not know what that is. Defer to explaining WHY winning an argument matters and interacts with the rest of the debate, even if you think it is obvious.

2) I don't have a lot of tolerance for unnecessary hostility and yelling (I am not talking about you being a loud person. You do you. I am talking about this in the context of it being directed towards others) in debates. There are times you need to assert yourself or ask a targeted series of questions, but I would much prefer that not to escalate. There is very little that is made better or more persuasive to me by being overly aggressive, evasive, or hostile.

3) Debate is an educational activity first, competitive second. I will judge the debate that happens in front of me to the best of my ability. Full stop. However, I believe in the educational value of what we learn in debates and will likely defer to the education side of things when in conflict.

4) My debate knowledge base is primarily shaped by NDT norms circa 2007-2012. I know some of those norms have changed. I will do my best to adapt the way the community has.

5) Policy arguments are more comfortable to me and what I know best. I would not consider myself particularly well versed in the nuances of most "K" literature that is read these days. However, with proper explanation and connections, I think I can judge any debate that I am presented with.

There is a ton not covered here. Feel free to ask questions or clarify. As I judge more, I am sure I will have more specific thoughts about specific parts of these debates and will add more.

Background: Masters student at University Nebraska Lincoln studying Communication Rhetoric with an emphasis on critical theory and film. Former 2021 NFA-LD National Champion, 2019 Missouri State Policy Champion, 2018 NCFL LD Quarterfinalist.

While I will likely vote for almost anything if you have the proper framework to justify it. I am a former critical anti-blackness debater. I believe debate is more than a game and my experience in the activity has obviously informed my love for critical debate. Critical education is a cornerstone of this activity that I love to explore. However, you can read just about anything in front of me but you should know my strengths and weakness as a judge. Don't think reading critical stuff is a auto-win, far from it, I'll hold you to a somewhat higher standard because I know what good K debate looks like and I understand it.

I'm not super well versed in the intricacies of policy argumentation despite my 10 years in this activity. I just ask you to meet me where I'm at. I love a good policy debate whenever the story of the AC is CLEAR and EXTENDED throughout the entirety of the debate. Your AR's shouldn't just be extension and tech, I need overviews and clear articulations of what the AFF does, what it solves and why it matters. Run your heg/econ/war policy AFF, just do it well. If you do run policy, do it well. However, I draw the line at any death/extinction good arguments. It's weird and privileged asf. If you think your opp can be construed as accelerationist or fascist, call it out as so and you will likely win. I'm tired of hearing "all humans need to die". I won't auto-down vote but if your opp impacts out your genocidal rhetoric, you're cooked tbh.

Policy NC's: In order, I prefer K's, Case Turns, DA's, CP's, Topicality, and Theory. I expect the AFF to cover all negative positions unless AR theory says otherwise. I will vote for topicality on policy AFF's but it will be an uphill battle reading framework against a non-T critical AFF. If it feels exclusionary, and the aff wins that it is, good luck.

Test your critical sauce in front of me, I will vote for K's/Critical AFF's them or give in depth feedback on how to improve them. I have a moderate/deep knowledge of most identity/class based critical literature and surface level understanding of po-mo crit lit. Run your critical/non-T AFF if you can win the topicality/methods debate, run the K if you know the actual links to the AFF. Rebuttal articulation is EVERYTHING.

If you're reading a non-T critical AFF, I would like your evidence to be rooted in the topic through the lens of your critical theory . I will be more sympathetic to well-crafted (rare) framework against non-T AFF's that are filled with backfile cards that have been read ad-nauseam in nearly all debate communities since 2000-2010 or even worse, cards that aren't even about the topic or identity. I'm not asking for you to role play the state, that's whack asf, i'm just asking you to innovate. I don't wanna hear the same afropess, be gay do crime and cap K cards that have been circulating in the community for decades. I want you to apply contemporary critical theory to the specific resolution at hand, you don't have to affirm the resolution but please, have to 1/3 or 1/2 or 2/3 of your AFF cards use same language used in the topic. There are scholars of all identities writing about Nuclear War, find them and amplify their voice. Framework is always an uphill battle in front of me but it's much easier when the AFF is not engaging with critical lit rooted in the topic.

K's: You need to clearly articulate why and how the AFF specifically links, and clearly isolate these links in the rebuttals. Explain why the perm isn't possible. Do not read afropess if you're not black. If you read links of omission, you better hope your opponent does not have a good response to why links of omission aren't real because I find those arguments persuasive. Links should be predicated off AFF action, language, impacts, politics, advantages etc.

Theory: Sure, I guess. I don't know much about condo/dispo/presumption, etc., so just try to explain them a little more than you'd usually have to for judges like me. I am less hesitant to vote for theory if it comes from an affluent or white team running frivolous theory interps against marginalized debaters/small schools. I encourage smaller teams to run disclosure theory against their opponents. If you're in policy, I may not be familiar with certain theory arguments.

Speed: I'm comfortable with speed if you go slow on tags and share docs. I flow on my laptop for most debates. Since I flow on my laptop, flash all docs and if you can, analytics too. Extra speaks for flashing analytics.

How to Get My Ballot: Win thesis-level claims and tell me where to vote and why. Exploit concessions (with warrants).

Feel free to email me at andre.j.swai@gmail.com for additional thoughts after the round and questions about college debate.

I am an assistant debate coach at Kansas City Kansas Community College. In college, I debated mostly parli, some LD and Policy, for Saint Mary’s College of California. My partner and I dropped in octos of NPDA in 2019. My debate partner and I mostly read critical arguments. So I’m cool with Ks, and a well-written K always brings me joy. Make sure you can explain how you link and how your alt solves. I also know my way around a plan debate, so read whatever you like. Make sure your Aff is inherent, and have a clear, consistent story through uniqueness, links, and impact. I think little affs with 100% solvency are underappreciated. I’m also down to hear your CP/DA and think condo is probably good. I would be equally happy to vote on a theory or framework argument if you tell me why that means you win the debate. I am good with speed, just slow down for your alt/plan and interps and don’t use it to exclude people.

mszafraniec1997@gmail.com for the email chain, or if you'd like to ask me questions about your round later.

I also reserve the right to vote teams down for being overtly oppressive (saying something racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, ablest, Islamophobic, etc.), generally or directed to competitors.

Bring me a chai and you get block 30s

Overall: Read offence. Use more warrants. Do impact calc, the more work you do for me explaining how you win the better your chances are of winning. Be nice to each other.

I am George Torto, an international Missouri State University Communication, Media, Journalism and Film Department graduate student. As a former debater back in both middle and high schools in Ghana, I would say I am quite conversant with the field. Prior to this season however, my experience with anything debate has been outside of the United States.

One cardinal thing I look out for in debate is respect and civility. These is the bedrock of debate. I expect debaters to treat each other with courtesy regardless of the differing opinions they may hold at that material moment. Assuming they are, I will vote affirmative if the unique benefits of the affirmative plan (beyond what a CP could solve) outweigh the unique disadvantages of adopting that plan. Of course, if the negative wins that the plan doesn't meet the best (or reasonable) interpretation of the topic, or a kritik shifts the debate focus, then the ballot will reflect that instead.

Regarding topicality, I start with definitions/interpretation and then move on to plan text and solvency evidence. Negative needs to clearly win the violation, but not necessarily unique abuse. Interpretation is based both on clarity of the line drawn and what it would do for both sides over a full season of debate.

Regarding kritiks, you need to clearly prove the affirmative is critically (not tangentally) dependent on the link that you critique. I'm open to the kritik framework changing the topic of the debate so long as you are clear about the alternative framework (including win conditions for both sides), starting in the constructives.

My flow sheet isn't as detailed as someone who has been doing this for a decade, and I do not recommend going top speed. If you are speaking too quickly or have clarity problems, you should be able to notice my nonverbals and correct it.

My primary focus is real-world persuasion—I’m interested in who I come out believing, based on the holistic strength of their case. I tend to favor policy-oriented arguments that focus on practical impacts, though I appreciate a balance between theory and real-world application.

For claims about the world, I expect solid evidence. Theoretical arguments don't always need citations, but they must be clearly reasoned, and I should see that reasoning. I find spreading unpersuasive—clarity is key, and a few rock-solid arguments beat many weak ones. Dropped arguments generally result in a loss for that point, but I will weigh their significance in the context of the round.

I value polished, charismatic speaking, which can sway close debates. However, substance always comes first. Civility is crucial—uncivil or rude behavior will lose favor very quickly. I’m a fan of sharp, effective cross-examination, which can make or break a round if done well.

Impacts must be earned. Outlandish claims (e.g., nuclear war because we cut funding to the USPS) can be fun, but they need strong backing or they’ll fall flat. I appreciate topicality and theory arguments when they’re serious and well-developed. Weak, spurious, or throwaway procedural arguments make me roll my eyes.

Please do not speed. I will give you one 'speed' in the round; after that, if I cannot flow it, I do not adjudicate it and you risk losing the round.

E-mail: benrichwill@gmail.com

Hi y'all! I am a former Graduate Assistant at Western Kentucky University; I also debated for KCKCC in 2016 and 2017 where I competed in a variety of debate formats, including NDT/CEDA, NFA-LD, and NPDA.

I view debates through the lens of comparative advantages. Tell me what your best arguments are and why they mean you should get the ballot.

Argumentative innovation will be rewarded. I tend to like teams who stretch the boundary of the resolutional question without abandoning topic education.

Framework/Affirmative Kritiks: I like framework debates because they display analytical skills of speakers; debaters who go beyond my expectations will get high speaker points. While I primarily think that debate is a game and fairness is a voting issue, I am not fixed to that notion.

Disadvantages: Affirmatives should read offense against disadvantages. Negatives should apply the disadvantage to the case debate. Impact turn debates are fun for me.

Counterplans: The best 1NC's have case specific counterplans. I err negative on most theory arguments but I still can be convinced to vote aff on overly abusive counterplans, for example CP’s that have purely artificial competition. The best 2AC responses involve add-ons/new offense. Unless there is a reason otherwise, I view counterplans through the lens of sufficiency.

Negative Kritiks: I like negative teams that can adequately explain how their alternative resolves all of the links to the criticism. I like affirmative teams that effectively weigh the impacts of the 1AC against the K

Case debate: Negatives should engage with the scholarship of the 1AC. While generic impact defense is important, it does not suffice as a strategy. Affirmative teams should utilize their 1AC in the 2AC/1AR to hedge against offensive negative arguments.