I competed for Solorio (policy) for 4 years and am back to debating for Illinois State University (LD+IPDA).

Add me to the email chain: flowerfranco444@gmail.com

Arguments and preferences-

I love k debate. Was I a K debater? No, Conor Cameron wouldn't let me be one. Live out my dreams for me.

Cap- Is probably the root cause to every issue. That doesn't mean I'm always going to vote for it. If you read this you need to have a very specfic alt. Movements and revolutions is way to vague and gets you no where in the round.

Also, I am a product of Conor so I believe that cap is sustainable. Do what you will with this information.

CPs- Love them, they should be in every 1nc. Consult and process CPs aren't the most persuasive but I'm not against them. I prefer agent CPs and advantage CPs. In terms of answering- don't read a billion perms, perm do both is fine unless you explain the other perms in detail.

T- Hate it<3. Kidding, I only hate it if you use it as a time skew. Only read T if you intend on going for it OR are literally put at a disadvantage in the round/aff is untopical. Education> fairness. Debate is an educational activity, if you're not learning, wyd?

Theory-I don't love it<3but its fine if it makes sense. I will not give you a cheap win for it.

K-I was a K debater in my past life. I like K's but explain them!!! Don't just use old blocks and random K lingo that doesn't actually say anything. If you believe in your K, chances are I will too. With that being said, be intentional with what's in your 1nc.

Performance- If you have music playing in the background, explain why it's there. The more I see performance rounds the more I love it. It is so different from traditional debate and I think it is refreshing.

DAs-Should be in every 1nc. Disad turns case>>>>>>

K affs-Not totally experienced in them, willing to listen and learn. If it makes sense to the topic- go for it! If its a K aff that is around every year, try to connect it to the topic as much as possible because I'm less likely to vote for it.

If ur rude in round, ew+u lose+ur automatically ugly.

Varsity high school debater at Lincoln Park High School

I am a K debater so I am qualified to judge K rounds. That being said, do not rely on the other team not knowing how to respond to the K to win. If you cannot properly run a critique your chances of winning are slim.

I am also pretty good for policy rounds. I know when judges say they’re neutral they most likely have a preference but I can assure you I am actually one of the neutral judges lol

If you go for T, the 2NR MUST be framework and T. Don’t go for everything in the 2nr no matter how much of a lead you think you have. (I won’t vote you down because of this but it’s just a general reminder)

don’t be rude and have fun !

My email is tatiana.arg12@gmail.com <-- please email me. I would love to help out fellow debaters :D

Hi, I'm Natalee.

She/They pronouns

Currently a college student so if I'm remote in my dorm apologies in advance (I prefer in-person WAY more but I'm at UIUC so what can I do)

ADD ME TO YOUR EMAIL CHAINS PLEASE: nataleemburkat@gmail.com

I don't really care what you run as long as you know about what you're talking about and can debate successfully. (I have no preferences and am comfortable with most if not all policy debate arguments)

Remember confidence is key, so if you think you suck just fake it til you make it. I promise you, you will do just fine :)

BE NICE TO EACH OTHER!!- I will not hesitate to give you a 25 if you are rude to your fellow debaters and/or me. ALSO, Debate should be educational and a safe space for any and all students, so any hateful and discriminatory language will not be tolerated and will result in a 25, an automatic loss, and a report to your coach in speaker notes or in person if I know them.

I'm more of a tech judge, so when it comes to arguments, if the debate is close I will tend to rule on who dropped the least amount of arguments (for aff it'd be dropping case+off, and for neg it'd be dropping case)

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE use all your time. Especially if it's the 1/2NC and 2AC, there is always something you could be adding to your argument/addressing to fill up time.

Also, don't hesitate to ask me any questions-- I am always happy to help at any time >:)

By the way, I will always time you, BUT I would massively prefer if you also timed yourselves as I am terrible at giving 5,3,1 warnings, and then you can pace yourself accordingly: so it's a win-win for both of us :)

DEAR JV/VARSITY: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE STOP SAYING "# OFF" TELL ME WHICH OFF (K,T,ETC)

If you really feel like knowing my personal thoughts on specific argument types you can take a look here, but don't let my opinions stop you from running what you like running:

(take this with a huge "old-person" grain of salt because I was a 2017-2019 debater and that cemented my opinions significantly)

K affs- Back in my day (you will hear this a lot), K affs were a joke and you'd run them strictly for funsies. K affs of today's age deal with more important topics, so I always enjoy listening to them. HOWEVER, I will not vote on a K aff if you stray far from your base argument. K affs are about committing to the bit--- if you don't bring up the point of your K aff in every speech, you're not going to win. Also, my opinion on K affs is they don't really mesh well in the Policy format, so to be voter they must be done with the utmost strategy to not get bombarded by T for 2 hours and lose. Also, you will not be getting phenomenal feedback on K aff structure because I was strictly policy back in my day and I feel like my opinions on structure are probably outdated and unhelpful unless you have a policy aff.

Ts- A good T or two are fun to run as a neg, however, if you drop everything and go strictly T in the end (disregard if you're neg against a K aff), I will not vote for you. Ts are the weakest neg argument in my opinion because it's just an "Ummm actually" arg and there isn't much depth to it to be a significant voter.

Counterplans (CPs)- I love a good counterplan. It is arguably my favorite neg argument type. If you have a good counterplan you are golden in my eyes, as I feel like logically this makes the most sense to do as a neg. In recent years, CPs have kind of fallen off and people are using Ks as a replacement--- don't use a K like a CP, get a good CP and run it and I'll be overjoyed and you'll probably win, assuming the rest of your argument is sound.

Every other argument I have no strong negative or positive thoughts on.

Issues I constantly see in JV and Varsity:

Aff:

• Remember you are the aff, don't let the neg's arguments run the debate, and make sure you are always putting the aff at number one importance and impact calc that with whatever neg throws at you.
• Don't drop your own arguments and make sure to pay attention to EVERYTHING the neg says and address it. This sounds like common sense, but it is not.
• Something that annoys me: make sure your Solvency has a dedicated Solvency section. I'm an oldie and this new structure throws me off every time I judge and you'll hear me complain about it in feedback every time. Make my life easier and just get a dedicated section so I know for sure you solve.
• Make sure to utilize your 2AC well--- the 1NC is probably going to pull whatever they can pull, if something doesn't make sense in regards to your aff, read some answers if you have time, but if not just be like "This doesn't apply" and explain why and I'll give it to you. Valid neg args should always be the main focus of your off section.

Neg:

• Treat neg like a stock portfolio--- diversify your arguments, the more the merrier. Overwhelming the aff is the best strategy as neg, because the more time you waste for them the less time they have for their arguments and will probably drop more, which results in a win for you.
• Controversial opinion: debate (specifically Policy debate) is a game. As a neg, I encourage you to have as many arguments as possible even if they don't make sense in the 1NC to overwhelm the aff. As long as you have some sound arguments, throw in whatever you want.
• Never concede an argument until the end. Keep aff on their toes, even if that won't be your end argument. I recommend keeping your discard argument in smaller and smaller doses so you can get the important stuff read and then concede it in the 2NR to waste the optimal amount of aff time.
• Impact calc is your bestie--- if the aff is more harmful than helpful and you have valid arguments to back that up, as long as you push this argument, you will win.

Both sides:

• Pay attention to clash. If you are only focused on your argument and not the other teams, it'll be a bad debate and no one will be happy. You always want to directly counter and extend the previous 2 speeches as a rule of thumb. (For example: I'm the 2NC so I'm going to pull my arguments against the 2AC with respect to our extensions of the 1NC and make sure everything is addressed from both flows.)
• Stay on track--- the amount of times when a minor argument gets turned in the whole debate appalls me. If you are making arguments, that are not strategic, that don't make sense to link to the aff, don't make them. The 1AC sets the precedent, if the rest of the debate strays, it is not an effective or good debate.
• The most important one: quality > quantity. When we get to rebuttals, I often get bombarded with hundreds of random statements about the debate at hand. If those are stand-alone statements, I won't consider them voter. You need to say them, and then apply them to the debate, because arguments are useless without depth. Think about the ICE paragraph structure and apply it to every rebuttal you make.
• If you are switching between analytics and cards, announce it. It's much more helpful because it signals to everyone when they need to intently listen, as there's no doc to help with comprehension. That being said, if you do read anything that is not sent in a written and readable format, make sure it is clear and concise, especially the important parts. If I don't hear it, it didn't happen--- so make sure the important parts are extremely clear and distinct.

Den (She/They)

Email:
• For chain, please use crossxnight@gmail.com
• For personal inquiries, contact at dnisecarmna@gmail.com

Background:
• Community Coach @Kelly College Prep (Chicago, IL)

⮩ Chicago Debates Community Coach of the Year (2024)

• 4 years of High School Policy Debate experience
• Judging Nat Circuit & UDL Tournaments since '19

Topic Comment(s)

1)Resident Assistant at the UH Honors Debate Workshop (HDW). Have assisted students outside of lab time with argumentation development so I have a fair share of knowledge on the IP Topic.

2) Co-taught the Middle School Varsity Lab (w/ Grey) at the Chicago Debate Summer Institute (CDSI).

Overview:

I'm experienced with both lay/circuit styles of policy debate. Nevertheless, I default towards a tech over truth style of judging unless said otherwise in-round. In terms of judging preferences, I have none. As evidenced by my judging record, I'm primarily preffed by k-oriented teams. I have judged k v k rounds. I have judged k v fw rounds. k v heg good. Judging these rounds have led me to think of debate in a broader capacity. Despite set preferences, I'm capable of being in back of the room judging stock issues debate.

Overall, I'll do my best to judge rounds fairly. I wholeheartedly appreciate the opportunity to judge. It allows me to better educate myself and teach my students on topic trends and/or strategy innovation.

Chicago/UDL: To answer a common question I get... I judge a multitude number of debates (~40) a year. The debaters I've coached win top speakers & break at locals. My proudest achievement is one of my debaters winning the City Championships! Therefore, I'm confident I'm qualified to judge your round. If you ever have any questions about your rounds, please CC: your coach.

What I enjoy:

Disadvantages-- Specific links to affirmatives recommended but generics are fine as long as it's still applicable. In terms of the politics disadvantage, evidence recency takes priority. However, how politicians act > what politicians verbally express. Uniqueness overwhelms the Link is a strong argument.

Kritiks-- Always have specific links to the affirmative. Links predicated off the topic itself doesn't lead to any meaningful educational debate specific to the case being ran. However, that doesn't mean I won't vote for Links of omission if the opposing team fails to answer them. If your strategy entails going for the links as impact turns to the affirmative, tell me explicitly to judge kick the alternative. If the negative has to win that the plan is a bad idea, don't let the alternative weigh the kritik down.

Counterplans-- CP debate is pretty awesome. Multiplank Counterplans are good. Planks that are supported by 1AC authors are even better. I don't have a disdain towards process counterplans. If your counterplan is not carded/supported by evidence in the 1NC, those rounds shape to be an uphill battle for the negative.

Topicality-- For the negative to win Topicality, they must [1] provide a model that best adheres to the topic, [2] exclaim why the affirmative fails to meet that model, [3] flesh out why the negative's model of debate is preferable, [4] evaluating the flow through competing interpretations is best. For the affirmative to beat Topicality, they must [1] explain why they meet the negative's model and/or [2] provide a counter-model that's better for the topic, which leads to [3] more educational and fair debates moving forward. [4] Frame the debate through reasonability.

T-USFG-- Prefer the debate to be framed similar to topicality (better model of debate). However, teams going for the impact turn(s) are welcome to do so. Affirmative teams running an advocacy statement tend to go for "the negative's model of debate is inherently worse, therefore by default the judge should vote for the affirmative's model". Definitely, the best approach when 1ACs are built to counter FW by embedding claims on the game of debate and how to best approach the topic. However, I have seen my fair share of critical affirmative's that.. could be read on any other topic. Negative teams, emphasize switch side debate. Provide TVA(s) under your model of debate. Explain the affirmative's burden and the negative's role in this game. Convince me that the negative should be the one reading all these different theory of powers against teams defending a policy. If they break structural rules such as going over speech time, call it out. Procedural fairness leads to better education. Don't rely too heavily on portable skills.

***If your arguments are descriptive in its explicit/graphic content, please provide a trigger warning pre-round. Let's avoid going to tab at all costs and/or having a procedural ran on you. I will stop the round if the other team deems the environment as uncomfortable.

Hall of Famers---

Rats: Kelly Lin, Lisa Gao, Ramon Rodriguez

Learned From: Armando Camargo, Juan Chavez, Jocelyn Aguirre, Leobardo Ramos, Scott Dodsworth

I have about one year of high school debate experience (2012-2013). This is my first year and first time taking on a coaching role at a brand new school. I have no prior judging experience either. Prefer me at your own risk. I am brand new to all of this!

Truth > Tech

No plan no win!

I will also not understand if you're speaking fast, so no spreading.

Yes, email chain. debateoprf@gmail.com

ME:

Debater--The University of Michigan '91-'95

Head Coach--Oak Park and River Forest HS '15-'20

Assistant Coach--New Trier Township High School '20-

POLICY DEBATE:

Top Level

--Old School Policy.

--Like the K on the Neg. Harder sell on the Aff.

--Quality of Evidence Counts. Massive disparities warrant intervention on my part. You can insert rehighlightings. There should not be a time punishment for the tean NOT reading weak evidence.

--Not great with theory debates.

--I value Research and Strategic Thinking (both in round and prep) as paramount when evaluating procedural impacts.

--Utter disdain for trolly Theory args, Death Good, Wipeout and Spark. Respect the game, win classy.

Advantage vs Disadvantage

More often than not, I tend to gravitate towards the team that wins probability. The more coherent and plausible the internal link chain is, the better.

Zero risk is a thing.

I can and will vote against an argument if cards are poor exclusive of counter evidence being read.

Not a big fan of Pre-Fiat DA's: Spending, Must Pass Legislation, Riders, etc. I will err Aff on theory unless the Neg has some really good evidence as to why not.

I love nuanced defense and case turns. Conversely, I love link and impact turns. Please run lots of them.

Counterplans

Conditionality—

I am largely okay with a fair amount of condo. i.e. 4-5 not a big deal for me. I will become sympathetic to Aff Theory ONLY if the Neg starts kicking straight turned arguments. On the other hand, if you go for Condo Bad and can't answer Strat Skew Inevitable, Idea Testing Good and Hard Debate is Good Debate then don't go for Condo Bad. I have voted Aff on Conditionality Theory, but rarely.

2023-2024 EDIT:

**That said, the Inequality Topic has made me add an addendum to my aforementioned grievance about being on my lawn: running blatantly contradictory arguments about Capitalism, Unions, Growth, etc. are egregious performance contradictions that I will no longer ignore under the auspices of conditionality. Its not that I am changing my tune on condo per se, its that this promotes bad neg strats that are usually a result of high school students not thinking about things they should be before reading the 1NC. Its pretty easy to win in-round abuse when a Neg is defending Unions Good and Bad at the same time. I encourage you to try.

Competition—

1. I have grown weary of vague plan writing. To that end, I tend think that the Neg need only win that the CP is functionally competitive. The Plan is about advocacy and cannot be a moving target.

2. Perm do the CP? Intrinsic Perms? I am flexible to Neg if they have a solvency advocate or the Aff is new. Otherwise, I lean Aff.

Other Stuff—

PIC’s and Agent CP’s are part of our game. I err Neg on theory. Ditto 50 State Fiat.

No object Fiat, please. Or International Fiat on a Domestic Topic.

Otherwise, International Fiat is a gray area for me. The Neg needs a good Interp that excludes abusive versions. Its winnable.

Solvency advocates and New Affs make me lean Neg on theory.

I will judge kick automatically unless given a decent reason why not in the 1AR.

K-Affs

If you lean on K Affs, just do yourself a favor and put me low or strike me. I am not unsympathetic to your argument per se, I just vote on Framework 60-70% of the time and it rarely has anything to do with your Aff.

That said, if you can effectively impact turn Framework, beat back a TVA and Switch Side Debate, you can get my ballot.

Topic relevance is important.

If your goal is to make blanket statements about why certain people are good or bad or should be excluded from valuable discussions then I am not your judge. We are all flawed.

I do not like “debate is bad” arguments. I don't think that being a "small school" is a reason why I should vote for you.

Kritiks vs Policy Affs

Truth be told, I vote Neg on Kritiks vs Policy Affs A LOT.

I am prone to voting Aff on Perms, so be advised College Debaters. I have no take on "philosophical competition" but it does seem like a thing.

I am not up on the Lit AT ALL, so the polysyllabic word stews you so love to concoct are going to make my ears bleed.

I like reading cards after the debate and find myself understanding nuance better when I can. If you don’t then you leave me with only the bad handwriting on my flow to decipher what you said an hour later and that’s not good for anybody.

When I usually vote Neg its because the Aff has not done a sufficient job in engaging with core elements of the K, such as Ontology, Root Cause Claims, etc.

I am not a great evaluator of Framework debates and will usually err for the team that accesses Education Impacts the best.

Topicality

Because it theoretically serves an external function that affects other rounds, I do give the Aff a fair amount of leeway when the arguments start to wander into a gray area. The requirement for Offense on the part of the Affirmative is something on which I place little value. Put another way, the Aff need only prove that they are within the predictable confines of research and present a plan that offers enough ground on which to run generic arguments. The Negative must prove that the Affirmative skews research burdens to a point in which the topic is unlimited to a point beyond 20-30 possible cases and/or renders the heart of the topic moot.

Plan Text in a Vacuum is a silly defense. In very few instances have I found it defensible. If you choose to defend it, you had better be ready to defend the solvency implications.

Limits and Fairness are not in and of themselves an impact. Take it to the next level.

Why I vote Aff a lot:

--Bad/Incoherent link mechanics on DA’s

--Perm do the CP

--CP Solvency Deficits

--Framework/Scholarship is defensible

--T can be won defensively

Why I vote Neg a lot:

--Condo Bad is silly

--Weakness of aff internal links/solvency

--Offense that turns the case

--Sufficiency Framing

--You actually had a strategy

PUBLIC FORUM SUPPLEMENT:

I judge about 1 PF Round for every 50 Policy Rounds so bear with me here.

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at things from a cost benefit perspective. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Impacts need to be tangible.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote on what is on the flow (yes, I flow) and keep my personal opinions of arguments in check as much as possible. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

While I am not a fan of formal “Kritik” arguments in PF, I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. Racism and Sexism will not be tolerated. You can attack your opponents scholarship.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. Again, I am not a fan of the Kritik, but if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Often the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance and not style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

- Josh (he/him)

I'm a former national circuit high school debater from the mid-1990's, but since that time I have not had much in-round debate experience until the 2020-2021 season.

My general approach is to assess the round based solely on the arguments presented by the debaters, with as little intervention by me as possible, and where tech dominates truth. The remainder of this paradigm should be viewed in that light -- that is, it's a heads up on my general perspectives on debate that may or may not be helpful to you, but if we're all doing our jobs well, my perspectives shouldn't really matter and shouldn't enter into the RFD.

The specifics below are really intended to highlight a handful of areas where my own views or capabilities may differ from other judges.

********

Flowing / speed / clarity: I flow on paper. Please don't start your speech until you've given a roadmap, and until it's clear that I'm ready.

If you're an experienced high school debater, please know that my ear for speed is not quite what it used to be. I would suggest going a little bit slower everywhere except the body of cards. (That said, I do pay attention to what is read in the body of cards, and only consider a card to be evidenced to the extent that it is actually read in the round.) You certainly don't need to be at normal-person conversational speed, but taking 20-30% of your speed off would probably be helpful to you.

Please include some sort of unambiguous verbal indicator at the end of a card and before the following tag. A very brief pause is a start. A simple and clear "Next" is better. While it may be old-school, and very slightly inefficient, I'm still partial to some sort of number or letter in early constructives, particularly because numbers and letters allow for easier signposting in the line-by-line in later speeches. (Though, I also tend to hate 1-a-b-c, 2-a-b-c, etc., unless the sub-structure is highly related to itself, e.g., CP theory.)

There's an extent to which line-by-line seems to be a lost art, as does flowing. To an extent, I'll try to do the work for you and see if a given argument has in fact been dropped, but the best way to ensure that my flow has you covering everything is to signpost everything, and respond / extend in the order of the original line-by-line, i.e., the 1NC on-case and the 2AC off-case.

Please send speech docs. Ideally, we should be using share.tabroom.com or similar. If for some reason that is not possible, I will provide my email address before the round. In middle school and high school novice, my standard policy is to *not* follow along in the file, and I won't read cards unless I need to do so at the end of the round in order to assess some question of evidence. At the high school JV and Varsity levels, I'm more willing to follow along in the speech doc in order to do my part to adapt to you. But, I still expect clarity, signposting, and modulating speed on tags and cites.

Also, particularly at the high school JV / Varsity levels, I would strongly advise against reeling off multiple blippy analytics in the course of several seconds. If you do so, then if you're lucky, I will get one out of every four arguments on my flow, and it may not be the one you want the most. If there's a round-winning argument that you need me to understand, best to explain it thoroughly rather than assume I will understand the argument based on just a handful of words. This is all the more true if your delivery relies excessively on debate jargon, the more modern forms of which I may not yet be familiar. Please trust that I'm doing my level best, and that I'll be able to follow you when you're explaining things reasonably well.

In the end, if it's not on my flow, I can't assess it as part of the round, even if it's in your doc.

Kritiks: I have no principled opposition to voting on kritiks. This includes kritiks on the Aff. I do think Aff has the burden of proof to win definitively that they do not or should not need to have a topical plan. That is a burden that I have seen overcome, though the more of these rounds I see, the tougher this sell becomes for me. Regardless, in the end this is a question that I'll resolve based on the flow.

I'm arguably not clever enough to understand many kritiks -- I dropped the philosophy major because I couldn't hack it, and became a physics/math major instead -- so persuading me to vote on the basis of a kritik may require a fair bit more explanation than you would typically offer. I will take no shame in telling you that I straight up didn't understand your argument and couldn't vote on it as a result. This most likely occurs if you overly rely on philosophical jargon. If anything, my lack of experience relative to other judges in this particular debate subspace probably provides a natural check on teams reading arguments that they don't understand themselves. I'll posit that if you can't explain your argument in reasonably simple terms, then you probably don't understand it, and shouldn't win on it.

I'll say as well that I've judged a number of K teams that seem to rely heavily on blocks that have been prepared fully in advance, or maybe very slightly tweaked from what's been prepared in advance, with little attempt to actually engage with the other side. First, I find these speeches pretty tough to flow, since they're often extremely dense in content with little attempt to engage with their audience. Second, I happen to think this over-reliance on advance-prepared speeches is rather horrible for the educational value of the activity. It pretty severely undermines the "K debates are better for education" argument, and it also acts as a fairly real-time demonstration of the "link" on "K debates are bad for clash". I'm likely to be highly sympathetic to an opposing side that has any reasonable degree of superior technical execution when K teams engage in this practice.

It might be worth you knowing that K's were not really a thing yet back when I was debating. Or rather, they were just in their infancy (particularly in high school), rarely run, and/or they were uniformly terrible arguments that I don't think are run much anymore (e.g., Normativity, Objectivism, Foucault, Heidegger). Teams argued the theoretical legitimacy of the Kritik, and whether or not they should be evaluated as part of the ballot, but these arguments weren't unified under a notion of "Framework". Alt's definitely weren't a thing, nor were Kritiks on the Aff at the high school level.

Disads: I've quickly grown wary of Neg's erroneously claiming that their disad "turns case". There's a crucial difference between a disad "turning case" (i.e., your disad somehow results in the Aff no longer accessing their own impact, and in fact, causing their own impact) and "outweighing case" (i.e., your disad simply has a shorter timeframe, higher probability, or greater magnitude than the case). I've become increasingly convinced that Neg's are simply asserting -- unwarranted both in fact and in claim -- that their disad "turns case" in the hopes of duping the judge into essentially making the disad a litmus test for the ballot. If your disad legitimately turns the case, then that's awesome -- make the argument. However I think bona fide claims of "turning case" occur far less often than Neg's want us to believe. In the end, this is not much more than a pet peeve, but a pet peeve nonetheless.

CP's: Counterplans need a solvency claim/warrant, but not necessarily a solvency advocate, per se. That is, if the CP's solvency is a logical extension of the Aff's solvency mechanism, no solvency evidence should be required.

Rehighlightings: I am perfectly fine with you summarizing why the other side's evidence doesn't say what they say it says. I do not see a need for rehighlightings to be explicitly "read into the round". Why not? Well, if Side A is reading evidence that is mishighlighted, taken out of context, etc., Side B should have to do as little in-speech work as possible to make the argument. Side B shouldn't need to waste their speech time reading the correct parts of Side A's poorly highlighted evidence. Side B still needs to explain what Side A's evidence actually says, and tell me what I should be looking for in reading the card. In other words, it's insufficient to simply state "their card is mistagged". But, "their card is mistagged; the author is actually saying X,Y,Z; here's why that matters" is generally sufficient. Of course, if Side B is the one who's actually misunderstanding the evidence, or worse, intentionally mischaracterizing it, that's not a great look and is likely to result in lower speaks.

Theory / Ethics / General Behavior: I tend to be more sympathetic to teams launching legitimate, well-reasoned, and thoroughly-explained theory arguments than it seems many more modern judges may be, up to and including "reject the team, not the argument".

When it comes to ethics and general in-round behavior, it seems that many paradigms contain a whole host of info on what judges think debate “should” be, how debaters “should” act, and/or the judge’s perceived level of fairness of certain tactics.

My own paradigm used to contain similar info, but I’ve since removed it. Why? Because I think including such info creates a moral hazard of sorts. Debaters that are predisposed to behave in certain ways or deploy certain tactics will simply not do those things in front of judges that call them out in their paradigms, and then go right back to engaging in those behaviors or deploying those tactics in front of judges that don’t. To the extent that judges view themselves at least in part as guardrails on acceptable behavior and/or tactics, it seems to me that a better approach to rooting out negativity might be to put the onus on debaters to be considerate, ethical, and reasonable in deployment of their strategies and tactics – and then, if they aren’t, to mete out appropriate consequences. I do not feel obligated to state ex-ante that “X behavior is an auto-loss” if reasonable judges would conclude similarly and respond accordingly.

Don't worry: I'm not looking to be arbitrary and unreasonable in exercising judicial discretion, nor am I looking to insert my own opinions when teams engage in behavior that's debatably unfair, but goes uncontested by the other side. Just be thoughtful. It’s great to play hard. But if your tactics are questionably fair or bad for debate, be prepared to defend them, or reconsider their use. If the other side is deploying tactics that are questionably fair or bad for debate, make the argument, up to and including “reject the team”. I will evaluate such arguments and their implications based on the flow.

******

With all of that said, I consider myself to be in the midst of getting back up to speed in the modern norms and conventions of our activity, particularly at the high school Varsity level. I'm more than willing to be convinced that I should rethink any and all of the above, whether as part of an in-round debate or out-of-round conversation.

Updated 9/18/24

Add me to the chain: christopherjpjackson at gmail

Background:

Ames High School (2010-14)

University of Iowa (14-17)

Wake Forest University (18-20)

Currently an assistant professor & Director of Speech and Debate at Marian University. My team competes in policy debate and IE's.

Genealogy:

I've spent over a decade (yikes) in this activity as either a debater, judge, or coach. Just some of the people who have influenced how I think about debate include: David Hingstman, Brian Rubaie, Kyle Vint, Brooke Kimbrough, and Jason Regnier.

Overview:

Existence precedes essence. Or, to use the phrase I see littered across numerous paradigms, you do you. My default setting as a judge is nonprescriptivist, and this is reflected in my voting record. Partially from years of playing baseball, I conceptualize the role of the judge as akin to that of an umpire calling balls and strikes, though that itself can be contested by the participants.

Specifics:

K: I am primarily versed in the cap and so-called high theory set of arguments. I likely have a passing understanding/have previously judged whatever K you are thinking about reading. I am not sufficiently predisposed for or against any position to the extent that it becomes expedient to read something other than what you're best at. While in my day "job" I work mostly as a quantitative social scientist, I still enjoy reading philosophy pieces, including those more critical in nature. I prefer, in a strictly relative sense, more systematic criticisms to individual/subject-centered ones. So, for example, I tend to be a better judge for Afropessimism compared to those focused on embodied performance.

CP: I'm probably about one standard deviation more willing than the average judge to err aff on counterplan theory PROVIDED the affirmative does the work throughout the rebuttals beyond just reading extensions. The theoretical validity of some of the jankier counterplans (cc: Lopez) strikes me as seriously questionable, but again, the aff needs to do the work. Incidentally….

Theory: I don't presume to reject the argument and not the team unless prompted.

T: Yes, please. I am very drawn to arguments about grammar and syntax. Like all judges I do think demonstrating actual impacts to debatability are good and well but am quite fine with the point that words mean things.

DA: <3. While I do broadly accept the standard model of debate (and offense/defense more specifically), I can be convinced that there is functionally zero risk of a link or impact. That the chance of something happening is so low as to be the equivalent of statistical white noise=terminal defense.

A pet peeve: "fiat is an illusion". Absent specific contextualization to the round or an on-the-nose card, please, no. I have yet to hear a round where this argument was deployed in a manner that made me think “I’m really glad we had a discussion of how nothing happens when the judge votes aff” at the end of the day. Note: in the years since I first put this in my paradigm I have continued to hear and vote off of this line of argument. So it certainly is viable in front of me-though I don't like it.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I have judged plenty of both national-circuit and old-school LD rounds and am comfortable with either. Value/criterion is useful but not necessary.

Public Forum:

You will find I have high expectations for evidence quality and am quite flow-oriented. Doing well in front of me in PF involves:

-directly answering your opponent's arguments. Directly refute what they said. I'm not going to spot you a link

-explicit impact calculus

-being attuned to the flow

zucie lopez (they/she)

solorio'23 -> isu'27

add me to the email chain pls!

--> zucielopez13@gmail.com

i competed for solorio in high school. i'm currently not debating in college.

i'm not familiar with this years topic so try to explain your arguments ( not only does it help me but also lets me know that you know what you're talking about)

be respectful. there is no reason to be rude to other people in the round. i DO NOT allow homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc. any form of discrimination will result is automatic loss.

Background: Georgetown University '23 & Northside College Prep '19

Currently coaching for Northside College Prep in Chicago.

We have been instructed to usehttps://share.tabroom.com/ and https://speechdrop.net/ for this tournament. Please share speech docs on there, NOT via email.

I do not share speech documents from rounds I have judged. Please reach out to the teams who debated.

TLDR: You do you. No one can be truly tabula rasa, however, I intend to evaluate the arguments at hand rather than default to my personal preferences. Preferences about specific arguments are my defaults in the absence of adequate argumentation.

Be respectful toward one another. I am not afraid to dock speaks for unnecessary ad hominems or things of that nature.

I really like when debaters emphasize important parts of their speeches. This does not mean yelling.

There is no way for me to verify things that happened outside of the debate so I will not vote on them.

If you make any argument about the other team cheating, you need to stake the debate on it. I will end the round there and give 25s + Ls to the offending team. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted 25s.

Evidence

Evidence quality matters a lot but only to the extent to which teams makes arguments about it. (Is the author qualified to speak on this issue (not an undergraduate)? Do they have an incentive to misrepresent certain information due to their own biases or otherwise? Is your article peer-reviewed?) However, I won't read cards from the speech doc UNLESS there is an unresolved back-and-forth on the evidence in question. I would highly prefer teams explained what their evidence says rather than asking me to read it afterwards.

Furthermore, explain the implications of qualification/date/etc when comparing. It's not enough to say "our evidence is more recent" without explaining why that matters.

Counterplans

I'm aff leaning on most competition questions - if you have doubts about whether your counterplan is competitive, make sure you are very confident in answering the perm. Conditionality is probably good and I'm generally OK with states (this does not mean you can just say "fiat" when responding to every aff answer). Theory debates on those questions are winnable, but should not be your first resort. Most theory arguments, aside from condo, are reasons to reject the argument not the team.

Disasdvantages

"Turns case" and "turns disad" arguments are usually under-explained, however, I'll reward thoughtful versions of these arguments even if analytical.

Topicality

Try to provide a clear picture of what debates will look like under the various interpretations in the debate. Negative teams will be best served by reading evidence that clearly substantiates their desired limit. Successful affirmative teams will have well thought out arguments about the intrinsic benefits of including their affirmative in the topic.

Kritiks

Specificity is a must, if not in evidence, then in application. I won't hesitate to vote on more generic or tricky arguments if they're dropped, but the bar is higher when the affirmative has a cogent answer. Affirmative teams should be ready with a good defense of what they say and do in the debate. Negative teams will benefit greatly with even a few well-thought-out case arguments.

The K is core neg ground against small affs. I’m unpersuaded by interps that exclude K arguments entirely. That said, I’m not great for FW interps that entirely exclude the plan. I believe neg teams must disprove the desirability of the plan, but not that they must do so solely with references to its narrow, fiated consequences.

I am very familiar with critiques of capitalism and settler colonialism, more so than I am with other genres of the K. Do with that what you will.

Performance/Plan-less/Other Labels

As above, do what you are best at and I will give the attention and thought I would any other argument. That being said, if you want to completely dispense with the plan-focused vision of the topic, you need a very compelling reason for doing so. In topicality/framework debates, clear links and clash at the impact level is most important. Simply saying the negative is denied disadvantages or the affirmative is denied ground is not sufficient. For the affirmative, your aff's solvency mechanism should not be an afterthought. For the negative, be sure to press on the scope of the aff's solvency claims as they are often disconnected from the impact.

Northside College Prep '16 - University of Kentucky '20

For Niles:

• In the spirit of trying something new and potentially cool in debate, please use SpeechDrop and/or Share.Tabroom to send out speech docs for this tournament. For the sake of keeping it up in the event coaches have questions, my email is mariaesan98 {at} gmail {dot} com.
• I taught at the Chicago Debates Institute this summer, so I at least know what the resolution is and 1-2 affs. However, I'm likely unfamiliar with more of the intricacies of the topic, so just assume I don't know much.
• Good luck! : )

Top Level Judging Notes:

• Please keep track of your own prep
• Please be as quick with tech as possible - I will deduct from your prep time if this becomes unreasonable as I want to be respectful of the folks running the tournament
• No tag team CX - I really prefer to hear individual 1 v 1 CX clash and this helps me determine speaker points more easily
• Unless this is a reasonable ask, if you care about where a team marked their cards/what cards they did or did not read, then please be diligent about flowing that yourself - I have a very strong preference towards not sending out marked copies of speech docs when there were only one or two marked cards

I will always reward smart teams that can effectively and efficiently communicate their arguments to me. Engaging with your opponent, having a well-thought out strategy, and demonstrating that you’re doing consistent, hard work is what this activity is about. Please be respectful to both your partner and your opponents and give it your best!

Disads:

I like them a lot. There is such a thing as zero risk of a disad and there can be no link. Do impact calculus, have a clear link to the affirmative. Quality evidence is appreciated, though it's not the only thing! Being able to communicate what your ev says and why your ev matters is key!

Theory:

Conditionality is good.

Critical Strategies:

I am okay for critical strategies. However, I didn’t debate these so make sure to explain your authors to me. Affirmatives that do little engagement with the critique alternative are likely to lose. Critiques that do little engagement with the affirmative itself are likely to lose. Explain your links in the context of the AFF and your AFF in the context of the alternative. The perm is not always the best strategy and that is okay.

I am willing to vote either way on framework. I should be able to tell that you know and understand what the affirmative is if you are reading it. Framework is best when it engages with the methodology of the AFF and questions the state’s role in activism. I like topic education arguments.

When it comes to K versus policy, I prefer K debates. I went to graduate school for philosophy and have coached debate in CPS for 8 years, but was never a debater. As a result I am probably considerably less technical than other judges and just want to see good argumentation. I personally think this happens when we have a clear understanding of our epistemology.

I would much prefer to judge a round where there is a lot of clash on the flow and indicts on the other team's evidence than a round in which a team overwhelms the other team with lots of advantages or CPs. K debates can be equally bad for education when they involve half-understood ideas of So, if you're running a K or K Aff, please avoid relying solely on philosophical jargon. I think the best debaters are the ones who combine their technical of knowledge of debate with common sense and some semblance of rhetorical skill.

Counterplans are fine. If you run them be sure you can clearly articulate how the plan links to the net benefit.

I'm ok with speed, but I prefer debaters who slow down on analytics and theory arguments. Getting your arguments out in the 1AC/1NC should sound different from explaining why the perm fails or explaining why topicality should be a voter.

I think storytelling is important. I want you to be able to explain to me why you are winning the debate. I have two reasons for believing this: 1. I think this is an essential thinking and communication skill, 2. If you throw spaghetti at the wall and ask me to interpret it, I'm afraid that I won't interpret it correctly. Don't leave the round up to my interpretation; write my ballot for me.

I like a nice, tight DA with a carefully explained link story. Sometimes Ptix DAs get a little wild, but as long as you can sell the story, I'm willing to go along with it as a convention of debate, but would probably be sympathetic to an aff team that highlights the probability of the link chain or the quality of the evidence.

At heart I'm just an English teacher, so I will give an extra .1 spear poi if you cite some poetry in your rebuttal speech (in context) .2 if I really like the poem.

Tag team is fine; however, I think the speaker should be the one primarily responsible for answering. I don't want to see one partner dominating.

Kjtrant@cps.edu

I prefer Jairo (pronounced hi-roe) over judge, but im fine with either

He/They

jairovillalobos94@gmail.com

2A/1N for Solorio 19-23

Not debating at Northwestern 23-27

Assistant Coach at Von Steuben 24-Present

24-25 September update---I know little to nothing about the topic, so please be clear about acronyms, laws, etc

Background+Top level stuff

I debated both in nat circ and udl (Chicago Debate League) tournaments during high school. Went to camp during my freshie and soph (virtual) years, so if any questions then I am more than willing to answer.

For the current high school topic, assume I know very little---the only experience I have with it is from the other times i've judged/helped coach teams at tourneys

Tech>Truth---Doesnt mean you dont have to contextualize/explain what them dropping something means for the round, you still have to explain and make clear what the argument is for me to evaluate it in your favor

Better for policy---didn't do K debate, but don't let that stop you from running what you want///i'll vote for anything if you are winning it

No specific way to assign speaks, just be nice, speak pretty, explain things well, and youll do alright

I feel like I can be a pretty visual person with my face, so if I approve or disapprove of something then you will be able to tell(nodding head for good, scrunching my face for not so good, you get the gist)

Anything that promotes violence, discrimination, or hate is an immediate L, lowest speaks possible, and a report to tab

Specifics

In case you are wondering about in depth thoughts on arguments:

DAs

I really like disads and I think they are a staple of what neg args should be in debate. For every disad, paint me a story of how the disad actually happens if the plan were to pass, from the UQ up to the moment of the impact(big red button is pressed, oceans rise and we get 2012 IRL, the environment collapses, etc.)

• For the neg---should always be in a 1nc. For later speeches, if running DA by itself, tell me why it turns the case and do impact calc. If running as a net benefit, tell me exactly how the cp avoids the DA. Avoid generic links as much as possible; if generic link is called out then I am much much less to weigh the DA as highly as the aff
• For the aff---the best strat to go for is straight turn imo. If done well , then you have forced the neg into an awkard position and you are fully in control of that flow. Honestly if the neg fumbles the straight turn answers too then I am all for a pure straight turn 2ar. If not possible, then the main canon of arguments work, just prove why case outweighs

CTs

I LOVE case turns. These debates can get messy tho, so for both sides make sure to 1. keep the story clean and concise 2. try to organize LBL as much as possible

• Neg---If you wanna go for a CT, then you have to make sure to tell me all throughout the debate how the aff links and how the impact outweighs. Personally, I dont mind it if you sandbag in the block, so go crazy with impacts if you have them, just make sure to answer all the aff args they present cus even once concession can take out the whole ct for me
• Aff---For most of the CTs run, theres a high likelihood you link. It might just be me, but if its clear the aff links, then I just want to see you bite the bullet and tell me why that linking is good(i.e, if you increase growth then do growth good, if heg then heg good, so on, and give me specifics as to why its good). Obviously, this doesn't mean you can just disregard their impacts, so make sure to also answer or group the impacts they had. If they sandbag in the block, then crossapplying is your friend

CPs

CPs are really interesting because theyre either really good or really mid. In general, Agent/Process cps are legit, I find consult cps boring, and if your cp has more than like 5 planks then don't even run it(even you know its abusive). Also, sufficiency framing is iffy---if your cp doesnt solve the impact of the aff, then why even run it

• Neg---THE CP HAS TO BE A REASON TO REJECT THE AFF, PLEASEEEEEEE. That means even if the cp is plan plus, I still wont vote for it. You need to prove to me in the 2nr 2 things: First, you are able to access the plan and solve for the impacts through your cp, and second, doing the plan alone is bad/doing the cp would solve for discrepancies with the plan alone. That being said, you ALWAYS need a net benefit, whether it be internal or external, and explain how the CP avoids that
• Aff---Personally, I like seeing shifty perms being run and exploited like crazy if conceded. By shifty, I dont mean different wordings of the cp text so dont do that, but shifty as in like "do plan and have agency do x instead". In general, POSTAL works great with cps so just stick to that and youll be good

T

T has sucked these past few topics cus everything is so untopical but borderline topical. That being said, don't just run T as a strat skew cus that just wastes flow and could be used for more substantive off. However, still good to always have T on both sides in case of anything

• Neg---I feel like T is really underappreciated against smaller affs. If you are able to call out a team effectively on how theyre untopical, then keep it going all throughout the round and call out if their counterinterps are generic, if they severely underlimit, and so on. T can get very messy though, so unless you have a really good feeling about T, dont run it because I know we dont wanna argue over definitions for 2 hours
• Aff---If you know you're borderline topical, you better have a damn good counterinterp. Apart from that, main canon of arguments work in front of me

Ks

Ks are really interesting but far from my specialty(I had to debate under a hard right policy coach for 4 years, dont blame me). With that tho, I am really only interested/know more of the main canon of neg ks, so stuff like cap, security, afropess, queer. fem, etc. If your k is high theory, then dont pref me(I dont wanna hear about baudrillard for 2 hours)

• Neg---In front of me, you link you lose is valid ONLY IF you win framework(run it as like a da in a way). I really dont buy many alts of the ks as realistic, so if you know your alt isnt that amazing and the aff is calling you out on it, just drop it and resort to talking about how they make matters worse and why I need to evaluate the K more than I do the aff. However, if you run some generic links against the aff, then I am much much less likely to weigh it that highly if they call out the generality
• Aff---Ima be straight and to the point in what I like to see v ks- first strat, call out why the alt fails and why its probably unrealistic/doesnt solve. Second, if they kick the alt, go for case outweighs and specifically why case outweighs, so if you need util then run it in the 2ac, or impact d then also run it in the 2ac, and hell you can even do case turns k to take out the impacts. For all of that to work though, you NEED to win and stay on top of framework, so keep framework on top of the k flow in every speech. Perms are pretty weak v ks, so still read them but dont depend on them for the 2ar

K affs

In all honesty, I am not in tune with k affs like that, so I am not the best judge to run these in front of. However, if it is your main strategy, then you should run what you are most comfortable with

• Neg---Unless you would also run Cap against them, you should just run FW. I buy FW the most against k affs, just stay on top of their answers to your arguments and you should be alright
• Aff---For a k aff to stick in front of me, I need a clear explanation why running the k aff solves for your impacts and why this round is specifically necessary. I need a role of the ballot from the get go(2ac fs, 1ac preempt maybe even) and for this to be explained in depth in the later parts of the round. In a similar fashion, I need an explanation of why running on the neg cant solve, and you need to explain to me how the alt looks like in action

Theory

Most theory is really a wash for me. The only one I will vote for is condo, but that also depends on the round and how many conditional off are run

Misc. Stuff

I like jokes---if you make me laugh then i'll give you +.1-.2 speaks---specifically, joke about Conor Cameron or Victoria Yonter(and if it flies), i'll give +.3

As a debater: 4 years HS debate in Missouri, 4 years NDT-CEDA debate at the University of Georgia

Since then: coached at the University of Southern California (NDT-CEDA), coached at the University of Wyoming (NDT-CEDA), worked full-time at the Chicago UDL, coached (and taught math) at Solorio HS in the Chicago UDL

Now: Math teacher and debate coach at Von Steuben in the Chicago UDL, lab leader at the Michigan Classic Camp over the summer

HS Email Chains, please use: vayonter@cps.edu

College Email Chains: victoriayonter@gmail.com

General Thoughts:

1. Clarity > speed: Clarity helps everyone. Please slow down for online debate. You should not speak as fast as you did in person. Much like video is transmitted through frames rather than continuous like in real life, sound is transmitted through tiny segments. These segments are not engineered for spreading.

2. Neg positions: I find myself voting more often on the "top part" of any neg position. Explain how the plan causes the DA, how the CP solves the case (and how it works!), and how the K links to the aff and how the world of the alt functions. Similarly, I prefer CPs with solvency advocates (and without a single card they are probably unpredictable). I love when the K or DA turns the case and solves X impact. If you don't explain the link to the case and how you get to the impact, it doesn't matter if you're winning impact calculus.

3. K affs: Despite my tendency to read plans as a debater, if you win the warrants of why it needs to be part of debate/debate topic, then I'll vote on it. As a coach and judge, I read far more critical literature now than I did as a debater. My extensive voting history is on here. Do with that what you will.

4. Warrants: Don't highlight to a point where your card has no warrants. Extend warrants, not just tags. If you keep referring to a specific piece of evidence or say "read this card," I will hold you to what it says, good or bad. Hopefully it makes the claims you tell me it does.

Random Notes:

1. Don't be rude in cross-x. If your opponent is not answering your questions well in cross-x either they are trying to be obnoxious or you are not asking good questions. Too often, it's the latter.

2. Questions about what your opponent read belong in cross-x or prep time. You should be flowing.

3. While we are waiting for speech docs to appear in our inboxes, I will often fill this time with random conversation for 3 reasons:

i. To prevent prep stealing,

ii. To get a baseline of everyone's speaking voice to appropriately assign speaker points and to appropriately yell "clear" (if you have a speech impediment, accent, or other reason for a lack of clarity to my ears, understanding your baseline helps me give fair speaker points),

iii. To make debate rounds less hostile.

4. If your "troll" or "strat skew" involves blatant lying about out of round actions, don't. Strategies against arguments are great (condo bad, PICs bad, etc., these are theory arguments about arguments themselves). It's the "T" of your favorite answer CP acronym (PLOTS, STOP, POSTAL, etc.). Weaponizing blatant lies about your opponent's actions as a strategy to try to win debates make this space makes this space exclusionary and problematic.

High School LD Specific:

Values: I competed in a very traditional form of LD in high school (as well as nearly every speech and debate event that existed back then). I view values and value criterions similarly to framing arguments in policy debate. If you win how I should evaluate the debate and that you do the best job of winning under that interpretation, then I'll happily vote for you.

Ballot Writing: LD speeches are short, but doing a little bit of "ballot writing" (what you want me to say in my reason for decision) would go a long way.

Public Forum Specific:

I strongly believe that Public Forum should be a public forum. This is not the format for spreading or policy debate jargon. My policy background as a judge does not negate the purpose of public forum.