Please add me to the email chain: chloegbrown31@gmail.com :-)

**Feel free to ask more specific questions before rounds, but know that your style/ research is more important than my feelings about specific args/ strategies.**

CX:

I did policy all through high school, mostly critical/ soft-left stuff. I l still like K stuff, not necessarily more than anything else though. Honestly, I don't tend to vote for T but will if the voting issues are made very clear and important.

Southside is my first tournament judging the 2023-24 topic, if there are specific acronyms, please clarify them. Don't expect me to have super intimate knowledge of NATA/ AI- related legislation. I keep up with the news, but I am an English major.

I pay close attention to role-of-the-ballot and role-of-the-judge args but want to knowwhythose roles are valid/ important/ good.

If you are going to run a K, please demonstrate a good understanding of your methodologies, authors, and foundational philosophies. Running something critical just for the sake of it is not going to win you any points.

Generally, I want to know why things matter and believe in truth over tech. I am not going to catch every minute technical concession. By the end of the round, wrap things up nicely and tell me exactly what matters the most (and why).

L/D

I never competed in LD but enjoy judging it and have quite a lot.

Although I don't have super specific preferences, please do flesh out any framing-- do not assume that just because yousay the value criterion is "____" that means I assume it's true. Tell me why!Let me know what matters in/ out of the round.

I pay close attention to the line-by-line and love to see direct clash.

I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I was an assistant coach (policy and public forum) with the Blake School until 2019 and then coached policy and congress at Success Academy from 2019-2023. I currently coach LD at the Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men in New Orleans.

Email - hannah.s.stafford@gmail.com - if its a LD round please also add: DTA.lddocs@gmail.com

--

Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you. I really am open to any style or form of argumentation.

I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.

I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.

Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.

PF - Please please please read real cards. If its not in the summary I won't evaluate it in the final focus. Do impact calculus it makes a a majority of my decisions. Stop calling for cards if you aren't going to do the evidence comparison. I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech. Collapsing is important in the summary and final focus. Yes you can go fast if you are clear. I am open to theory and kritical argumentation - just ensure you are clearly warranting everything.

About Me

(he/him)

Associate Director, The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men

10 years in debate, 6 coaching

Background in political science (democratic legitimacy/decline, religion and politics, antisemitism) and philosophy (Rawls, Kant, virtue ethics, teaching philosophy)

Conflicts: Former Head LD Coach @James Logan HS, competed for Holy Cross

Email Chain: dta.lddocs@gmail.com (Subject: TOURNAMENT---ROUND---AFF vs NEG)

Questions: blakeziegler.debate@gmail.com

Disclaimer

Before anything else, I’m an educator and mandatory reporter. I view my ballot as an endorsement of whatever strategy I vote for. If I find your strategy morally repugnant, problematic, or not conducive to educational debate, I’ll vote it down without hesitation. In addition to bigotry, this includes arguments in the 5/S category below. Additionally, if I find or am told that any behavior threatens someone’s physical or mental safety, I’ll end the round and report it appropriately.

Email chain/pre-round stuff should be done before the start time. The 1AC should begin at the start time.

Pref Shortcuts

1 - Ks, K-affs/topicality

2 - policy args, soft left affs

3 - phil* (read below), theory

4 - trad (I can judge this, just rather not)

5/S - tricks, friv theory, wipeout/spark

General Thoughts on Debate

I competed in and am primarily coaching LD. I’ve either run, coached, or encountered every type of argument. Lately, my coaching consists more of Ks, which I enjoy the most, but I’m also excited by policy arguments (especially politics). So, run whatever you’re comfortable with and please don’t feel the need to overadapt. I like good arguments and below are what I consider to be qualities of good arguments.

The aff’s burden is to resolve some harm through a change in the status quo that matters under some framing mechanism. The neg’s burden is to meaningfully engage the aff and show that it’s a bad idea.

Every argument should have a clear claim, warrant, and impact. If the evidence, link chain, or impact calc isn’t clear, I won’t vote on it. The larger the impact, the higher the threshold for the evidence. I think it’s a missed opportunity when debaters don’t address their opponents on the warrant (e.g., no warrant) or structural levels (e.g., missing internal link). If you don't weigh, you won't like my weighing. Debaters also don't do enough weighing in general or linking back to framework, which makes my job more difficult.

For the K, I should have a strong understanding of your theory of power and how the aff links to it in the 1NC. You should make the links as specific as possible (rehighlights, specific behavior, etc.). I'm not persuaded by general links unless your explanation is really good. I’d rather you do this with your own explanation, rather than buzzwords/backfiles. Most K 2NRs can be given off paper. I tend to evaluate K debate in terms of an ethical question. If the K's theory of power is true, the debate becomes whether the aff/topic links to the theory of power, and if the answer is yes, then I vote for the K. I don't think perm doublebind is true and the neg doesn't have to win the alt solves.

*I like phil, but I severely dislike mainstream approaches to phil debate. Most phil debaters misrepresent their literature base while reading from backfiles with buzzwords they don't fully understand. I struggle to buy a lot of phil positions because, especially for non-modern philosophers, it's difficult to explicitly tie their work to the topic. Debaters aren't honest about that and tend to not resolve that well. That frustrates me and is why I put phil at a 3. If you feel this doesn't apply to you, I'm likely a 1 or 2 for you, but this is usually people who have actually read their literature. I typically view phil debate similar as K debate - it's a question of whether the framework affirms/negates the resolution. I think author indicts on phil are viable if the debater can demonstrate how those views are embedded in the moral theory itself (e.g., Kant says you have to be rational to be moral, but he only thought Europeans were rational).

Theory is only for legitimate abuse. I will buy a “gut check” argument on friv theory. I also tend to think a lot of shells are resolved by pre-round conversation, and if that's the case, I have a low threshold for responses. If theory debate is about endorsing good norms and behavior in the debate space, that implies you're running theory from a place of good intentions. If that appears to be untrue, I'm skeptical of your fairness and education impacts.

Topicality is different. I think stock T positions are viable and useful ways to test the aff. I generally don't find T-FWK as a viable route to test a non-topical aff unless it's an "option of last resort" (Smith, 2021). If this is your strategy, you need a robust defense as to why you're not engaging the literature of the aff. With that said, if you're running a non-topical aff, these are the questions that frame my understanding of the case: Why should we abandon the topic? Why do I reject the TVA? How do I weigh impacts under your framing? How does the ballot resolve your harm?

Don’t run tricks - auto loss and 20 speaks. This includes formatting your doc in such a way that it makes it extremely difficult for your opponent to decipher it. This also includes spikes. "Gut check" is a sufficient answer to these arguments.

You should disclose previously read positions. New affs don’t need to be disclosed.

Spreading is fine, but please start slow and build up. I’ll say “clear” twice before I stop trying to flow.

A Note on Judge Commitments

I'm increasingly frustrated by the lack of quality judging that some programs provide to cover their obligation. Debaters work hard for high-level competition and that effort becomes futile when the judge pool lacks quality judging. If you're a progressive debater or your team regularly competes on the national circuit, but your judges are not of that level, expect me to give less in terms of my investment in judging you. If you want quality judging, you should provide quality judging. Yes, some programs cannot provide these judges for a variety of legitimate reasons, but the lack of training or preparing the judges you do provide irks me. If you are providing judges for a national tournament that have little experience in debate, especially circuit debate, and it is clear they are not properly trained, this note applies to you.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

tech > truth within reason

If you’re still sending the doc after 30 seconds, I’m running prep, docking speaks, or both

no flex prep (if this happens, I’ll dock speaks for whoever asks a question)

performance of the argument matters just as much as the argument

brief and clear off-time roadmaps please

going over time = dock speaks (finish your thought, but don’t push it)

Speaker Points

30: Flawless argumentation, solid delivery, and I learned something from the debater

29.5-29.9: Excellent skills and strategy, good delivery

29-29.4: Same as above but needs work on delivery

28.5-28.9: Good debate skills and decent delivery; shows promise

27-28.4: Needs work on argumentative and delivery skills

<27: You did something morally repugnant or concerning.

People who’ve significantly influenced my views on debate/largely agree with their paradigms: Byron Arthur (especially), Aaron Timmons (especially), Jonathan Alston (especially), Chris Randall, Elijah Smith, Chris Vincent, Ed Williams, Anna Myers, Temitope Ogundare, Colton Gilbert, Chetan Hertzig, Bennett Eckert, Hannah Stafford