I want to receive the speech docs, mcbonitto at gmail.com.

This year (2023-2024), I am working as a licensed clinical psychologist in Seattle, WA, in a community health center providing low-cost/free integrated behavioral/mental healthcare primarily to teenagers. I also judge occasionally at both the high school and college levels. I have a full-time job outside of debate. I choose to stay involved with debate because it matters to me. I care about being a good judge and a good coach. I view myself as a constant learner, and I enjoy learning about and thinking about all sorts of debate arguments. If I don't know something in a debate, I will usually try to learn about it by the next time I see you.

Prior to this year- For debate- I was an assistant coach, then the Assistant Director, and later Interim Director of Debate at Wichita State. Prior to that, I was an assistant coach at several high schools in Kansas, including Washburn Rural, Wichita East, and Kapaun. Not debate- I was an assistant clinical professor of education and psychology at Wichita State University. My academic work focuses primarily on psychological assessment.

I did policy debate in both high school and college, I graduated from Wichita State University in 2011. I have a wide background in debate arguments. I have debated and coached almost every style of argument. I firmly believe that you will do best in debate by reading what you are best at, and that is what I want to hear. I want this debate to be about you. I respect you, and I value your education in debate. I will try VERY hard to listen to anything you have to say and vote for whichever team did the better debating.

Across both high school and college, I have judged at least 3 tournaments a year since graduating undergrad 12 years ago. This year (2023-2024), I do not do topic work. The thing I find myself asking for more than anything else in decisions is fewer arguments and more focused explanations.

I think participation in debate is important for all marginalized groups, and I believe in the importance of debate as a community of activists and a tool of empowerment. That being said, yes, I will still vote for your framework arguments, your T debates, your theory arguments, your CP's, or your disads (I really do want to hear what you're best at).

Don’t talk down to or threaten your partners or the other team. I spend more than most people in this activity in healthcare settings working with people with disabilities, many of whom are actively suicidal, depressed, and/or anxious. If you are someone who needs someone in your corner who has that experience during the tournament, I'm happy to try to be that person. If someone is visibly emotionally upset in a debate, before starting prep time, I will usually stop the debate to check in and may encourage a break. I care about people infinitely more than I care about who wins or loses. Also, I am likely not a good judge for final rebuttals that center around arguments that life has no value, death is good, or arguments that encourage suicide or are explicitly violent.

Speaker Points: Norms keep changing with points, and I'm trying to be attentive in giving points consistent with the community norms. I have been told that my points are both wildly too high and wildly too low at various points throughout the years I have been around judging debates. Know that I honestly am trying, and I do apologize if I mess it up. I don't memorize names well, so I am not good at knowing the points you are "supposed" to get. I base points on what I thought of that round and what I perceive to be the norms of that tournament.

Forfeits: Assuming that a tournament gives me the discretion and power to do so, if a person/team in a round that I am judging are clearly interested in and attempting to complete a debate, in the event of a forfeit for reasons that the team cannot control or otherwise make them unable to compete, I will give the round loss to the team that forfeits but will do my best to award fair speaker points to both teams.

Online Debate: For clarity's sake- Please try to slow down a bit and keep your cameras on if possible.

Steve Clemmons

Debate Coach, Saratoga HS, proving that you can go home again.

Former Associate Director of Forensics University of Oregon, Santa Clara University, Debate Coach Saratoga High School

Years in the Activity: 20+ as a coach/director/competitor (Weber, LMU, Macalester, SCU and Oregon for college) (Skyline Oakland, Saratoga, Harker, Presentation, St. Vincent, New Trier, Hopkins, and my alma mater, JFK-Richmond R.I.P. for HS) (Weber State, San Francisco State as a competitor)

IN Public Forum, I PREFER THAT YOU ACTUALLY READ EVIDENCE THAN JUST PARAPHRASING. I guess what I am saying is that it is hard to trust your analysis of the evidence. The rounds have a flavor of Parliamentary Debate. Giving your opponent the entire article and expecting them to extract the author's intent is difficult. Having an actual card is key. If I call for a site, I do not want the article, I want the card. You should only show me the card, or the paragraph that makes your article.

This is not grounds for teams to think this means run PARAPHRASE Theory as a voter. The proliferation of procedural issues is not what this particular event is designed to do. You can go for it, but the probability of me voting for it is low.

How to WIN THE DAY (to borrow from the UO motto)

1. TALK ABOUT THE TOPIC. The current debate topic gives you a lot of ground to talk about the topic and that is the types of debates that I prefer to listen to. If you are a team or individual that feels as though the topic is not relevant, then DO NOT PREF ME, or USE A STRIKE.

2. If you are attempting to have a “project” based debate (and who really knows what it means to have a project in today's debate world) then I should clearly understand the link to the topic and the relevance of your “project” to me. It can't always be about you. I think that many of the structural changes you are attempting to make do not belong in the academic ivory tower of debate. They belong in the streets. The people you are talking about most likely have never seen or heard a debate round and the speed in which some of this comes out, they would never be able to understand. I should know why it is important to have these discussions in debate rounds and why my ballot makes a difference. (As an aside, no one really cares about how I vote, outside the people in the round. You are going to have to convince me otherwise. This is my default setting.)

3. Appeals to my background have no effect on my decision. (Especially since you probably do not know me and the things that have happened in my life.) This point is important to know, because many of your K authors, I have not read, and have no desire to. (And don't believe) My life is focused on what I call the real world, as in the one where my bills have to be paid, my kid educated and the people that I love having food, shelter, and clothing. So, your arguments about why debate is bad or evil, I am not feeling and may not flow. Debate is flawed, but it is usually because of the debaters. The activity feeds me and my family, so think about that before you speak ill about the activity, especially since you are actively choosing to be involved

SPEAKER POINTS

They are independent of win/loss, although there is some correlation there. I will judge people on the way that they treat their partner, opponents and judge. Don't think that because I have revealed the win, your frustration with my decision will allow you to talk slick to me. First, I have no problem giving you under ten-speaker points. Second, I will leave the room, leaving you talking to yourself and your partner. Third, your words will have repercussions, please believe.

FLASHING AND PREP TIME (ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLIC FORUM)

One of my basic rules for debate is that all time comes from somewhere. The time limits are already spelled out in the invite, so I will stick to that. Think of it as a form of a social contract.

With an understanding that time comes from somewhere, there is no invisible pool of prep time that we are to use for flashing evidence over to the other team. Things would be much simpler if you got the cards DURING CX/Crossfire. You should either have a viewing computer, have it printed out, or be willing to wait until the speech is over. and use the questioning time to get it.

Evidence that you read in PF, you should have pulled up before the round. It should not take minutes to find evidence. If you are asking for it, it is coming out of your prep time. If it is longer than 20 seconds to find the evidence, it is coming out of the offending teams time.

CX/Crossfire

This should be primarily between the person who just spoke and the person who is not preparing to speak. Everyone gets a turn to speak and ask/answer questions. You are highlighting a difference in ability when you attempt to answer the questions for your partner, and this will be reflected on your speaker points. Crossfire for PF should really be the one question, one answer format. If you ask a question, then you should fall back and answer one from your opponent, or at least ask if a follow up is acceptable. It is not my fault if your question is phrased poorly. Crossfire factors into my speaker points. So, if you are allowing them to railroad you, don't expect great points. If you are attempting to get a bunch of questions in without allowing the other side to ask, the same thing will be reflected in your points.

Evidence in PF

My background is in policy debate and LD as a competitor. (I did CEDA debate, LD and NDT in college and policy debate and LD in high school) I like evidence and the strategy behind finding it and deploying it in the round. I wish PF would read cards. But, paraphrasing is a thing. Your paraphrase should be textual, meaning that you should be able to point to a paragraph or two in the article that makes your point. Handing someone the article is not good enough. If you can't point to where in the article your argument is being made, then all the other team has to do is point this out, and I will ignore it. This was important enough that I say it twice in my paradigm.

This is far from complete, but feel free to ask me about any questions you might have before the round.

Updated for the Legalization Topic 9/11/14

I do want on the e-mail chain: mmcoleman10@gmail.com

Debate Experience: Wichita State graduate 2009. We read a middle of the road straight up affirmative and won more debates on arguments like imperialsim good than should have been possible. However, on the negative roughly half of my 2NRs were a K (with the other half being some combination of T, politics/case etc.) so I believe firmly in argumentative flexibility and am comfortable voting for or against almost all arguments.

Judging Experience: 5-8 tournaments each year since graduating.

Most importantly: I do not work with a team currently so I have not done any topic research, my only involvement is judging a handful of tournaments each year. It would be in your best interest to not assume I have the intricacies of your PIC or T argument down and take some time explaining the basis of your arguments. If the first time I figure out what your CP does or what your violation is on T is after you give me the text after the debate, my motivation to vote for you is going to be pretty low. I am currently a practicing attorney so I may have some insight on the topic from that perspective, but I'll try to minimize what impact that has on my decisions outside of possibly some suggestions after the debate on how to make it more accurately reflect how the legal process works.

Ways to kill your speaker points/irritate me

1. Cheating - I mean this substantively not argumentatively. This can include stealing prep time, clipping cards, lying about disclosure etc. If people are jumping cards or waiting to get the flash drive and you are furiously typing away on your computer it's pretty obvious you are stealing prep and I will call you out on it.

2. Being unecessarily uptight/angry about everything. There's no need to treat every round like it's the finals of the NDT, try having some fun once in awhile I promise your points from me and others will go up as a result. I take debate seriously and enjoying being a part of debate, but you can be very competitive and still generally pleasant to be around at the same time. I have no problem if people want to make fun of an argument, but it's one thing to attack the quality of an argument and another entirely to attack the person reading those arguments.

3. Not letting the other person talk in cross-x. It irritates me greatly when one person answers and asks every single question on one team.

4. A lack of line-by-line debate. If your only reference to the previous speeches is some vague reference to "the link debate" you are going to be irritated with my decision. I'm only willing to put in the same amount of work that you are. This is not to say that I can't be persuaded to have a more holistic view of the debate, but if I can't tell what arguments you are answering I am certainly going to be sympathetic if the other team can't either. Also people over use the phrase "dropped/conceded" to the point that I'm not sure they mean anything anymore, I'm paying attention to the debate if something is conceded then certainly call the other team out, if they spent 2 minutes answering it skip the part of your block that says "they've conceded: . It just makes me feel that you aren't putting the same work that I am in paying attention to what is occurring in the debate.

5. If your speech/cx answers sound like a biblography. Having evidence and citations is important, but if all you can do is list a laundry list of citations without any explanation or application and then expect me to wade through it all in the end, well we're probably not going to get along. I do not tend to read many cards after a debate if any. I pretty quickly figure out where the important arguments (debaters that identify and highlight important arguments themselves and resolve those debates for me are going to be very far ahead) and then I will turn to arguments and evidentiary issues that are contested.

Ways to impress me

1. Having strategic vision among the different arguments in the debate. Nothing is better than having a debater realize that an answer on one sheet of paper is a double turn with a team's answer on another and be able to capitalize on it, bold moves like that are often rewarded with good points and wins if done correctly.

2. Using your cross-x well. Few people use this time well, but for me it's some of the most valuable speech time and it can make a big difference in the outcome of debates if used effectively.

3. Having a working knowledge of history. It's amazing to me how many arguments are just patently untrue that could be disproven with even a basic understanding of history, I think those are good arguments and often more powerful than the 10 word overhighlighted uniqueness card you were going to read instead.

Topicality

I enjoy a well crafted and strategic T argument. My biggest problem with these debates is the over emphasis on the limits/reasonability debate occuring in the abstract, usually at the expense of spending enough time talking about the particulars of the aff/neg interps their support in the literature, and how the particular interp interacts with the limits/reasonability debate. T cards rival politics uniqueness cards as the worst ones read in debate, and more time should be spent by both teams in pointing this out.

I think this topic provides an interesting opportunity for discussion with the absence of the federal government in the topic as far as what the Aff can and should be allowed to defend. I'm curious how both Affs and Negs will choose to adapt to this change.

Topicality - K Affs

I think you have to have a defense of the resolution, the manner in which that is done is up to the particular debate. Unfortunately I've been forced to vote on T = genocide more times than I'd like to admit, but Neg's refuse to answer it, no matter how terrible of an argument it is (and they don't get much worse). Critical Affs are likely to do the best in front of me the stronger their tie is to the resolution. The argument there is "no topical version of our aff" has always seemed to me to be a reason to vote Neg, not Aff. Stop making that argument, doing so is just an indication you haven't read or don't care what I put in here and it will be reflected in your points.

I don't ususally get more than one or two opportunities per year to judge debates centered around issues of race/sex/identity but try to be as open as I can to these types of debates when they do occur. I still would prefer these arguments have at least some tie to the resolution as I think this particular topic does allow for good discussion of a lot of these issues. I have generally found myself voting Aff in these types of debates, as the Negative either usually ignores the substance of the Aff argument or fails to explain adequately why both procedurally and substantively the way the Aff has chosen to approach the topic is bad. Debates about alternate ways in which these issues might be approached in terms of what Negatives should get to say against them compared to what the Aff should be forced to defend seem most relevant to me, and one that I find interesting to think about and will try hard to make an informed decision about.

Counterplans/Disads

I like this style of debate a lot. However, one thing I don't like is that I find myself increasingly voting on made up CPs that for some unknown reason link slightly less to politics, simply because Aff teams refuse to challenge this claim. To sum up, don't be afraid to make smart analytical arguments against all arguments in the debate it can only help you. I am among those that do believe in no risk either of an aff advantage or neg disad, but offense is always nice to have.

Affs also seem to give up too easily on theory arguments against certain process CPs (condition/consult etc.) and on the issue of the limits of conditionality (it does exist somewhere, but I can be persuaded that the number of neg CPs allowed can be high/low depending on the debate). In general though I do tend to lean neg on most theory issues and if you want to win those arguments in front of me 1) slow down and be comprehnsible 2) talk about how the particulars of the neg strategy affected you. For example conditionality might be good, but if it is a conditional international agent cp mixed with 2 or 3 other conditional arguments a more coherent discussion about how the strategy of the 1nc in general unduly harmed the Aff might be more effective than 3 or 4 separate theory arguments.

K's

I judge these debates a lot, particularly the clash of civilization debates (the result of judging exclusively in D3). Negative teams would do well to make their argument as particularized to the Aff as possible and explain their impact, and by impact I mean more than a vague use of the word "ethics" or "ontology" in terms of the Aff and how it would implicate the aff advantages. If you give a 2NC on a K and haven't discussed the Aff specifically you have put yourself in a bad position in the debate, apply your arguments to the Aff, or I'm going to be very hesitant to want to vote for you.

Additionally while I vote for it pretty often exploring the critical literature that isn't "the Cap K" would be pleasantly appreciated. I can only judge Gabe's old cap backfiles so many times before I get bored with it, and I'd say 3/4 of the debates I judge it seems to pop up. Be creative. Affs would be smart not to concede big picture issues like "no truth claims to the aff" or "ontology first." I vote for the K a lot and a large percentage of those debates are because people concede big picture issues. Also keep in mind that if you like impact turning the K I may be the judge for you.

Assistant debate coach at Western Washington University

Please include me on email chains: daot5@wwu.edu (she/her)

Community, Advocacy, Research Debate (CARD)

1. Evidence: I emphasize an evidence-based approach to debate, and I believe that part of my role as judge in a format that explicitly does as well is to weigh the evidence. I do think that it is the responsibility of any team to refute and compare evidence in order to win, but I am liable to dock points on evidence and analysis for use of generic evidence or what I understand to be misrepresentation of evidence. In a closed-evidence format, you should be able to read all of the articles and demonstrate in-depth topic knowledge, as well as engage in creative argumentation. I read all of the articles, and I will read your cards.

2. Kritiks: I like to hear critical arguments, but I need specific links and clear alternatives and/or framework in order to vote for them.

3. Theory: I will vote on theory. I believe that theory is so far underutilized in this format when it could have an impact in shaping it at its origin, and I am interested in hearing more. I also do need clear judge instructions to do this.

4. Pace: I can handle a faster speaking pace, but I do not have a trained ear for spreading. I also strongly believe that spreading is bad for accessibility, communication and education, and I would simply prefer you not do it at all.

Background

My pronouns are he/him. I've competed in debate for seven years - four years of high school Policy (CX) debate, and three years of college parliamentary (NPDA) debate. Since then, I've taught/coached both middle school and high school debaters in PF, LD, and Policy. Bottom line with me is do what you do best and what you enjoy most.

Big Picture

I consider myself a flow judge. That means the arguments you make in the round I'll evaluate, and I compare them to your opponents arguments and both of your interactions and clash with them/each other.

I don't have an issue with speed for the most part, but if your opponents ask you to slow down or to be clearer, please adjust accordingly.

I generally think you're in a better boat when your warrants for your claims are clearly explicated, which is easier when you somehow differentiate them from one another (speed makes that harder, so adjust accordingly).

Lastly, be respectful to your opponents and remember that you're here to have a good time. These things should be hand in hand.

Specifics

I don't have any arguments that are just no-go's/non-starters for me. Any argument you make should just be well justified and persuasive.

On K's: I think a good kritik needs a robust framework for how I should evaluate the argument(s) in the round. Equally important is an explication of the solvency for the alternative, which can often times be under-developed or under-explained.

On T/Theory: I don't need proven abuse to pull the trigger on these arguments. Good T debates I think treat the debate on the components similarly to a DA, so take from that as you will. Also I tend to believe if you're going for T/Theory that should result in the other team losing the debate and not just an argument, you should go all in on that argument.

On non-topical aff's: I did this quite a bit during my time in NPDA, so I don't have anything against it. That being said, I think the Aff should have a clear and persuasive reason why they're not topical.

Glen Frappier

Gonzaga University

Years Judging College: 24

Updated for 23-24

Rounds Judged on Nukes Topic: ZERO. FREE STRIKE!

If there is an email chain going around with the speech docs please include me. gfrappier@gmail.com.

I appreciate smart, quick and clear debate. If you’re unclear I will let you know once or twice but after that it’s on you.

I prefer argument characterized by depth and substance and generally despise when a laundry list of unwarranted claims is passed off as good argument. The best debates seem to be those where the debaters are doing a lot of comparison of the arguments and evidence. I always thought Ross Smith's lecture on "Extending An Argument" did an excellent job of capturing the essence of the depth I appreciate. If you haven't seen it, you really should google it.

Speaker Points. I find I award speaker points based on the 3 broad categories or content, organization, and delivery. A smart, quick, articulate debater who reads good evidence, makes well reasoned arguments, and effectively manages the flow can expect good points. Flashes of brilliance and displays of exceptional debating are always rewarded. Poor debating, bad evidence, being mean, poor decision-making will all hurt your points. The scale has clear trended up over the last few years and I intend to adapt to those broader trends.

Evidence. This is the lifeblood of a persuasive argument. We all interpret evidence differently so if yours is open to multiple interpretation tell me what your reading of it is and why thats the preferable interpretation. It should be qualified. Evidence from experts in a field with a lifetime of experience thinking, researching, writing and publishing on topic is more persuasive than a blogger with no credentials, or an undergrad working on their degree.

The affirmative should advocate for a topical example of the resolution. I’m open to different interpretations of how plans/advocacy should function, but I tend to believe that a community agreed upon controversy/topic serves as a valuable point of stasis.

Cross Examination is binding. I do my best to pay attention and flow CX. Great CXs payoff in points (and sometimes wins).

Counterplans. There are those I find more of a stretch than others theoretically, but generally tend to err neg on most theory questions.

Critiques. Sure, why not. If you have a link to the aff and an impact then it sounds like you have an argument and i'll listen to it. Still, i don't read much K lit these days and probably will not be familiar with the literature you're relying on for your argument. In those cases its in your interest to slow down and explain.

Add me to the email chain: eadriang17@gmail.com

---------------------------------------------------------

Last updated for Stanford- 2/11/24

Debated for:

University of Wyoming 2021-23

Cheyenne East- 2017-2021

I have more knowledge and experience with policy rounds, but am not opposed to clash or K v K rounds- you guide the direction of the debate, not me

Things to help win my ballot

1. Impact Calculus- Succinct, well warranted impact calc is the key to my heart and can easily steal rounds away. Too many rounds happen where the aff assumes I hear something in the 1AC, and automatically assume their impacts are bigger than the negative's, that often not the case. Without explanation of why I should evaluate your impacts over your opponents, my path to victory should be obvious. The first 20 seconds of the 2NR/2AR should be what I write on my ballot.

2. Communication- If I can't hear you, I can't flow your arguments. This is especially true as we're mostly online, but I was never good at flowing 16, unlabeled arguments under one subpoint anyways, so probably best to slow down, even just a little bit. I'm okay with speed in general, but I'm not a machine, and if you're spreading to the point where nobody can understand you, it's impossible for me to evaluate those args. Especially on tags and in theory debates- noticing a trend of folks failing to take a breath, which in theory debates SUCKS for you :)

3. Timing- Grace periods aren't a thing. Who let y'all get away with this? When the timer stops, you're welcome to keep yapping, but know I've stopped flowing and I'm gonna give you weird looks until you sit down.

Argument Specific Stuff

Condo- probably good, but don't overdo it. I find debates where mooting as much of the aff as possible and then owning them on a thing you weren't going for anyways to be very sad, but it's a tool in the tool kit, so just don't abuse it, and for those aff teams out there who think three means go, I'm probably your guy. Also, this is probably the only theory argument that is reject the team, not the arg.

Kritiks- I'm down, just know my K lit base knowledge in general is terrible, and topic specific stuff is even worse. That doesn't mean you can't and shouldn't go for these arguments, it just means you need to do more explanation so I get the gist. Also, probably have an alt.

Tech > Truth

Theory args at the bottom of flows- I'll cry if your 3rd response to the CP is theory, your opponents will cry, and if you have another argument, followed by another theory argument, I'll cry some more. If theory becomes more developed we all need space to write them down, trying to sandwich your subpoint z as to why condo is a good thing between other spots on the flow is messy and unfun for everyone.

Judge Kick- I don't do it unless told otherwise by the neg, and can be convinced by the aff not to do so.

Tech- I'm probably like, medium tech on the scale. I get most complex args, but I won't pretend like my eyes don't glaze over a little bit in some clash rounds, or 20 minute framework overviews on a Kritik. Part of this is absolved by slowing down on these more complex topics (see above) the other part is absolved by not going off the rails.

Meta Debate Stuff

Don't steal prep. I will be upset if you say you're done taking prep, and continue to click things on your computer for up to a minute afterwards, especially if it's obvious other people are prepping. Save you and your opponents the shame of stealing prep and just learn how to save a word document in less than an hour.

Be kind- the world is sad sometimes, the last place we need it is in this activity where hopefully most individuals are really brilliant people. Don't be sexist, homophobic, ablest, or racist.

Background/Experience

I debated a lot (CEDA, NDT), and have coached and judged even more (CEDA, NDT, NPDA, NPTE, Worlds). I teach courses in argument theory, diversity, and civil dialogue, and I am heavily involved in community service. While my debate background comes primarily from a “policy” paradigm, I have no problem with either good “critical” debates or “persuasive communication”, and am willing to listen to any framework a team feels is justifiably appropriate for the debate.

I think that debate is simultaneously a challenging educational exercise, a competitive game of strategy, and a wonderfully odd and unique community – all of which work together to make it fun. I think debaters, judges, and coaches, should actively try to actually enjoy the activity. Debate should be both fun and congenial. Finally, while a written ballot is informative, I feel that post-round oral critiques are one of the most valuable educational tools we as coaches and judges have to offer, and I will always be willing to disclose and discuss my decisions, even if that may involve walking and talking in order to help the tournament staff expedite an efficient schedule for all of us.

Unique consideration

I am hearing impaired. No joke – I wear hearing aids in both ears, and am largely deaf without them. I think most would agree that I keep a pretty good flow, but I can only write down what I understand. I work as hard as just about any of your critics to understand and assess your arguments, and I appreciate it when you help me out a little. Unfortunately, a good deal of my hearing loss is in the range of the human voice – go figure. As such, clarity and a somewhat orderly structure are particularly important for me. For some, a notch or two up on the volume scale doesn’t hurt, either. However, please note that vocal projection is not the same as shouting-- which often just causes an echo effect, making it even harder for me to hear. Also, excessive chatter and knocking for your partner can make it difficult for me to hear the speaker. I really want to hear you, and I can only assume that you want to be heard as well. Thanks for working with me a little on this one.

Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.)

Although I don't see absolute objectivity as easily attainable, I do try to let the debaters themselves determine what is and is not best for the debate process. Debaters should clarify what framework/criteria they are utilizing, and how things should be evaluated (a weighing mechanism or decision calculus). I see my role as a theoretically “neutral observer” evaluating and comparing the validity of your arguments according to their probability, significance, magnitude, etc. I very much like to hear warrants behind your claims, as too many debates in parli are based on unsubstantiated assertions. As such, while a “dropped argument” has considerable weight, it will be evaluated within the context of the overall debate and is not necessarily an automatic “round-winner”.

Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making

As noted, clarity and structure are very important to me. It should be clear to me where you are and what argument you are answering or extending. Bear in mind that what you address as “their next argument” may not necessarily be the same thing I identify as “their next argument”. I see the flow as a “map” of the debate round, and you provide the content for that map. I like my maps to make sense.

That said, good content still weighs more heavily to me than slick presentation. Have something good to say, rather than simply being good at saying things.

Additionally, 1) although I think most people speak better when standing, that’s your choice; 2) I won’t flow the things your partner says during your speech time; 3) Please time yourselves and keep track of protected time.

Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making

I find that good case debate is a very effective strategy. It usually provides the most direct and relevant clash. Unfortunately, it is rarely practiced. I can understand that at times counterplans and kritiks make a case debate irrelevant or even unhelpful. Nevertheless, I can't tell you the number of times I have seen an Opposition team get themselves in trouble because they failed to make some rather simple and intuitive arguments on the case.

Openness to critical/performative styles of debating

See above. No problem, as long as it is well executed – which really makes it no different than traditional "net-benefits" or "stock issues" debates. To me, no particular style of debating is inherently “bad”. I’d much rather hear “good” critical/performative debate than “bad” traditional/policy debate, and vice versa.

Topicality/Theory

While I try to keep an open mind here, I must admit I’m not particularly fond of heavy theory debates. I think most debaters would be surprised by just how much less interesting they are as a judge than as a competitor. I realize they have their place and will vote on them if validated. However, screaming “abuse” or “unfair” is insufficient for me. I’m far more concerned about educational integrity, stable advocacy and an equitable division of ground. Just because a team doesn’t like their ground doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have any. Likewise, my threshold for “reverse voters” is also on the somewhat higher end – I will vote on them, but not without some consideration. Basically, I greatly prefer substantive debates over procedural ones. They seem to be both more educational and interesting.

Parliamentary procedure

While I have no problem with them, I tend not to follow much of the traditional stylizations or formal elements of parliamentary practice: 1) I will likely just “take into consideration” points of order that identify “new” arguments in rebuttals, but you are more than welcome to make them if you feel they are warranted; 3) Just because I am not rapping on the table doesn’t mean I don’t like you or dig your arguments; 4) You don’t need to do the little tea pot dance to ask a question, just stand or raise your hand; 5) I don’t give the whole speaker of the house rap about recognizing speakers for a speech; you know the order, go ahead and speak; 6) I will include “thank yous” in speech time, but I do appreciate a clear, concise and non-timed roadmap beforehand.

I lean toward thinking that “splitting the block”, while perhaps theoretically defensible, is somewhat problematic in an activity with only two rebuttals and often only makes a round more messy.

TLDR: You do you. I do what you tell me.

Disclaimer

I strive to judge like a "blank slate" while recognizing that I will never actually be one. Keep this in mind as you read the rest of this paradigm.

Email

carterhenman@gmail.com

If there is an email chain I will want to be on it. I would be glad to answer any questions you have.

Accommodations

Disclose as much or as little as you want to me or anyone else in the room. Either way, I am committed to making the debate rounds I judge safe and accessible.

Experience

I competed in LD in high school (2009-2013) in Wyoming and northern Colorado with some national circuit exposure.

I competed in policy at the University of Wyoming (2013-2018) and qualified to the NDT twice. I loved reading complicated courts affirmatives, bold impact turns, and Ks with specific and nuanced justifications for why they are competitive with the aff. I wish I had had the courage to go for theory in the 2AR more often. I studied (mostly analytic) philosophy and some critical disability theory to earn my bachelor's degree.

Style: agnostic.

All debate is performative. I can be persuaded that one performance is contingently more valuable (ethically, aesthetically, educationally, etc.) than another, but it would be arbitrary and unethical on my part to categorically exclude any particular style.

That being said, I am not agnostic when it comes to form. An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I do not care how you give me those three things, but if you do not, then you have not made an argument and my RFD will probably reflect that. This cuts in many directions: I hate K overviews that make sweeping ontological claims and then describe implications for the case without explaining why the original claim might be true; I equally detest when anyone simply asserts that "uniqueness determines the direction of the link".

Organization matters. However, I do not think organization is synonymous with what a lot of people mean when they say "line by line". It means demonstrating a holistic awareness of the debate and effectively communicating how any given argument you are making interacts with your opponents'. Therefore, when adjudicating whether something is a "dropped argument" I will parse between (a) reasonably predictable and intelligibly executed cross-applications and (b) superficial line-by-line infractions. Giving conceptual labels to your arguments and using your opponents' language when addressing theirs can help you get on the right side of this distinction.

Evidence matters. A lot. Again, I do not mean what a lot of people mean when they talk about evidence in debate. It is about a lot more than cards. It is also about personal experience and preparation, historical consciousness, and even forcing your opponents to make a strategic concession (by the way, I flow cross-examination). I read cards only when I have to and tend to defer to what was said in the debate regarding how to interpret them and determine their quality. Thus, I will hold the 2NR/2AR to relatively high thresholds for explanation.

I flow on paper. This means I need pen time. It also magnifies the importance of organization since I cannot drag and drop cells on a spreadsheet. Because I flow the "internals" of evidence (cards or otherwise), you will benefit enormously from clarity if you are fast and will not necessarily be at a disadvantage against very fast teams if you are slow but efficient with your tag lines.

Substance: mostly agnostic.

Hate and disrespect are never conducive to education and growth. I presume that the need to disincentivize abusive speech and other behaviors overrides my desire to reward skill with a ballot, but it never hurts for debaters to remind me of why this is true if you are up to it. This includes card clipping and other ethics violations. In general, I will stop the round if I notice it on my own. Otherwise, you have two options: (1) stop the round, stake the debate on it (you may lose if you are wrong, but they will certainly lose and receive no speaker points if you are right), and let me be final arbiter or (2) keep the issue alive throughout the debate, but leave open the option to go for substance. I think this is the most fair way for me to address this as an educator, but please do not think option two gives you license to go for "a risk of an ethics violation" in the final rebuttals or to read a generic "clipping bad" shell in every one of your 1NC/2ACs. That's icky.

There is no right way to affirm the topic. There are wrong ways to affirm the topic. I can be sold on the notion that the aff did it the wrong way. I can also be convinced that the wrong way is better than the right way. It may yet be easiest to convince me that your counter-interpretation of the right way to affirm the topic is just as good as, or better than, theirs.

Theory is mis- and underutilized. You get to debate the very rules of your debate! Current conventions regarding negative fiat, for example, will inevitably make me smirk when you read "no neg fiat." Still, if you invest enough thought, before and during and after debates (not merely regurgitating somebody else's blocks at an unintelligible rate), into any theory argument I am going to be eager to vote on it.

laurenlucillejohnson@gmail.com

Director of Debate at Weber State University - presently

Assistant Coach at Western Washington University. 2020-2022

Graduate Assistant Coach at the University of Wyoming 2018-2020

I debated for Gonzaga University 2014-2018

Do what you do best and feel most comfortable and confident forwarding in the debate- I judge a myriad of styles and types of arguments in debates- while my paradigm gives you a sense of how I view decision-making calculus- I first and foremost view my role as a judge as an ethical educator.

Kritiks- I enjoy critical debates. Feel free to run them on both sides. I am well versed in feminist/queer, postmodern, and gender theory, although I am also familiar with other critical literature bases. The link debate is the most important part of a critique for me. Really good impact analysis does not matter if there is no link to the 1AC. I also think that performative links are valid arguments and can be used as reasons for why the permutation does not solve. I generally think the aff should get perms although can be persuaded otherwise in an instance where the aff is not about the resolution or in pure methods debates.

Role of the Ballot - I think the role of the ballot is to vote for who wins their arguments and does the better debating. If you have an argument otherwise, I will be more persuaded/default to a functionality/interpretation of how my vote works if both teams get a chance of receiving that vote. I do not find a "Role of the Ballot" claim that is to "vote for us" to be persuasive. I think it's dishonest and transparently one-sided to interpret the role of a ballot through one team's participation.

Aff framework versus the K- Your interpretation should probably say you should get to weigh your impacts vs. the K. I prefer debates about the substance of the arguments over debates that end up being exclusively about aff framework, if your framework argument ends up mooting the substance of both the aff and the K (aff solvency and alt solvency) then it becomes a messy debate that I will not enjoy adjudicating.

Performative/Non-Traditional Debates - I think the aff should be about something pertaining to the topic and recommend something be done that is different than the status quo (does NOT have to be a plan or involve the United States Federal Government). If the aff chooses to not do this, they'll have to win why the topical version of the aff can't solve for the performance/discussion that the aff began and win an impact turn to framework. In terms of impact analysis. You should be able to explain what reasonable neg ground exists versus your aff that is within the realm of topic-related research. That said, I'll still vote for an aff that is not about the topic if they win their impact turns to framework/accessibility questions.

Framework versus Performative/Non-Traditional Affs- I think that the negative either has to win that there is a ‘topical’ version of the aff that can solve for the substance and performance/discussion of the affirmative, or that their interpretation of debate can allow for better access to the solvency mechanism/ address the impacts of the affirmative. I say ‘topical’ because I am generally unpersuaded that the aff must defend the “hypothetical enactment of the plan by the USFG”, I think that the negative has to prove that the affirmative either justify an interpretation of the topic that makes it impossible to be prepared to debate this particular aff, or that the affirmative is not grounded in a methodology that changes something in the status quo or the lives/experiences of the debaters in the round. I think that the best deliberative model of debate is one in which the affirmative presents a strategy that can generate effective deliberation on a topic because it is something that is contestable and allows for a debate to occur regarding the desirability and effectiveness of two competing strategies/methods to address the affirmatives impacts/concerns.

Topicality- If the debate becomes a large T debate, please slow down so I can get the nuances and particularities of the arguments and debate. I flow on paper so keep that in mind. Limits and predictability are not impacts they are internal links. Discussing how limits and predictability impact debate/ research/ neg prep and what that means in terms of education etc. (This also goes for framework)

Theory- Generally, I think reasonable conditionality (example: 1 Kritik and 1 CP) is a good thing but conditionality bad arguments can be used strategically. I generally err neg on theory arguments that are not conditionality, but I am open to persuasion by either side of the debate.

Counterplans- I generally will vote on a counterplan if you win that you solve the aff, which means you don’t particularly need to win a big risk of your offense to win.

Disads- You need a good disad turns case argument or a case take out to be a round winning strategy. Most of the time I will filter my decision for case versus the disad debates through impact calculus.

I’m down for anything in a round, but there are some things I’m better at judging than others. I’ve tried to arrange the main things by topic for y’all: follow or ignore at your own risk.

Experience

I competed for 3 ½ years from 2021-2024 with Hillsdale College debate. My specialty was NPDA. I dabbled in IPDA and CARD but definitely am most at home with the conventions of Parli.

General Philosophy

Debate is a game with some powerful real world standards. I aspire to be as good a flow judge as I’m able but if something is clearly ridiculous but just *there,* it’s not going to cut it. I really like standard cases with some basic framing and clear burdens upfront and clear impact calc and voters at the end. Don’t drop big things: the easier you make my job, the easier it is to vote for you.

All that said, you can run whatever you want, but I can’t vote for you if I don’t understand your argument at all.

Speed

Because of my background, I’m not super comfortable with speed, so spread at your own risk. Since I want to minimize my interference with the round, I will not tell you to slow down. I’ll only call for clear if I really need it. But the faster you go, the more you increase the chance that I miss something important and don’t get it on my flow.

I encourage competitors who are less comfortable with speed to call speed or clear as you need it (obviously not frivolously, but err on the side of calling it if you're really struggling to understand). Failure to adjust to the other team’s request to slow down or enunciate will lead me to dock speaks.

Etiquette

There’s a line between insisting well for your points and being rude or mean. You need to walk it, but remember debate is necessarily subjective and the side to err on should be obvious.

T/Procedurals

I really like a good T, but my experience is a lot more limited with other types of procedurals. So just make them all clear for me: organize and signpost your interpretation, violation, standards, and voters. Be aware that not dropping T and not dropping standards are not the same thing.

I will weigh Ts against Ks if you do the groundwork for me to do so.

CPs

These are fun. Make it obvious or convince me they’re competitive if you want me to vote on it. Be forewarned I don’t know conditionality theory particularly well.

Ks/Framework debates

I’m not especially skilled with these. I ran a couple but never felt I got super comfortable with them. So do what you want, but make it exceedingly clear. It’s hard for me to vote here if I don’t understand it enough to weigh competing arguments on this part of the flow the way you want me to or think I should.

Speaks

This is an intuitive thing for me that comes out of three balances:

1) how smooth and eloquent your speaking is, while still being communicative and easy to understand (not over the top)

2) how you use evidence and arguments where you need them, without taking too much of a shotgun approach

3) how genuinely nice you are to your competitors (and partner) while still being clearly in control of the round.

TL;DR

Be nice to each other but be relentless for the smart points. T is for terrific except when it’s for terrible or timeskew. When in doubt, present it to me like I’m five but you really don’t want me to know that you think that I’m five.

Y’all have got this. Either this will be fun or you’ll test my skills of understanding in ways law school hasn’t yet. Either way, someone will win and we all will get better.

I’ll keep flows for a week after the round. If you have questions for me, feel free to email me in that time window!

Victoria

xtf8fs@virginia.edu

Pronouns: She/her & They/them

Please add me to the chain if there is one. If there isn't one, I'll be giving any excessive evidence-indites some serious side-eye. avalonkingwork@gmail.com

--CARD DEBATERS READ THIS--

For the fall 2024 topic: I will flow all arguments all debaters make and judge them based off what is said in round, and nothing more. That being said: my thoughts are that the negative research base for grid and subsidies adds is in a sorry state, I will be more permissive of analytic responses for this first wave of the packet.

I can understand spreading, but I am not a big fan of it in this event and would prefer it get called out the second it gets exclusionary. Everyone reserves the right to tell a debater to slow down or clear up, and if that's not respected it's an easy ballot for me.

I'm really just looking for y'all to engage with the material in the packet, and having read through the majority of the articles, will notice when you're missing the point of one or talking out of your ass.

Other than that, all I want is a streamlined debate where both sides can condense down to the key issues of the debate in the final speeches, explain them clearly, and do impact calculus to tell me why the bad things they're talking about are of more consequence and can be solved despite complaints from the opposition.

In regards to specific arguments, I think most circumvention and 'plan is unpopular and won't pass' args are easily answered by fiat and I won't be a fan of that being your whole 2NC. I'm skeptical of there being a complete evidence base for the set col krique (in that I'm not seeing explicit, direct links to any aff outlined in the two neg articles)and if you run it I want you to be fucking spot on with your analysis. Adjacent to this, I do not think there is more than a couple sentences supporting a 'consult indigenous people' cp and like most consult cps I will hold it to a high bar. The federalism DA/fifty states CO: it is deeply disappointing to see generic cps make their way into an event where all the affs are visible well before you make your neg. I think it's lazy and holds little pedagogical value, because you really aren't caring what the aff is before you stake that ground. All this being said, what I wrote above is still true: I will listen, flow, and judge all arguments based off what y'all say in round. But I think y'all should put in the extra leg work with these.

--Public forum--

The drug topic is dope, in an almost literal sense. There's a lot of creative positions to be taken, and to be quite honest, creativity is what I yearn for in almost every debate. So try to drop some spice where you can.

I'm a current policy-debater with 8 years of debate experience, so I should be able to keep up with most of your arguments. My favorite arguments have been centered on queer theory, trans theory, settler-colonialism, and anti-capitalism, and I've seen both the best and the worst versions of these arguments run, so I tend to notice when debaters are trying to make sense from the senseless. Explain what's actually going on, what the harms are, why they matter, and how you're going to solve them. I want to see some serious impact comparison on both sides of this debate, and if you can convince me your impact is bigger and you can fix it, or at the very least that it makes things so broken that you shouldn't do whatever the other team is doing, there's a good chance I'll vote for you.

--Policy--

In general, my hearing has degraded the past couple of years and the online-format doesn't make that much better. So I ask kindly that you move 70%-80% of your full throttle of your full throttle to ensure everything actually gets on the flow to be judged. And for the love of hecc: please. put. me. on. the. email. chain.

-K affs-

I love these, and I run these whenever I get the chance. If you do so, I won't auto-vote for you, but there is a good chance that I'll be having a good time listening to your argument. I am most familiar with trans theory, queer theory, some shades of 'high theory' like deleuze & guattari, your general anti-capitalism arguments, and a good spread of SetCol knowledge, so if what I know changes how you tell me your theory of power - that's what I know. That being said, please explain your theory of power. I like it when debaters show me they know what they're talking about.

In the T debate, I find it hard to vote neg without a TVA, and I generally find affirmatives that move in the direction of the topic more persuasive (but can be persuaded the topic of the aff is more important than this year's topic). That being said, I do find 'T is an RVI' an uphill battle to vote on.

-Policy affs-

To keep it straight: I know very little about this year's topic, almost next to nothing. Being that we are pretty far into the year, I imagine people have gotten used to not having to explain certain things since they've spent so much time debating them. Explaining those things to me will make it easier for me to look at your link story, and consequently easier to vote for you.

-generally-

Weigh your stuff, explain your link out clearly, and explain how you can solve (or why the other team's solvency is less important than your impact).

I have a pretty high burden on impact turns to clearly bad things - death good, for instance. Run what you want, I will evaluate you based off what is said in the round by both teams, but bear in mind that it will be an uphill battle and I will probably remark on it in my RFD.

--LD--

I have never judged this format, neither have I debated in it. That being said, the standards given above likely apply. I would like to see impact calculus, clear link stories, and solvency pages that seem to solve.

Pronouns: he/she/they

As a heads up, Fall 2024 will be my first term as a CARD judge, but I have competed up until my recent graduation (Class of ‘24 Sco Ducks!) Therefore, my guidelines for how I gauge debates will be fairly simple, and likely shift depending on what I hear in these tournaments. Generally, I will go as follows:

1. If there is an email chain, I would like to be attached (bek.kuhn@gmail.com) so I can look back on your cards and follow lines of argumentation, however I highly value speaking clearly and concisely in your speeches. You are given 6 minutes in each constructive to build your case and 4 in each rebuttal to strengthen it, use them wisely and practice to make sure you don’t have to rush through material.

2. I will be flowing exclusively on paper, and therefore will highly value structure and formatting in your speeches. Having your arguments laid out clearly (i.e. presenting a roadmap for me before the round begins) and consistently throughout the debate makes it much easier for me to flow, raising your chances of success.

3. As the affirmative, your burden is to prove that the aff world is better off than the status quo, so I expect clear solvency linking to your impacts. If there is no link between the plan and solvency then the impacts you’ve listed become null to me. On the flipside, if the negative fails to prove to me that the aff plan doesn’t link to their solvency, or there isn’t some net disadvantage to the aff world, then the impacts the neg lists become null as well.

4. As a competitor I heavily utilized counterplans and critiques, and would love to see some innovative plans as long as they maintain topicality. However, if I cannot find a clear net benefit to the counterplan, or alternative to the critique, I am likely to write those aspects off as a wash.

5. In terms of theory, I am open to bringing up theory aspects (ex. ‘fairness’ of a counterplan) if there leaves some space that you believe needs to be cleared up. However, CARD discourages heavy use of theory arguments, and so do I, as this form of debate was created to be based heavily on the use of evidence and execution of analysis, so it will likely be lower in my determinations of success in a round. I consider theory to be a distinct argument/disad, and therefore believe it must be disclosed before rounds.

6. I will usually give high speaker points as long as you are competing in good faith and expressing your position in a clear and digestible format. I don’t expect you to have your speeches or cards memorized, and you will not lose speaker points from me if you need to reference your notes or documents to find a card or piece of analysis.

7. In terms of weighing, I am a “clean slate” judge. I will weigh impacts and arguments based on how you say I should. If I cannot see clear enough impact calculus, I will revert to which team more clearly defended their case. I am completely open to interesting/unconventional impact turns, an example for this year being “climate change is good.”

8. CARD values honest and representative use of evidence and I have read many of the articles being used in this year’s library, so I will not be “clean slate” when it comes to misrepresenting authors or articles. If I, or the opposing team, catch any ‘clipping’ or blatant misuse of the text it will be a factor in my adjudication if not well defended.

9. Please feel free to ask me any questions before the round begins; I am here as an educator and want everyone, especially newer debaters, to have an enjoyable experience!

Background/Top-Level:

He/him/his

I am beginning to judge more events other than just policy but I have almost zero experience with other forms of debate.

Please include me on the email chain: joshlamet@gmail.com. Everyone gets plus .1 speaks if I'm not asked to be put on, and I'm just automatically put on the chain. Ask me any questions about my paradigm in person or via email, although I try to update it regularly with the most important stuff.

School conflicts: Minnesota, Glenbrook North, Como Park

I don't care what you read as long as you convince me to vote for you, I will.

The most important thing in this paradigm:

Please slow down (especially on T and theory*) because the number of arguments I flow is rarely equal to the number of arguments the speaker actually makes, and those numbers will be much closer to each other if everyone prioritizes clarity and slowing down a bit. Don't just read this and think you're fine. Slow down, please. I know half of all judges ever have something like this in their paradigm but I'm a slower flow than average because I flow on paper.

The second most important thing in this paradigm:

Clash! I like judging debates where the arguments/positions evolve about one another instead of simply in vacuums.

Sliders:

Policy------------------x-------------------K

Read a plan-------------------------------x---------Do whatever (probably at least sorta related to the topic)

Tech--------------x----------------------------Truth -- I hate myself for it, but I am kind of a truth-orientated judge in that I really don't want to vote for silly args, and the worse an arg is, the more leeway I give to answering it.

Tricks---------------------------x--------------Clash

Theory----------------------------------------x----- Substance -- condo is the only theory arg that gets to the level of "reject the team", I simply feel that most other theory args are reasons to reject the arg, not the team. Unless the negative goes for the CP/K to which the theory applies in the 2nr, it's a tough sell for me to vote on, "They read [insert abusive off-case position], they should lose".

Conditionality good--------x---------------------Conditionality bad -- this being said, I would much rather see 4-6 good off, than a 7+ mix of good and bad. Also, answer the case, please.

States CP good (including uniformity)-----------x----------------------50 state fiat is bad

Always VTL----------------x---------------------Never VTL

Impact turn (*almost) everything-x-----------------------------I like boring debate -- to add to this, I'm a huge sap for impact calc and specifically rebuttals that provide a detailed narrative of the impacts of the debate and how they interact with the other team's. Impact comparison and impact turns are often the deciding factors for me in close debates.

*Almost meaning I'll vote on warming good, death good, etc. but not on args like racism good or ableism good. Why don't people read death good anymore?

Limits---------------x-------------------------------Aff Ground

Process CP's are cheating----------------------x---------------Best fall-back 2nr option is a cheating, plan-stealing CP

Lit determines legitimacy-------x-----------------------Exclude all suspect CPs

Yes judge kick the CP--x-------------------------------------------Judge kick is abusive -- as long as the 2nr says to kick the CP, I'm gonna kick it and just analyze the world of the squo vs the aff and I'm pretty sure there's nothing the aff can really do if condo bad isn't a thing in the round. Heck, I judged a debate where the CP was extended for 30 seconds and not kicked but I still voted neg because the neg won a large risk of a case turn. What I'm saying, is that when you are aff and the neg goes for more than just the CP with an internal NB, beating the CP doesn't equate to winning the debate outright.

Presumption----------x--------------------------Never votes on presumption

"Insert this rehighlighting"---------------------x--I only read what you read

I flow on my computer ---------------------------------------x I'm gonna need to borrow some paper

I try to give out speaker points that represent how well you performed in the round compared to the tournament as a whole. I try to follow the process detailed here, but I often find myself handing out speaks sort of indiscriminately. Getting good speaks from me includes being respectful and making good choices in the rebuttals (smart kickouts, concessions, and flow coverage).

Don't be sloppy with sources.

Random things I am not a fan of: Excessive cross-applications, not doing LBL, email/tech issues, making my decision harder than it should be, 2ACs and 1ARs that don't extend case impacts (even when they're dropped), new args and extrapolations in the rebuttals, late-breaking debates, and assuming I know topic acronyms and jargon.

T-USFG/FW:

Fairness is an impact----------x-------------------Fairness is only an internal link -- My threshold is usually how close your aff is to the topic in the abstract, i.e. clean energy and IP. In the end, I feel that the main goal of doing debate is to win. The activity serves many other purposes but at the end of each debate, one team wins, and one team loses. This doesn't mean that I think reading a planless aff is unfair and can be convinced that a "fair" debate produces something bad, but it's going to be very hard to convince me that debate is not a game.

Topic education is decent for an education impact but policymaking and policy education are meh. Critical thinking skills can also be extracted from debate and critical skills about calling out state action and for revolution planning.

If you don't read a written-out advocacy statement: Impact turn framework---------x---------------------------Procedural

Debate and life aren't synonymous but I understand that many of your lives revolve heavily around debate, so I will respect any arg you go for as long as you make smart arguments to support it.

Director of Forensics, Cal State Northridge

Email speech documents to lemuelj@gmail.com

Any other inquires should go to joel.lemuel@csun.edu

He/him pronouns

***********

A. Judging/Coaching History

- Over 19 years of experience judging/coaching competitive debate events; less experience with speech and individual events (5 years)

- Worked with students of all ages: elementary (MSPDP), middle school (MSPDP), high school (policy, LD, public forum), and college (NDT/CEDA, NFA-LD, NPDA, IPDA, CPFL)

B. General Philosophy

1. Do you thing! This activity should center the stylistic proclivities of students, not judges. Full stop. My academic background has taught me reasonable arguments come in a variety of forms, styles, and mediums. I've coached and judged a wide range of styles from very traditional (e.g. topicality, disads, cps, and case), critical (e.g. post-structural/modern/colonial theory), to very non-traditional (e.g. performative/identity/method debate). There are things I like and dislike about every style I've encountered. Do what you do and I'll do my best to keep up.

2. "Inside Baseball" Sucks. These days I mostly judge college policy and high school LD. That means I am unlikely to know most of the acronyms, anecdotes, inside references about other levels of debate and you should probably explain them in MUCH more detail than you would for the average judge.

C. Pedagogical/Competitive Points of Emphasis

1. Importance of Formal Evidence (i.e. "cards"). I once heard a judge tell another competitor, “a card no matter how bad will always beat an analytic no matter how good.” For the sake of civility I will refrain from using this person’s name, but I could not disagree more with this statement. Arguments are claims backed by reasons with support. The nature of appropriate support will depend on the nature of the reason and on the nature of the claim. To the extent that cards are valuable as forms of support in debate it’s because they lend the authority and credibility of an expert to an argument. But there are some arguments where technical expertise is irrelevant. One example might be the field of morality and ethics. If a debater makes a claim about the morality of assisted suicide backed by sound reasoning there is no a priori reason to prefer a card from an ethicist who argues the contrary. People reason in many different ways and arguments that might seem formally or technically valid might be perfectly reasonable in other settings. I generally prefer debates with a good amount of cards because they tend to correlate with research and that is something I think is valuable in and of itself. But all too often teams uses cards as a crutch to supplement the lack of sound reasoning. The takeaway is … If you need to choose between fully explaining yourself and reading a card always choose the former.

2. Burden of Persuasion vs. Burden of Rejoinder One of things that makes policy and LD debate (and perhaps public forum) a fairly unique activity from a policy/legal perspective is our emphasis on the burden of rejoinder. If one competitor says something then the opponent needs to answer it, otherwise the judge treats the argument as gospel. Debaters might think their judges aren't as attentive to the flow as they would like, but ask any litigator if trial judges care in the least whether the other attorney answered their arguments effectively. Emphasizing the burden of rejoinder is a way of respecting the voice and arguments of the students who spend their valuable time competing in this activity. But like everything else in debate there are affordances as well as constraints in emphasizing the burden of rejoinder. Personally, I think our activity has placed so much emphasis on the burden of rejoinder that we have lost almost all emphasis on the burden of persuasion. I can’t count the number of rounds I have participated in (as a debater and as a judge) where the vast majority of the claims made in the debate were absolutely implausible. The average politics disad is so contrived that it's laughable. Teams string together dozens of improbable internal link chains and treat them as if they were a cohesive whole. Truth be told, the probability of the average “big stick” advantage/disad is less than 1% and that’s just real talk. This practice is so ubiquitous because we place such a heavy emphasis on the burden of rejoinder. Fast teams read a disad that was never very probable to begin with and because the 2AC is not fast enough to poke holes in every layer of the disad the judge treats those internal links as conceded (and thus 100% probable). Somehow, through no work of their own the neg’s disad went from being a steaming pile of non-sense to a more or less perfectly reasonable description of reality. I don't think this norm serves our students very well. But it is so ingrained in the training of most debates and coaches (more so the coaches than the debaters actually) that it’s sustained by inertia. The takeaway is… that when i judge, I try (imperfectly to be sure) to balance my expectations that students meet both the burden of rejoinder and the burden of persuasion. Does this require judge intervention? Perhaps, to some degree, but isn't that what it means to “allow ones self to be persuaded?” To be clear, I do not think it is my job to be the sole arbiter of whether a claim was true or false, probable or unlikely, significant or insignificant. I do think about these things constantly though and i think it is both impossible and undesirable for me to ignore those thoughts in the moment of decision. It would behoove anyone I judge to take this into account and actively argue in favor of a particular balance between the burdens or rejoinder and persuasion in a particular round.

3. The Role of the Ballot/Purpose of the Activity/Non-Traditional Debate. The first thing I want to say isn’t actually a part of my philosophy on judging debates as much as it is an observation about debates I have watched and judged. I can’t count the number of rounds I have watched where a debater says something akin to, “Debate is fundamentally X,” or “the role of the ballot is X.” This is not a criticism. These debaters are astute and clearly understand that defining the nature and purpose of the activity is an extremely useful (often essential)tool for winning debates. That said, in truth, debate is both everything and nothing and the role of the ballot is multiple. Asserting the "purpose of debate" or "the role of the ballot" is essentially a meaningless utterance in my opinion. Arguing in favor "a particular purpose of debate” or “a particular role of the ballot” in a given round requires reasons and support. Policy debate could be conceived as a training ground for concerned citizens to learn how to feel and think about particular policies that could be enacted by their government. Policy debate could also be conceived as a space students to voice their dissatisfaction with the actions or inactions of the governments that claim to represent them through various forms of performance. Excellent debaters understand policy debate is a cultural resource filled with potential and possibility. Rather than stubbornly clinging to dogmatic axioms, these debaters take a measured approach that recognizes the affordances and constraints contained within competing visions of "the purpose of debate" or the "role of the ballot” and debate the issue like they would any other. The problem is assessing the affordances and constraints of different visions requires a sober assessment of what it is we do here. Most debaters are content to assert, “the most educational model of debate is X,” or the “most competitive model of debate is Y.” Both of these approaches miss the boat because they willfully ignore other aspects of the activity. Debates should probably be educational. What we learn and why is (like everything else) up for debate, but it’s hard to argue we shouldn’t be learning something from the activity. Fairness in a vacuum is a coin-flip and that’s hardly worth our time. On the other hand, probably isn’t a purely educational enterprise. Debate isn’t school. If it were students wouldn’t be so excited about doing debate work that they ignore their school work. The competitive aspects of the activity are important and can’t be ignored or disregarded lightly. How fair things have to be and which arguments teams are entitled to make are up for debate, but I think we need to respect some constraints lest we confuse all discourse for argument. The phrase “debate is a game/the content is irrelevant” probably won’t get you very far, but that’s because games are silly and unimportant by definition. But there are lots of contests that are very important were fairness is paramount (e.g. elections, academic publishing, trials). Rather than assert the same banal lines from recycled framework blocks, excellent debaters will try to draw analogies between policy debate and other activities that matter and where fairness is non-negotiable. So the takeaway is … I generally think the topic exists for a reason and the aff has to tie their advocacy to the topic, although I am open to arguments to the contrary. I tend to think of things in terms of options and alternatives. So even if topicality is a necessarily flawed system that privileges some voices over others, I tend to ask myself what the alternative to reading topicality would be. Comparison of impacts, alternatives, options, is always preferable to blanket statements like “T = genocidal” or “non-traditional aff’s are impossible to research.”

4. Theory Debates (i.e. Debates about Debate Itself) I have a relatively high threshold for theory arguments, but I am not one of those judges that thinks the neg teams gets to do whatever they want. You can win theory debates with me in the back, but it probably isn’t your best shot. As a general rule (though not universal) I think that if you didn’t have to do research for an argument, you don’t learn anything by running it. I have VERY high threshold for negative theory arguments that are not called topicality. It doesn’t mean I wont vote on these arguments if the aff teams makes huge errors, but a person going for one of these argument would look so silly that it would be hard to give them anything about a 28.

CARD format update:

this is my first year involved in the card format of debate. I do have extensive experience in policy debate (see below). I will adhere to the CARD judge framework found here: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.westerndebateunion.org/_files/ugd/158ec9_4535861d5d2c464ab2caa38f5b7cef8b.pdf

Policy debate paradigm:

Background
I debated at Kapaun Mt. Carmel Catholic High School in Wichita, KS for 4 years, one year at Weber State and 3 years at Kansas State University. I have been coaching for Oregon this year doing CARD debate. I do not have many rounds in policy this year but have a decent amount of familiarity with the topic. However, I have been out of policy since 2019 so my knowledge of what has changed since then is limited. I am a current law student so most of my time is spent on policy making these days but I do still have all my old K knowledge buried somewhere in my mind. Just don't assume I know all of the new ev that's come out since 2019.

*ONLINE DEBATE* I did zero coaching or judging online during covid so I am just now getting use to it. I have hearing issues so speed can be difficult for me to follow online sometimes so please slow down. I do still flow on paper so please give me pen time.

General Comments

I default to an offense/defense paradigm if I am not given another framework for the debate
I do ask that you add me to the email chain. leybasam@gmail.com


T/Theory/FW

Topicality - robust T debates are some of my favorite debates to judge.

Framework - Ive come around a bit on the framework debate and find myself more willing to vote on it than I did when I was competing. I think the best framework arguments are centered around policy education. I will vote on fairness but have a pretty high threshold for it.

Theory - love it. dont be blippy.

DA

Do your thing but be specific. Please tell a compelling link and impact story.

CP

I don't have any biases against specific CP's. Smart but abusive counterpleas are fun but be careful because my threshold for it losing to a theory arg is lower. Just be able to defend the theory behind said counterplan.

K

Most (if not all) of my college debate experience was in debating the K against a variety of arguments. These are the debates that I found myself enjoying the most in college, however, I really do love a good policy debate these days. I have not kept up on what has come out in the lit since spring 2019 so if you have some new hot fire to read, please make sure to explain it a bit more since my conceptualization of things like set col and afropess might be stuck in the old days.

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

Boring biographical information: Debated at UMKC & ESU (RIP to ESU, overjoyed UMKC has returned) 2002-2005 & 2008-2010. Assistant director at Emporia State 2012-2014, director of debate at Emporia state 2016-2023, current director at Johnson County Community College.

Clarity note:

It has become extremely apparent to me as my hearing loss has worsened that I benefit immensely from slower debates both in-person and online. However, this is especially true of online debates. I have discovered that I have a very hard time following extremely fast debates online. I'm not looking for conversational speed, but I do need a good 15-20% reduction in rate of delivery. If you can't or don't want to slow down, I would really prefer you don't pref me. I cannot stress enough how important for me it is for you to slow down.

I have tinnitus and hearing loss and both have gotten worse over the past few years. What this means for you is that I have a hard time getting tags and transitions when everything is the same volume and tone, so please try to make those portions of the debate clear. I also have an extremely hard time hearing the speech when people talk over it. If you're worried about this stuff, please just slow down and you'll be fine.

Here's the stuff I'm guessing you want to know about the most:

1. Please add me to the chain: dontputmeontheemailchain@gmail.com

2. I follow along with speech docs to help me make faster decisions. If you think clipping has occurred, bring it up because I'm not watching for that.

3. Yes, I will vote on framework. Yes, I will vote on impact turns to framework. Along these lines, Affs can have plans or not.

4. I love CP/DA debates. I'm generally open to most CPs too, except for conditions CPs. I really hate conditions CPs. I vote on them, but it's usually because no one knows what artificial competition is anymore. But, yes, please CPs. Veto cheato, con-con, national ref, consult, unilat, etc. But beware of...

5. Read more theory. Go for theory more. No one expects it. You win because of theory and sometimes you even win on theory.

6. Impact turns > Link turns

7. I think there's such thing as "no risk of a link."

8. I try really hard to vote on what happens in the debate, and not on what I know or think I know. I am generally very expressive, so you can often tell if I understand a thing or not. Along these lines, though, I often need help in the form of you explaining to me how to read a piece of evidence or what an argument means for other arguments in the debate.

9. All that said, please just do what you're good at and we'll all be fine.

Note about points: Unless I tell you in the post-round that you did something worth getting bad points for, my points aren't actually an attempt to punish you or send a message or anything like that. Historically I've given high points and I want to make sure I keep up with the community because points are arbitrary and silly so I don't want anyone to miss because I'm just out of touch or whatever.

I am an old-school CEDA/NDT style policy debater, but I started in CEDA before it went policy. I coached at UO for 7 years after 4 years of competition, and was Associate Director when I left the program in 2002 to complete my doctoral research in sociology. I also debated Cross-X and LDP in high school in Oregon in the 80's. I prefer a policy perspective, where presumption shifts away from whomever proposes a policy change. I am not particularly interested in procedural debates, although I will listen. I lean pretty far to the left politically, but I try to evaluate all issues as objectively as possible.

My Speech and Debate experience includes competing in Individual Events and CEDA debate as an undergraduate student at the Universiry of Oregon (1988-1992) coaching Debate at Willamette University while I was in Law School (1002-1995), and judging High School and College Speech & Debate as a parent of debaters at McMinnville High and University of Oregon.

I have been a trial lawyer for 30 years. I like clash, quality evidence from qualified sources, comparative analysis, and crystallization in last rebuttals. Don’t take anything for granted. You have to explain your arguments, why your evidence is compelling, and how the arguments weigh in the round. It’s your job to persuade me and communicate your positions in a way that is effective - that is how you will win my ballot. I don’t like whining, personal attacks, dominance, aggression, and disrespect. I do appreciate professionalism, kindness, and integrity.

Be smart and speak well.

2020 Update: I am no longer actively involved in the activity, other than judging a few tournaments a year, so my threshold for speed is going to be lower than it has in the past as a result of being rusty at flowing. If you are particularly fast, I would recommend starting at about 75% speed.

Experience: 4 years policy debate at Tualatin High School, 4 years NPDA/NPTE experience at the University of Oregon. 3 years high school coaching experience at Thurston High School.

Quick in prep version: In general I am down with just about anything, however I would much rather hear a good disad than some only tag lines and a bad alternative kritik. Theory was my jam when I was debating, so if you want to read it go ahead, however, I’m not going to vote for you just because you read it, while my threshold is probably lower than most judges I like to pretend I’m not a hack .

Longer (probably unnecessary) version

General Overveiw:

My ideal debate is a strategic topical aff v some CPs and a DA or a topic K. That being said, I tend to be down with anything you want to read in front of me, I believe that it is my job to adapt to you and the arguments you want to read not your job to adapt to me. I am not going to tell you what to or not to read in front of me or reject your arguments on face. I tend to prefer more technical debates where you explain to me how all of the relevant arguments interact at the end of the round over just extending them and making me try to figure it out myself at the end. I want to be able to write my RFD at the end of the round by sticking as much as possible to the flow without having to insert my own analysis, this means I want you to write my RFD for me, tell me why I should vote a particular way at the end of the round.

Impact framing is a lost art, it’s not helpful to just inform me that both teams do, in fact, have impacts. I want to hear how I should evaluate those impacts against each other, ie. Do I care more about fairness or education on the theory flow, is timeframe or magnitude more important, can I even evaluate arguments rooted in some kind of epistemology?

More specific stuff:

Theory/ T : I read a lot of theory when I was debating so I am pretty much able to follow what is going on in complex theory debates, although I would prefer that you slow down a bit when spreading theory since it is more condensed and harder to flow. I evaluate theory just like any other argument, which means I am probably more likley to vote on it than most judges if you go for it correctly. In order to win theory in front of me you are going to need to impact it out and explain what it means for the round. (IE just because they dropped your Consult CP's are illegit argument doesn't mean you insta-win if you don't give me some reason why that theory argument results in a ballot, not just me dropping the CP). I find myself voting a lot this year on teams forgetting to read a counter interp. If I am judging in a competing interps paradigm, which is usually how these things shake out, and there is not either an interp or a counter-interp that you meet I will vote against you regardless of the rest of the flow, as there is not an interp for me to stick your offense to. I think that this is a pretty common way of evaluating theory but I feel it is worth flagging explicitly in my philosophy given that I find myself voting on this a lot.

Framework : Framework was my go-to when debating the K aff. That doesn’t mean that you necessarily shouldn’t or can’t read a K aff in front of me, just be aware than I’m not going to be one of those judges that just ignores the argument for some vague political reason.

K affs : I would prefer that if you are going to read an aff that isn’t topical that you have some good justification for doing so, I am not really interested in your “I read a cool book and here is my book report” project.

Ks : I am down with the K, however there are some recent trends in the kritik that I feel need some addressing here. First, Marx was my bread and butter and I am fairly deep in that literature, but outside of that and maybe Heidegger you should not assume that I am incredibly well read in your lit base. That doesn’t mean that you can’t read your K in front of me, it just means that you are going to need to do some more explaining. Second, there has been a tendency of K’s becoming just a list of tag lines, that then get extended as arguments later in the debate. If your K sounds like this I am probably going to give the other team a lot more leeway in reading new arguments when your K finally becomes something in the block.

CP/ DA : Ayyyyyyyyy

they/them

uwyo 17-21 (go pokes!)

former GA for MO State (iyk yk)

jaxonp2241@gmail.com

-- experience --

• 3 years HS PF
• 1 year HS LD
• 4 years College Policy
• 1 year CPD GA

-- tldr / this person is judging me in 10 minutes what do i need to know asap --

debate should be an activity that is engaging for a wide variety of individuals in a wide variety of contexts. if i'm judging you i'll do all that i can to make the round educational, fun, and safe for all folks involved. i will not condone exclusionary tendencies and practices such as, but not limited to, ableist, racist, sexist, or otherwise derogatory language and/or practices.

i will do my absolute best to adapt to each round. understandably i may not be the right judge for you so i encourage you to read through my paradigm proper (below) to ascertain a better sense of how i will evaluate rounds and determine if i'm a good fit.

if you see my little fur baby on camera (if online debate) - that's Rocko - you should follow his IG (@rockoroni)

-- paradigm proper --

- K -

i love k debate. imo k debate holds the potential to produce more nuanced understandings of ourselves, others, and our relationships to the sociomaterial world which are especially important in producing portable skills to challenge conditions of marginalization. i have a base knowledge of most critical literature - most well versed w/ set-col, cap, puar, orientalism

1. k affs everyday all day <3 - performance is fun, should be accessible. clear impacts at the end of case are key to garnering a W. i'm more compelled by affs in the direction of the topic and think totally non-topical affs have a larger uphill battle in fw debates. k affs not tied to the res can win in front of me but you'll need to invest more time impacting out reasons justifying the 1ac.

2. i'll definitely vote on t/fw (more in t/fw section).

3. k. v k. debate - favorite debates easy. affs probably get perms in most cases but i can be compelled by clear, impacted arguments against them. method comparison is essential - DAs to opponents method are large voters on my flow. when evaluating these rounds i look to the clash of methods and evaluate which theory of power best resolves the violence either team isolates in the round. the negative must establish a clear link to their critique that isn't a link of omission. you should focus engagement on the link and alternative debate because it gives me the best instruction as far as which impacts outweigh/turn

4. alt - well developed methods, comparison to aff plan

5. links - links of omission aren't compelling but are enough if not responded to. link stories should be clear and extended throughout the entirety of the debate avoiding tagline extensions. most compelled by links that directly indict aff ev/authors.

6. i will vote on a heg da v a k aff

- pics / piks -

1. matt liu put a soft spot for pics / piks in my heart

2. pic / pik theory is pretty interesting and i'm honestly not sure where i fall in terms of what i personally believe. compelling argumentation on both sides is key to convince me why/why not to vote for the pic / pik

- cp -

1. go for it - less familiar w/ cps in a competitive sense

2. i don't love theory debates and prefer other strats but i'll vote on it

3. perms are good, encourage an emphasis on developing the narrative of how the perm operates

4. read contradictory off-cases if you want but it doesn't take much to sell me on condo (mostly because i feel like it's not responded to well by the affirmative)

5. impacts

- da -

1. go for it - less familiar w/ das in a competitive sense

2. develop a clear link & uq story in the block

3. go ham on da o/w and turns case - be creative and get funky

4. read contradictory off-cases if you want but it doesn't take much to sell me on condo (mostly because i feel like it's not responded to well by the affirmative)

5. impacts

- t -

1. reasonability can beat t but you've got to impact it out

2. i prefer overlimit args

3. grounds/limits are the biggest voting issue on t bc i consider them a pre req to fairness, education, argumentative/potable skills etc.

- fw -

1. i love k debate a lot but will absolutely vote on fw and consider it a decent and relevant strategy (so no need to strike me but do ya thang)

2. fw w/o case engagement will probably not get my ballot. you need to have offensive reasons against the 1ac you're debating in the round i am judging

3. i prefer clash debates on fw. i think this is the most effective method to counter a non-traditional aff through impact turns and production of offense

4. i don't think fairness is an impact independently. it's best framed as an internal link to impacts like clash, education, argumentative/portable skills etc.

5. TVAs are probably necessary

6. reading a da against fw can be a useful strategy if effectively leveraged.

- case -

1. case debates are fun and can be compelling. giving a 2nr on case offense will be rewarded.

2. i'll consider voting on presumption but need the argument explained and impacted out - just saying "vote neg/aff on presumption" doesn't get there for me

3. impact defense isn't gonna win the case flow, turns make these args more offensive but i'm unlikely to vote on an impact turn independently.

- speaks -

1. speaks are subjective af, i'm a point fairy

2. be clear, speed's cool too but not be all end all

3. be confident, not aggressive

4. if you can make me laugh i'll probably give you pretty good speaks

5. unresolved / unacknowledged problematic behavior = zero speaks

-- anything else --

1. i will not vote on arguments that say the suffering of a group of people is good.

2. i will vote on spark/nuke mal if done in a compelling manner.

Debate for Weber State University: 2020 - 2024

I did policy debate for the first two and card for the last two. Only ran k debates in policy, and did some in card debate.

I have been debating for 10 years now and have judged policy debates for high school 2021 - 2022

Overall, I want this to be an enjoyable debate for all parties involved and I believe that for that to happen is for both teams to show understanding in the topic, engage with each other, but mostly engage with me. Do what you need to feel the most comfortable and just do you!

In the end, I want both teams at the end of their rebuttals to have walked me through what each world look like and compare both worlds against each other. This will help to remind how the whole debate is going, what arguments were brought up during the debate, and how I should cast my ballot.

**Kritics:**
I love kritics and have consistently run them throughout my four years of college debate, particularly in the realms of feminist/queer theory, afropessimism, and race theory. When debating kritics, I want to be clearly walked through how the K relates to the topic and why the alternative matters. It's essential that the neg demonstrates a clear link to the aff and explains why we should prefer the K’s route. Show me not only how the K engages with the topic but also why it provides a better lens for approaching it.

**Role of the Ballot:**
I believe the role of the ballot is to support the side that demonstrates a greater impact, makes a significant change, and shows the best understanding and defense of their arguments. It's not enough to assert your claims—show me you fully grasp them. The team that can explain their arguments in depth and demonstrate control of the narrative will earn my trust and likely my vote.

**Aff vs. K:**
I want the affirmative to engage with the K, instead of defaulting to a framework-heavy debate. A debate where both sides are actually weighing impacts is much more compelling to me than one where they are just defending their frameworks. Mutual engagement with substance and impacts makes for a better debate, and I’ll be more persuaded by nuanced clash than rigid, framework-driven exchanges.

**Non-Traditional Debates:**
I’m open to non-traditional debates, even though I haven’t judged many of them. I did some non-traditional debates during my first year in policy, so I appreciate creative approaches like poems or dances. However, it’s crucial that the team using these methods walks me through how their performance links to the topic and how their opponent should engage with it. I expect both teams to clarify the role of the ballot in these debates and explain how I should weigh the impacts, especially given that non-traditional methods won’t always rely on card-based evidence.

**Framework vs. Non-Traditional Debates:**
In these cases, I expect a debate that still touches on substance. Both teams need to clarify their positions on topicality or methodology, and both should work toward a clear articulation of what the role of the ballot should be. I am not persuaded that the aff must always defend a traditional framework (e.g., a policy mechanism like the USFG), but there must be some way for the neg to fairly engage the aff's claims.

**Topicality:**
If topicality becomes the focal point of the debate, I need both teams to walk me through why it became an issue and how I should assess it. Be clear on how you frame the topic, and make sure I understand how it links back to the larger debate, especially in relation to the role of the ballot.

**Counterplans:**
I love counterplans and am inclined to vote for them when they can effectively demonstrate that they fix something the aff overlooks or does poorly. I need to see strong comparisons and evidence that the counterplan world is preferable to the aff’s, particularly in terms of impacts.

**Disads:**
Disadvantages are compelling, but I need to see them fully developed. If a disad is under-explained or not linked properly, I won’t find it persuasive. Be sure to provide clear impact weighing and show me how the disad should shift my view of the aff’s case.

I'll try to let the debaters drive the debate, be a friendly soundboard for you all to do some learning and growing. If you want me to do something, say so and I'll try to do it.

Personally I'm an early/mid 1990s CEDA guy, debated at Oregon & Alaska, and grew up in Spokane around the Zaga program. I've worked as an environmental attorney and activist most of my grownup life. So the craft of debate (rhetoric, communication, logic) is near and dear to my heart. I've been loving CARD debate, and am excited to see this new format taking shape. You all are building something here that is unique and valuable.

My favorite rounds see two teams meet one another with a strong clash of good ideas-- where people seem to care in some way about what they are saying, and everyone goes away at least a tiny bit smarter and closer to truth than we were before. I love it when someone has something they passionately want to communicate. And also when teams are authentically struggling to discover the truth about things, or the pure learning of how to stand up and deliver a persuasive argument.

Curiosity and openness tend to be more impressive to me than zealous advocacy.

I tend to appreciate arguments with connections with real lived life, versus those that are merely clever, or some kind of performative righteousness. Reality over ideas. In that vein, USE EVIDENCE. Engage with the research. I haven't read your packet at all. Educate me and I'll be impressed.

Clarity goes a long way. Good communication. I value all that old-school rhetoric stuff-- things like eye contact, primacy and recency, repetition, numbered organization, clear taglines, following the agreed formal rules (like time limits, speaking order, the topic), standing up, body language, that sort of thing. I don't want roadmaps or files sent. But I do like for speakers to organize things for me.

he/him

jacksonspecker@gmail.com yes please include me in your email chain.

Debate is a game, have fun playing.

History with Debate:

Debated 3 years at Kearney High School (MO) (2010 - 2013) doing PF

Debated at Missouri state for 2 years (2015/16 and 2016/17) doing NDT/CEDA and NFA LD.

Graduate assistant coach at Northern Iowa for 2 years (2017/18 and 2018/19).

Current part time assistant coach at Johnson County Community College.

Full time I work in the public sector, updating welfare (Medicare, Medicaid, Food Assistance, ETC..) systems to accommodate policy changes.

Quick Thoughts:

1. I feel like it is my job as a judge to not let my thoughts influence my decision of who did the better debating. However, It will inevitably happen. So you do what you do best and I will try my best as a judge. What I am really saying is I am not an argument processing machine, mistakes will happen.

2. You should debate as if I have little background and experience in the area you are talking about. It seems that it would serve anyone best to take the time and develop clear and well-constructed warrants. This will limit my ability to misunderstand your argument.

3. In my experience, people can take this activity too seriously. Humor will be rewarded.

4. Specificity is good, will be preferred over general claims/arguments.

5. Read Arguments that you enjoy. If you enjoy them I will probably enjoy them more as a judge.

6. I tend to find myself more in line with the tech>truth.

7. One conditional position for the neg is not abusive I will never process this as a reason to reject the team.

8. In T debates I generally think limits are good. Standards should be a way to explain how the debate space should divide the topic, I don't care about "in-round abuse"

9. I am not a big fan of debaters quoting my paradigm in round. This is not a contract, just the current state of my debate thoughts. Those thoughts can change.

10. I do not like any form of speed bad arguments, this is not to say that I understand everything perfectly there is a limit to what I can understand in terms of speed. I don't think I understand how an interp on this can work.

11. I flow straight down on each page.

12. I prefer you call me by name rather than 'judge'

13. If you call the politics DA the "tix da" ill drop your speaks.

14. Email chains are far superior to speechdrop, being quick and effective at emails is one of the most real world skills debate can offer

15. typically I have the speech doc and my flow both on my laptop, I strongly prefer that people use the condense feature on verbatim so I'm not scrolling through your evidence for too long

How I approach my decision

At the end of the debate I ask one questions before I start looking at the my flows. "Can I explain my decision to my friends?" This means that I have to have a decent grasp of what you are advocating for, so if it is high theory, I think that your final speech might be the most effective at winning my ballot if you have good overviews at the top of the speech. The longer time I spend outside and away from the classroom, the more I forget about how some of these theoretical positions function. I enjoy my time in debate but I also enjoy my time outside debate and can't spend the time to keep up with all these different arguments. From this point I will start to look at flows and evaluate the warrants and evidence of the relevant args in the round. Then once I have a more nuanced view of how these warrants are interacting I will start to think of the 'two worlds' that are possible in the round and evaluate the consequences of each team. After all of that I should be able to come to a decision.

Quick overview of my thoughts on speaker points

I think I am on the lower end of speaks, I will be evaluating after the 2023/2024 season to bring this more in line with what the majority of people's speaks might look like.

Novice round? I give speaker points in a novice round on their own scale relative to other novices.

JV round? I give speaker points on the same scale as I evaluate open debate. This means if you are in JV typically I feel that I am around the 28.25 as statistical median.

Open Round? I think that 28.5 is the number that represents an "average" debater. someone who I think would go 3-3 at a regional tournament. 28.8 is probably someone who clears at regional tournament. 29.1 is someone who can clear at a national tournament. 29.5 is someone who is advancing deep into elimination rounds at a national tournament. Anything about that is amazing. I don't think a 30/30 exists.

Debate Scales

The following format is stolen from Jeff Buntin (Northwestern)

Feelings-------------------------------------X-----Dead inside

Policy------------X---------------------------------K

Read no cards-----------------------X------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good---X---------------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good----------------X------------------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-------X----------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most---------------X-----------------Link matters most

Try or die--------------X---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Clarity X---------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits------------X----------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption-----------------------------X---------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev--------------X---------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"------------------X-----I only read what you read

Fiat solves circumvention-----X-------------------LOL trump messes w/ ur aff

CX about impacts-------------------------------X-CX about links and solvency

AT: -------------------------------------------------X------- A2:

While I have your attention

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.

symonds77@gmail.com

I'm judging more often and tabbing less these days, so I thought it was fair to have a little substance here. Anyway, this is how I judge:

(1) I have the speech doc open and I'm following along as you're reading cards

(2) I'm only ever listening to the speaker(s), I think it's really important not to be messing around with electronic media while judging.

(3) I'm constantly judging argument quality throughout the debate, so when the 2AR ends, 90% of the time I'm fairly certain who I am going to vote for. What time I spend looking over my flow and the evidence is used to think through the most likely questions from the losing team, to see if there's something that I might have missed.

(4) My general decision making process starts with impact calculus and impact comparison. If one side is decisively ahead here, this often controls my vote. 2NR and 2AR work here is vital.

(5) To decide key points of controversy in the debate, I identify each one from the final rebuttals, list them in the AFF or NEG column, then find the arguments from the responding team and line them up. Once I think the lists are complete, I choose which side persuaded me on each one.

(6) While I work hard to keep my (long list of) debate opinions out of debate in deference to the specific ways debaters make their arguments, I think it's only fair to list some of my abstract debate leanings so that you have more context/information:

--Everyone reading an aff related to the topic IS ideal for fairness, education, and research-based reasons, but simply listing off these buzzwords is not going to persuade me. And "related to the topic" is really case by case.
--On framework, education is more important than procedural claims - I regularly vote aff against framework bc the neg is overly fixated on "procedural fairness outweighs"
--Topical Versions of the Aff and Switch-Side debate arguments function like CPs that access AFF education and preserve fairness
--States CP is illegit bc it eliminates the literature-based debate over FG vs States
--CPs ought to be textually and functionally competitive
--Alts succeed by being deliberately vague and shifting later in the debate - especially "reject the aff" alts
--"Realism good" indicts virtually all affs on the Space Cooperation topic
--Both truth and techne matter

riley.rosalie@gmail.com ; 7 years of policy debate experience

University of Wyoming '21 | Current MPA Student at the University of Washington '26

Debate Coach at Weber State University

Over the last few years of judging policy and CARD, I find myself being a big picture type judge. While I still believe that a dropped argument is true and I can follow tricky framing arguments on the flow, debaters need to provide clear judge direction in the rebuttals on what those arguments mean and how I should deal with them at the end of the round. I am most persuaded by teams that go for fewer arguments in the rebuttals, spend time impacting/fleshing them out, and telling me how it implicates the rest of the debate.

Impacts need to be fleshed out in the final speeches. I need to know what is triggering the impact, where some war is happening, why it's uniquely coming now, etc. I find myself voting for teams that spend a lot of time in the final rebuttal giving me specific details on their impacts, how they can be avoided, and doing impact comparison with the other team. Same goes for more structural impacts. Use your evidence! The details are there but they need to be brought into your analysis.

Case engagement is one of my favorite aspects of debate. I find the block not spending as much time on case, and it makes the debate a lot closer than it should be. If you read one off vs. a policy aff, reading impact defense, solvency take outs, and evidence indicts to these policy teams will go far in front of me. If you are aff, I am persuaded by teams that know their ev in/out and consistently talk about their aff (thorough impact explanations/comparison, drawing me a picture of what the aff world looks like, talking about the aff on other sheets, etc).

If you want me to vote on a role of the ballot/judge, there needs to be clear weighing and impact extension as to why this plays an important role in the debate. Evidence comparison and indicts are also great weighing mechanisms that I find are underutilized.

For kritiks v. policy affs, I prefer teams that give extensive analysis of their evidence and provide specific examples to contextualize their link with the aff, rather than dumping a bunch of cards or shadow extend arguments. If you read psychoanalysis or other high theory, I am going to need a lot of explanation on some basic concepts so please keep this in mind.

With counterplans, I default to judge kick unless told otherwise.

If you want to have some fun with what you read, I am all for it! I love impact turns including nuclear war good, untraditional styles where you’re playing games instead of debating with speech times, etc. – so long as there is a metric for how I as the judge evaluate the debate I am here for it.