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

This year (2024-2025), I am working as a licensed clinical psychologist in Seattle, WA, in a community health center providing low cost/free services primarily to teenagers, I specialize in psychopharmacology and treating trauma. 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. Across both high school and college, I have judged at least 3 tournaments a year since graduating undergrad 13 years ago. 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.

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.

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, traumatized, 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.

Pronouns - him/he\they
Email(s) - abraham.corrigan@gmail.com, catspathat@gmail.com

Hello!

Thank you for considering me for your debate adjudication needs! Judging is one of my favorite things & I aspire to be the judge I wanted when I debated, namely one who was flexible and would judge the debate based on arguments made by debaters. To do that, I seek to be familiar with all debate arguments and literature bases such that my own ignorance will not be a barrier to judging the arguments you want to go for. This is an ongoing process and aspiration for me rather than an end point, but in general I would say you should probably pref me.

I'm fun!

Sometimes I even have snacks.

<*Judging Quirks*>

- I have absolutely zero poker face and will make a lot of non verbals. Please do not interpret these as concrete/100% definitive opinions of mine but rather as an expression of my initial attempts to place your argument within the particular context of the other arguments advanced in a debate.

- All arguments are evaluated within their particular context - Especially on the negative, as a debater in high school and college I went for and won a lot of debates on arguments which would be described, in a vacuum, as 'bad.' Sometimes, all you have to say is a turd and your rebuttal speeches will largely be what some of my judges described as 'turd-shinning.' This means (unless something extreme is happening which is unethical or triggering my mandatory reporter status as a public school employee) I generally prefer to let the arguments advanced in the debate dictate my view of what is and what isn't a 'good' argument.

- I am not a 'k' or 'policy' judge. I just like debate.

<*My Debate History*>

I am a 2a. This means, if left to my own devices and not instructed not to look for this, the thing that I will implicitly try to do is identify a way to leave stuff better than we found it.

High School

- I debated at H-F HS, in Illinois, for my first two years of debate where I was coached by creeps.

- My junior & senior year in HS I transfered to Glenbrook South where I was coached most by Tara Tate (now retired from debate), Calum Matheson (now at Pitt), & Ravi Shankar (former NU debater).

My partner and I largely went for agenda politics da & process cps or impact turns. We were a bit k curious, but mostly read what would be described as 'policy' arguments.

College

- I debated in college for 4 years at Gonzaga where I was coached by Glen Frappier (still DoF at GU), Steve Pointer (now [mostly] retired from debate), Jeff Buntin (current DoD at NU), Iz-ak Dunn (currently at ASU), & Charles Olney (now [mostly] retired from debate).

My partner and I largely went for what is now be described as 'soft left' arguments on the affirmative and impact turns and unusual counterplans when we were negative.

Coaching

- After graduating, I coached at Northwestern University for a year. My assignments were largely 2ac answers & stuff related to translating high theory arguments made by other teams into things our less k debaters could understand.

- I then moved to Lexington, Kentucky and coached at the University of Kentucky for two years. My assignments were largely aff & all things 2a & answering k stuff on the negative.

- I then coached/did comm graduate work at Wake Forest for two years.

- I then took a break from debate and worked as a paralegal at a law firm which was focused on civil lawsuits against police, prisons, whistleblower protections as well as doing FOIA requests for Buzzfeed.

- I then came back to debate, did some logistics for UK, then worked as an in building assistant coach at GBS.

- I am currently seeking my Masters Degree in teaching.

Travis Cram

Director of Debate, Western Washington University

Years Judging: several

Email chain/contact: traviscram@gmail.com

My background is in policy debate, but I have been most involved the past 6 years through developing CARD (https://www.westerndebateunion.org/pnwdebate). I do not often judge debates these days, but every now and then I have the chance. Here are things about my approach that I think are significant:

1. I flow closely, and I think you should too.
2. I work hard to keep an open mind about the issues and arguments that are offered throughout a debate. I believe my purpose is to consider how effective you were at communicatingandarguingrather than evaluating the actual, empirical truth of a statement. At the same time, that purpose often asks me to consider how effective you were in convincing me that your argumentative content istrue or desirable. I will inevitably, as is true for everyone, have to resort to my own filters and experiences in making those assessments. However, I will always work to keep what was said or argued in a debate in focus as I decide and critique.
3. I provide post-round feedback that seeks to provide instruction and lessons for future debates, rather than reporting the (dry) details of how I decided this debate. I thus often discuss better paths taken, or ask you to think about how arguments, evidence, or perspectives interact in a larger sense. If you want more detailed explanations for how I resolved minutiae on the flow, please ask. I find my time is better spent providing future-thinking advice (my training in education tells me it is also in your interest), and so that is how I will couch my feedback.
4. Debate is about communication. It is also about research, advance preparation, and strategy. However, there is not a day I wake up where I am not going to be mostly concerned with the communicative, rhetorical, and argumentative elements of debate. The values and standards of communication may vary based on the format and participants, and I will work to meet participants (and the format) where they are at. However, I hold the expectation that the primary purpose behind debate is to learn how to communicate and argue well, particularly through oral communication.
5. The affirmative has the burden to prove a comprehensive case for change, and everyone has the burden to prove any single individual argument offered by them. The debate should focus on the topic, with the affirmative endorsing it. I do not provide a deeper theory beyond that. It is your debate; I expect you to provide those things. They are known as arguments.

There are a few things that I am increasingly not willing to compromise on. Those are important to know as well:

1. Value people.I believe you should show everyone who participates a basic level of respect even as you work through serious disagreements with them. Everyone has an obligation to promote community, or at the very least not actively undermine it.
2. Value debate, especially at the collegiate level. A considerable amount of resources are constantly expended to create the opportunity for people to debate. Seize and honor the opportunity, regardless of your goal or experience level.

I am happy to answer questions for those who ask in good faith.

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

Background

- Assistant debate coach and communications instructor at Western Washington University

- Primary debate experience in CARD and Oxford

- Limited experience judging PF and coaching LD

Community, Advocacy, Research Debate (CARD)

Role of judge: My role is to facilitate. While I will default to what I am told in round for decision-making, my speaker scores and feedback will reflect my interest in supporting the most educational and effective argumentation strategies and community. These determinations are informed by CARD norms and my opinions about the following.

Evidence: I emphasize an evidence-based approach to debate, and I believe that part of my role as judge in a format that does as well is to weigh the evidence. I think that it is the responsibility of any team to counter evidence to win, but I am liable to dock points on evidence and analysis for use of generic evidence or lack of defense on 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. In a closed-evidence format, you can also reference the topic library to discuss external consistency or ground on either side. I read all of the articles, and I will read your cards.

Kritiks: I think that Ks are underutilized and under-respected in this format. Ks are important arguments that challenge fundamental assumptions we make about the status quo. The fact that the AFF advocates for a concrete policy is not a solvency deficit argument, nor does it make it more significant than a systemic argument. Flesh out arguments just as you would for a disadvantage. I will also vote on reject alts without a counter framework.

Conditionality: The NEG can advocate for both the status quo and a counterplan, as well as make strategic decisions to kick the counterplan. However, positions should be fully developed. CARD emphasizes quality over quantity, which is an approach that makes for stronger arguments.

Organization: I flow the round. Please provide a roadmap and signpost for clarity. Disorganization hampers everyone’s ability to navigate the round.

Theory: I support CARD norms, but I believe that it is the responsibility of opposing teams to challenge norms violations. That being said, simply stating that a practice is in violation of CARD norms is not sufficient. Explain why that is important for not only fairness and education for debate, but for the specific format. Without that analysis, I think those kinds of arguments are supremely bad for education because they ask to reject parts of participation and assume that the rules are good without justification. I will vote on theory, and I also think that theory is underutilized when it could influence a developing format.

Out-of-packet evidence: Besides any exclusionary behavior, this is the only rule violation that I have and can think of adjudicating without opposition from the other team. I will disregard any argument using out-of-packet evidence. I think that the closed-evidence packet is one of the most basic features that positively distinguishes CARD and provides for better debates using better evidence. I will drop a team if the evidence violations are pervasive.

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

Public speaking practices: I strongly value substance over style and the fact that debate emphasizes that as well. However, given that CARD is designed to be a more public-oriented debate format, and given the influence of public speaking norms, it is a missed opportunity to not practice those skills in round. Unfortunately, debate will not change the fact that general audiences highly value presentation to the point of weighing style over substance. A debate round is an occasion where you are presenting, should stand if you are able, and should speak to your audience directly.

Speaker credibility: There are basic expectations for format knowledge and adaptation, as well as preparation. It is okay to make mistakes, but not learning the basic structure of the format or carrying in drastically different norms from other events to me severely undermines your speaker credibility and demonstrates a lack of respect for the activity and those involved. These are characteristics that are important in any other kind of public communication activity. Additionally, I will not consider anything you say during your partner's speech or cross examination because that is their designated time to perform for the team. As a student, a competitor, and an advocate in training, you should communicate with your coaches and teammates about the work you are doing before a competition.

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; and I have judged in CARD debate for the past few seasons. Bottom line with me is do what you do best and what you enjoy most.

CARD Specifically

I mainly judge CARD debates now so while the stuff below still applies, I figured I'd add some additional ways I view my role as a judge in this format. Beyond deciding who I think won a debate round, the main ways I have to evaluate competitors is in Evidence & Analysis, Advocacy, and Community - so here's a quick synopsis of how I evaluate these categories.

For the Evidence & Analysis category, I approach my evaluation of this area based on competitors ability to effectively communicate the meaning and importance of their evidence utilized from the library/evidence packet, as if I was completely unfamiliar with the literature base and the content of the evidence. As someone who has not been a competitor or a coach on a team for a while now, I don't keep up with reading the same kinds of content I used to when I competed myself and I have found myself gravitating toward a desire to see debater's effectively communicate the content, warrants, and comparisons of the evidence used in the debate as if I was unfamiliar with it (unlike competitors and coaches in this event). I also think this is a valuable skill for future public speaking in non-debate contexts. Beyond this, I also believe warrant comparison, source credibility comparison, and other engagements with the substance of your opponents evidence is an important aspect of the analysis component of this category of evaluation.

For the Advocacy category, I find myself thinking of more "traditional" thinks I expect out of good advocacy and persuasion in debate rounds. The things I think about here are more "framework" arguments that explain what matters most in the debate round for me to evaluate, why that is, etc. Along with setting up the "framing" issues in the debate, I also think things like impact weighing and comparison, "even if..." analysis (conceding that aspects of your opponents arguments may be correct, but even if they are why you still are in control of the argument), and other elements of rebuttal speeches that move away from an evidence focus and more toward a narrative/big picture focus.

I think in some ways the Community category of evaluation is the most subjective of the categories. In a general view, I believe that showing up and doing your role in a "normal" or "standard" debate round and just going through the flow of it is an "average" (read as 'as expected') level of community engagement which on the newer 10 point scale, I view as a 7 (or "C" for letter grade consistency). I think there are always opportunity to earn more, or less points, in this category. For example, if someone is rude, arrogant, etc. (or worse things such as in round racism, sexism, or other discriminatory/hostile remarks) then that could be a scenario where I award less. I think its harder to list things that I think "deserve" more points, probably because I view that those who enhance the community aspect of the format exhibit behavior/interactions/presence that is a "you know it when you see/hear it" situation. That being said, things I do hope to see in rounds are engagement with your opponents as more than just competitors, maintaining respect and kindness in your interactions with one another, and creating a space where your relationships transcend the competitive space of a debate round. As a online judge it is harder for me to evaluate things such as pre-round or post-round engagement between you all because as I'm filling out my ballot and speaker form evaluations after the round finishes, I often mute my speakers so I can focus on writing my RFD and ballot feedback. So I know that is often a time and space when you all can do those things, but because of my position as a remote online judge, I feel like I can't evaluate those instances as fairly as if I was in person. So adapt based on that as you will.

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.

I’ve been coaching debate of all varieties for over 20 years now. I love this activity, and believe it teaches some important and useful skills.

What you want to know:

1. Speed is fine. Be clear.

2. Disclosure is preferable at circuit tournaments (I’m less concerned about it locally).

3. Progressive arguments, in general, are good by me. Some caveats:

A. I generally prefer to vote on substantive issues over procedural ones. My threshold for theory is fairly strict, and the abuse has to be pretty clear.
B. Tricks aren’t cute. They’re intellectually dishonest bad faith arguments that I think are bad for debate. Run them if you must, but I’m generally disinclined to reward them.
C. Kritiks based on identity arguments (fem rage/trans rage/etc.) are relevant and important, but if you do not identify with the positionality upon which the kritik is based, and are running the argument solely for its strategic value, you are doing a really bad thing by co-opting a discourse to which you have no right or claim, and commodifying it for wins. Do better.

4. Good impact analysis is important to me, explain clearly why you should win. Tell me the story you want me to believe.

5. Don’t tell lies. Bad debate math counts as lies. I’m happy to evaluate all arguments, but lies are not arguments. There isn’t room in this activity for intellectual dishonesty.

6. Have fun, be kind and generous and charitable. This is a really rewarding game, even when you take an L. Enjoy it, and help others enjoy it too.

Edit for 2024: This above considerations were written largely to apply to my approach to high school LD debate. I believe these things in general for all debate, but ask me if you have questions about specifics at a tournament. Thank you!

Update for CARD:

A lot of the same things as above apply to how I approach CARD. I really enjoy the nature of CARD, and believe strongly in its philosophy of academic discourse and community building. The ideal round of CARD, for me, would see two teams engaging the literature in a thorough and meaningful fashion, which means I'm looking for good evidence comparison work --why, perhaps, I should believe the warrants in the evidence being produced by one team, over that of the other. Debate is much more a game of listening than one of speaking, and so I'm looking for you to be listening to your opponents arguments, and engaging them on the line-by-line debate to do that kind of quality evidence comparison that the format calls for. Ultimately, I will be evaluating the round on who does the more effective job of convincing me on the merits or risks of the proposed advocacy. One of the nice things about a limited library of evidence is that it tends to curb some of the more ridiculous catastrophizing that can happen in other forms of debate, and concerns like probability and timeframe often become more important than assessing which version of existential doom seems bigger. Take some time when you're doing evidence comparison and impact analysis work to consider which outcomes might be more likely, or might happen quicker, and how that might impact whether a particular proposal will save us from what appears increasingly to be a very dark fate at the hands of anthropogenic climate change.

And above all, number 6 above applies strongly here. Have fun. Be kind, generous, and charitable to your opponent's arguments. Treat them with the same respect and dignity you feel that you deserve. Building community happens in round, as much as out of round. I notice when a question in cross-ex seems snarky or condescending. So do the people who are being asked such questions. Approach these debates in good faith, and with an aim to make this community a welcoming place that doesn't chase people off when they don't live up to some arbitrary standard of 'good,' or when they aren't part of the 'in group.' - My favorite thing about CARD is that I see this kind of behavior very rarely, so maybe none of this needs to be said explicitly here. But I will say it anyway as a word of encouragement to everyone who I've seen step up to make this event so enjoyable and welcoming.

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, high school c-x), and have coached and judged even more (CEDA/NDT, NPDA/NPTE, Worlds/BP, CARD, high school c-x, and some speaking events-- specific judging issues relative to individual formats can be found at the bottom). In addition to 25+ years of coaching debate in various formats, I am also a faculty member teaching courses in both the Communication Studies and Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies departments, including debate, argument theory, dialogue and advocacy around issues of ADEI, small group communication, and civic engagement, and I have been heavily involved in community service/organizing throughout my adult life (both environmental and social justice issues). While my debate background comes primarily from a “policy” paradigm, I have no problem with either good “critical” debates or “persuasive communication”, and am open to most any framework that a team feels is justifiably appropriate for a 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 both fun and transformative. I think debaters, judges, and coaches, should actively try to actually enjoy the activity. Debate should be fun, educational, 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 reasonably 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 other competing noise 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 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, urgency, level of validation, etc. I very much like to hear warrants behind your claims rather than 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

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, while both are important, 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 your prep time, 4) being rude or hostile toward your opponent will cost you points and probably also impacts your level of credibility as an advocate-- you don't need to be friends, but you should at least be friendly; this is an academic exercise meant to teach skills, not a personal grudge match.

Relative importance of on-case argumentation

I find that good case debate is a very effective strategy. It usually provides the most direct and relevant clash. Unfortunately, it is not commonly 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 a Negative team get themselves in trouble simply because they failed to make some rather basic 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, and I understand there are legitimate uses of such, 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 notable consideration. Basically, I greatly prefer substantive debates over procedural ones. They seem to be both more educational and interesting.

CARD

My program, Western Washington University, is one of the founding programs of the format and it is the format which will likely be the place where the vast majority of my judging will now take place. In CARD debates students should adhere to the unique guidelines of the format, including, but not limited to: format norms on things like fiat and procedural arguments, a more publicly accessible rate of delivery, the Affirmative burden to defend the resolution, and the quoting of evidence solely from the shared library of articles. The CARD format is an attempt to focus less predominantly on the hyper-competitive and highly technical aspects of the activity and more on the development of advocacy skills along with the building of knowledge about genuinely controversial public issues. That is not at all to say that other formats do not have legitimate reasons for their own norms, just that when participating in this format, the community norms should be respected. Finally, speaking of community, there is an intentional and deliberate effort in this format to interact with others collegially, regardless of personal identities and backgrounds, political leanings, argument preferences, and experience levels.

NDT/CEDA

I have not judged any NDT/CEDA rounds in a long time, and don't really anticipate doing so anytime soon. If it were to happen, most of the above is pretty relevant, but especially the parts about clarity. I'm getting old, and my hearing is a challenge, but I'm not stupid. You'll want to step back from your top speeds.

Parliamentary debates

I have not judged any NPDA/NPTE rounds in several years, and don't really anticipate doing so anytime soon, and I typically only judge BP style debates when our team travels abroad (which we do every few years). 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; 2) Just because I am not rapping on the table doesn’t mean I don’t like you or dig your arguments; 3) You don’t need to do the little tea pot dance to ask a question, just stand or raise your hand; 4) 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; 5) I will include “thank yous” in speech time, but I do appreciate a clear, concise and non-timed roadmap beforehand; 6)I lean toward thinking that “splitting the block”, while perhaps theoretically defensible, is fairly problematic in an activity with only two rebuttals and often only makes a round more messy. And finally, in an activity which does not allow evidence in to debate rounds, I will do my best to let the debaters hash out the warrants, but cannot simply divorce myself from my own understanding of the world-- if I am fairly certain that someone is making arguments that are based on objectively inaccurate understandings of the world, that will weigh in my decision (e.g., saying something is in the Constitution when I know that it actually is not, or suggesting that a law exists which does not, etc. I'm not talking about judgment calls, or matters of opinion, I'm talking about factual claims that are clearly inaccurate).

Trond Jacobsen, Director of Forensics and University Forum, University of Oregon

Ph.D. in Information Science, University of Michigan

Bachelor of Science in Sociology, University of Oregon

First competed for South Eugene (OR) High School in policy debate and speech events in 1985. Involved in collegiate forensics for about half of my adult life, including debating for Oregon from 1989-1992 in CEDA and as an educator at Alaska, Cornell, Vermont, and Oregon in policy debate. Director of Forensics and University Forum since 2013 and a Sr. Career Instructor in Information Science in the Robert D. Clark Honors College at the University of Oregon.

As described in our governance documents, which I helped write and edit, the Collegiate Advocacy, Research and Debate (CARD) format prioritizes creating an enriching educational experience where students can develop abilities relevant to participating in modern and diverse democratic societies. Core learning objectives include the ability to form and present persuasive oral arguments to diverse audiences, identifying the properties of strong and weak arguments, apprehending, organizing and mobilizing scholarship, and building and sustaining collaborations with others, including people of differing backgrounds and perspectives. I view CARD as a distinct form of evidence-based policy debate, built from the ground up to realize these learning objectives. CARD shares surface features with other debate formats but it differs - and should be viewed by participants as different - in ways that are important to me as a professional and when adjudicating debates in CARD. At its best, CARD debates position students to engage and explore deep controversies rooted in recent academic scholarship on salient issues of public and social policy while developing abilities in advocacy and persuasion designed for a general educated audience and not merely debate coaches. All CARD participants - students, critics, and educators – share the fundamental responsibility to sustain a welcoming learning environment.

When adjudicating debates in the CARD format, I am an educator not merely an umpire. My responsibility is to teach students how to make their arguments and advocacy more effective and persuasive. My decisions about round outcomes and my evaluation of individual debaters as advocates are informed and motivated by my commitment to the pedagogical mission of the CARD format. As such, my role can include intervening in debates, sometimes as they are occurring and sometimes in how I render decisions about the debate, in furtherance of the CARD mission. I am not a tabula rasa judge but rather a critic of argument, an educator tasked to help students engage important topics and acquire powerful transferrable skills in advocacy and argumentation. If a speaker presents an incoherent or incomplete argument I may choose to disregard that argument whether or not it receives a response from the other team. If the other team describes why an argument is incoherent or incomplete they are more likely to be viewed as the better debaters and more likely to be evaluated highly as debate speakers.

1. Affirmative burden of proof. The primary question in CARD is whether the affirmative team has successfully discharged their burden of proof through an advocacy for the proposition. The “burden of proof” is the obligation to prove with clear and convincing arguments, including evidence cards, that a specific topical plan of action is a necessary and sufficient response to problems presented in the same speech. In 2024-25 the affirmative team must offer a plan in which the United States federal government adopts one of the following policies: a carbon tax, an emissions trading scheme, removal of fossil fuel subsidies, or a national public electric transmission plan. The First Affirmative Constructive (1AC) must make a case for change in the form of a federal plan in one of those four areas. The 1AC should establish the parameters of their plan (e.g., the form of the emissions trading scheme or the nature of federal authority applied to build a new national transmission grid). The 1AC must include evidence cards that explain why the affirmative plan, if adopted, would substantially solve the harms foregrounded. The best 1ACs start with a strong solvency advocate, find compelling evidence cards from that advocate, design their plan around that advocacy, and address harms that advocate believes the plan would address.

2. Negative burden of rejoinder. Negative teams bear the “burden of rejoinder”, with the responsibility to refute and undermine the specific arguments offered by the affirmative. Negative teams may introduce their own change advocacy, accepting the burden of proof for those arguments as competitive tests of affirmative advocacy. Counterplans without a solvency advocate typically suffer. Negative teams can win a debate by proving the affirmative has not met their burden of proof.

3. Debate is not merely a game. Students should not view debates in CARD as merely a political simulation or strategy game but instead an educational opportunity and environment for engaging scholarship on controversial topics of public and social policy and developing effective advocacy and argumentation skills. Respect your opponents and their ideas. Effective advocacy requires engaging others. Listen and be honest and open-minded.

4. Advocacy and persuasion. Avoid debate jargon and belligerence. Imagine you are speaking to an educated and informed non-debater in making your language choices and explaining arguments. I am familiar with (most) debate jargon but think it better for debaters to learn to make coherent arguments without debate jargon. Do not appeal with the tired vocabulary of other formats such as “offense-defense” or “try or die” or “perm”. Instead make eloquent arguments and develop generalized advocacy skills. I do not enjoy tag team cross-examination. The surest way to lose my support as a critic is to adopt an overtly belligerent or combative affect or use words to demean or diminish others or their ideas. I believe it is in the practice of advocacy that CARD should most clearly differentiate itself from other debate formats. Speak clearly and with conviction. Use the full range of abilities available to humans in advocacy. Be dynamic and engaging; don't merely read arguments prepared by others.

5. Procedural or theory argumentation. The team initiating a procedural or theory dispute should commit to it and not deploy it as a distraction. Procedural arguments are narrow questions of fact. For example, rather than a debate about whether an entire class of counterplans is competitive/fair, focus on whether the counterplan at hand is competitive or fair, ideally using evidence. Rather than argue that a particular interpretation of the topic creates the potential for abuse, identify the specific abuse arising from a particular interpretation in the current round.

6. Conditional and contradictory arguments. CARD discourages conditional and intentionally contradictory argumentation in favor of argumentation grounded in sound principles of advocacy. Maintain worldview consistency and make strategic decisions about which arguments to initiate and defend throughout a debate.

7. Fiat: A constrained power. CARD uses a theory of fiat that is limited and reciprocal. Fiat is the assumption that practical or timely obstacles to enacting a plan (e.g., lack of political support or a legal barrier) are set aside for the debate. Teams are limited to a sufficient level of fiat necessary for upholding their burden of proof in advocating change. Fiat is limited to the agency – scope of potential action – of the topic’s relevant actor, established through the presentation of a solvency advocate. Fiat in CARDS is reciprocal; limitations apply equally to the affirmative and negative. Institutional structures can be fiated, subject to the above limitations, but mindsets and masses of people cannot be fiated in CARD debate.

8. Evidence cards. Only evidence cards extracted from documents published in the Community Library can be introduced into a CARD round. No materials outside the library can be quoted in a CARD round. Evidence cards from documents outside the library will be disregarded. In the Open Division, if a team identifies and explains how the other team has quoted an evidence card from a document not in the library, they will win that debate regardless of other arguments in the debate. When reading an evidence card for the first time please provide the qualifications for each cited author. A speaker cannot earn full points in the Evidence and Analysis category unless they fully adhere to this standard. Subsequent use of evidence cards from a source need not include qualifications. Evidence cards are not mere argument tools but opportunities to engage and share leading scholarship to build knowledge and hone the skills of intellectual advocacy. Respect evidence cards as one would respect their authors in intellectual conversation.

laurenlucillejohnson@gmail.com

Director of Debate at Weber State University 2022- 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 to explain why the permutation does not solve. I generally think the aff should get perms although I 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 to receive 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.

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 these first two waves. I would also like to scream at y'all to add some fucking case arguments to the packet and to your 1NCs, because I'm really not seeing a whole lot of it and it's making it way too easy for affs out here.

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 I'm not voting for you. Likewise, if I am your judge, you have a right to speak up in any round by just shouting out 'slow' and I will make note of that. I take this seriously, because I can tell when debaters are getting spread out of the round. It's not fun to watch, it can't be fun for y'all in the round, and it makes for unengaging debates all around. If you need a card for that, cut this paradigm.

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. 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.

For Ks in this format: I would really like to see y'all explaining what your alternatives mean in terms of historical and contemporary examples. Has anyone does the alternative before? What will it look like for the world and us in this round if I endorse your alt? I think the marxism and degrowth lit has some good examples, and I want to see it specifically explained. I think the setcol lit is a little more sparse on alternative examples, but if you've chosen to run the setcol K, that is not an excuse not to explain your alt. Indigenous people have been engaging in analysis and activism for a very long time now, and I'll be disappointed if you can't contextualize your K to that.

Separate from all this, I'm placing a high burden on teams reading arguments about fascist backlash arguments to explain why they're not non-unique, why the aff triggers specific backlash, and why I should care. In a world where the fascists are becoming more and more powerful, I find it hard to believe policies unrelated to the culture war topics that have grown so popular will be the thing that finally emboldens them. Frankly, this is an argument that has always annoyed me, and I am unconvinced you can't read something better. But if you must: read it well. Show me the uniqueness, and impact it out. I'm here to judge it regardless.

--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-

There's less beefing on whether or not policy affs are allowable, so I assume you already know I'm not going to auto vote you down for reading a policy aff in a policy debate. Do your thing.

-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.

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!

CARD format update:

Ive been involved in CARD debate for 2 years now coaching at the University of Oregon. Over these 2 years, my vision for CARD has evolved and the below is a general provision about how I judge a CARD debate. These are general provisions meaning that some of these will be dictated by the debaters themselves. Provisions that are not negotiable (not dictated by the actions of the debaters) will be in bold.

Generally, I will default to a paradigm that evaluates whether the affirmative has met their burden of proof meaning that the affirmative has presented a topical plan that has sufficiently met its stock issues (inherency, harms, solvency) and is comparatively advantageous to the status quo. The negative has the burden of rejoinder meaning that the negative has to refute that the affirmative has met their burden of proof. The negative can do so by presenting disadvantages to the plan, a counterplan, a kritik with an alternative, and/or disprove the affirmative has met its stock issues.

This means that I will not evaluate the debate in a purely "offense/defense" paradigm. What this means for you is that while it is important to win that your impact outweighs, I generally care more about whether you have met your respective burden. Arguments about impact prioritization are welcomed and encouraged but are not the end all be all of the debate. There is a chance that you may win that your impact outweighs but the other team has disproven something important about your advocacy that overcomes the impact framing arguments.

Specific arguments:

Topicality: I will evaluate topicality as a narrow question of fact. Meaning that the affirmative if either topical or not and is not a question of interpretation. This also applies to issues of extra and effects topicality. If the affirmative is extra or effects topical and the negative makes the argument, I will not evaluate the extra/effects parts of the plan text and will view them as a solvency deficit to the plan.

Framework: The traditional line of framework argumentation (e.g. fiat is illusory, role of the judge/ballot, dont weigh the aff) is not acceptable. If you want to make framing arguments about if I should prioritize a specific criteria for evaluating impacts (e.g. utilitarianism) then you may make those arguments as long as the framing devices are not procedurally excluding the opposing teams argument.

Theory: Generally not allowed, however, I will follow what the card norms dictate. A theory argument must be a sustained line of advocacy throughout the debate. It must be initiated by each team in the speech immediately after the objectionable argument occurred. It will be treated as a narrow question of fact. the argument must be specifically tailored to the objectionable argument (e.g. x counterplan is unfair instead of y class of counterplan is unfair). for it to be a votable argument, it must be connected to the opposing teams failure to meet their burden of proof or rejoinder.

Condo/Fiat:Fiat is limited and reciprocal. Fiat is also durable regarding the implementation of the plan/counterplan. Advocacies introduced by the affirmative and negative must not be intentionally contradictory. Debaters may not "kick" advocacies introduced in the debate, but the negative may indicate that if they do not win the counterplan/kritik that there are other reasons the affirmative has not met their burden of proof.

NDT/CEDA 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.

Hello Debaters,

My name is Heather Platon, a graduate from CSUN and former debater and speech competitor for Impromptu and Extemporaneous speeches I have experience in IPDA, Public Forum and CARD debate and have an intermediate experience in judging policy debate.

While I can understand policy forms of debate,(speed reading, spreading) I do want to emphasize the persuasive power of annunciation and clear speaking and reading. Please remember this for speaker points. It is definitely possible to have clear annunciation and spread.

This will not affect my decision in a winner but will affect speaker points.

I appreciate a good use of Cross Examination and line by line in your speeches, If your opponents offer a framework that framework must absolutely allow for a proper debate round or will be apart of your argument to contest it or challenge it.

Overall my decision will be definitive at the end of the debate, so use all speeches effectively. You must warrant and use logic and reasoning for your arguments and impacts do not assume I am adequately convinced just because you stated something, you must also be convincing.

I like arguments appealing to structural violence over existential impacts, if you do use this please again use logic and reasoning.

any/all

uwyo 17-21 (go pokes!)

former GA for missouri state (iyk yk)

jaxonp2241@gmail.com

-- experience --

high school

3 years - public forum

1 year - lincoln douglas

college

4 years - policy

-- 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 - 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 -

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.

Gonzaga University
Judging Experience: 19 years
Email: jregnier@gmail.com (yes, include me on the email thread)

Big Picture: There is no one right way to debate. We all have our biases and preconceptions, but I try to approach each round as a critic of argumentation and persuasion. Some people will define themselves as being more influenced by either “truth” or “tech.” For me, this is a false binary. Tech matters, but it doesn’t mean that I will focus on the ink on the flow to the detriment of argument interconnections or ignore the big picture of the debate. Truth matters, but pretty much every debate I will decide that both teams win arguments that I don’t necessarily believe to be true. In my view, “argument” falls into a third category that overlaps with tech and truth but is distinct from them. Make your argument more effectively than your opponent and you’ll be in good shape. For me, that means making clear claims, developing warrants for those claims, and explicitly identifying what’s important in the debate, how it’s important, and why. Use logos, ethos, and pathos. Look like you’re winning. Your adaptation to the stylistic/technical comments below is far more important than your adaptation to any particular type of argument.

Comment about debate ethics: By debate ethics, I mean both what has been conventionally called “ethics violations” – like clipping cards, evidence fabrication, etc – as well as the interpersonal dynamics of how we treat one another in debate. I group them together here because they are both areas where somebody has crossed a line and upset the conditions necessary for debate to occur. For me, neither of these things is “debatable” in the sense I used above (“making clear claims, developing warrants…,” looking like you’re winning, etc). If a team is suspected of clipping cards, the debate stops and we do our best to resolve the issue before either ending the debate or moving forward. Similarly, if there is a concern that a team made racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted – or even just excessively mean-spirited or rude remarks – the debate should not continue as normal. I have zero interest in watching a competitive debate in this context about what was said, whether an apology was sincere, the terminal impact of discourse, whether the ballot is an appropriate punishment, etc. In this, I aggressively fall into the “truth over tech” crowd.

What this means for me is that I will try to be attentive to these things happening. I do not believe that a debater has to say something for me to vote on an ethics violation. At the same time, there is a lot of gray area in interpersonal relationships and we all draw our own boundaries.

What this means for you is if you believe one of your ethical lines has been crossed, I need you to point it out *outside of speech time* and not treat it like you would other debate arguments. As we all know, there are different ways of arguing that the other team has said offensive things. An argument that the Aff’s Economy advantage is based in colonial & white supremacist logic seems to fall squarely “within the game” as a debatable position. On the other hand, if a debater refers to another debater with an offensive racial epithet, this seems to pretty clearly transcend the game. There’s a million miles of microaggressions and not-so-micro aggressions in between. My working presumption is generally that if you are debating about it, then you consider it debatable and that I should evaluate it within the context of argumentation, persuasion, and competition. But if you feel that the other team has crossed a line and that I should not continue evaluating the round as I would a regular competitive debate, say something – again, *outside of speech time* – and we will work together to reach an understanding and figure out the best resolution to the situation.

Stylistic/Technical Issues: I am a medium flow. My ear for extremely fast speech is not particularly great, and my handwriting is not particularly fast. Extremely fast debates oriented around the techne of the flow are not my forte. There is a fairly clear inverse relationship between the speed at which you speak and the amount that I get written down on my flow. This greatly rewards debaters who give fewer – but more fully developed and explained – arguments. I will probably not read very many cards at the end of the debate, so don’t rely on your evidence to make your arguments for you. At the same time, I do generally try to attend to the quality of cards and bad cards can definitely undermine your arguments. I categorically do not want to be forced to reconstruct the debate by rereading all of the cards. This means that explanation and prioritization in the final rebuttals weighs more heavily for me than it might for other judges. Attend to the big picture, make direct comparisons showing why your arguments are better than your opponents’, and most important, find the hook that allows you to frame the debate in your favor.

Theory Debates: This is the area where my thinking has evolved the most as I’ve aged. There are many theory issues that I can be persuaded by. However, I will say that many theory debates that I have seen are vacuous. The key question for me is what kind of world is created by each side’s interpretation – is it good for debate or bad for debate. The impacts that I find most persuasive are the ones that are less about whether the other team made debate hard for you and more about what their interpretation does to argumentation and whether that’s an educational and constructive vision of what debate should be. Generally, impacts like “time skew” or “moots the 1AC” are pretty empty to me. But an argument that uniform 50 state fiat is an artificial debate construct that’s not rooted anywhere in the solvency literature and distorts the “fed key” debate so wildly as to make it meaningless is maybe something that I can get behind. A short list of a few of my current theory pet peeves: the States CP, object fiat, vaguely written – and downright misleading – plan texts, and nonsense permutations. While I wouldn’t necessarily call it a pet peeve, I may be growing increasingly persuaded that excessive conditionality is not good for debate.

Critical Stuff / Framework: I regularly vote both ways in framework debates. I evaluate these debates much like I would a debate over the "substance" of the case. Both sides need to play offense to amplify their own impacts while also playing defense against their opponent's impacts. In most cases where I have voted against critical affirmatives, it is because they have done a poor job answering the negative's debatability/fairness impact claims. In most cases where I have voted against traditional policy frameworks, it has been because they have done a poor job defending against the substantive critiques of their approach. My general set of biases on these issues would be as follows: critical (and even no-plan) affirmatives are legitimate, the aff needs to either have a defensible interpretation of how they affirm the topic or they need to full bore impact turn everything, a team must defend the assumptions of their arguments, critiques don't need (and are often better served without) alternatives (but they still need to be clear about what I am actually voting for), debate rounds do not make sense as a forum for social movements and “spill up” claims are vacuous, and most of the evidence used to defend a policy framework does not really apply to policy debate. However, to state the obvious, each of these biases can be overcome by making smart arguments.

Speaker Points: I try to give them careful consideration, but I admit that often it becomes a gestalt thing. I intend somewhere around 28.8 to be my median. I will occasionally dip into the high 27s for debaters that need significant improvement. Good performances will be in the low 29s. Excellent performances will get into the mid to high 29s. This was generally close to how things broke down the last time I was actually able to run the numbers on speaker point data.

Here are the things I value in a good speaker. I love debaters that use ethos, logos AND pathos. Technique should be a means of enhancing your arguments, not obfuscating or protecting them. Look like you're winning. Show that you are in control of yourself and your environment. Develop a persona that you can be comfortable with and that shows confidence. Know what you're talking about. Use an organizational system that works for you, but communicate it and live up to it (if you do the line-by-line, then *do* the line-by-line). Avoid long overviews with content that belongs on the line-by-line. Overviews should have a clear and concise purpose that adds something important to the debate. Be clear, which includes not just articulation & enunciation. It also includes the ability to understand the content of your evidence. If I can't follow what your evidence is saying, it will have as much weight in my decision as the tagline for that evidence would have had as an analytic. Debaters who make well thought out arguments with strong support will out-point debaters who just read a lot of cards every time.

Obstinate side-stepping and refusal to answer CX questions makes me grumpy and is a good way to lower your speaker points. So is talking over your opponent and refusing to give them the time and space to answer the questions that you've asked.

Other things: If your highlighting is so fragmented that it doesn't sound like actual sentences, I'm likely to disregard the evidence.

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.

email:

Isaiahsalgado24@gmail.com

About Me: I am a former Open Debater at Cal State Fullerton. I had 3 years ~ debating in college and experience as a coach at CSUF. I have vast judging and coaching experience at the High School level. I spent a lot of my Career running mostly critiques including Settler Colonial K's, Afropessimism K's, Baudrillard K's, performance K's, as well as experience running Framework.

Aside from that my cases usually involved futurisms and storytelling.

Coaches: Toya Green, Romin Rajan, Lee Thach.

Me as a judge real talk: I can understand spreading, and I'm as good as anyone at getting this down. But Imma be honest, it is hard for me to stay organized. I joined debate in college, no high school experience.

In other words, framing is super important for me. Clarity is important to me, because I want to understand how you think we/you/ I should think, view and participate in the community, in this round, at this tournament, etc. Is debate a game? is the game good? why or why not? I'd like these question answered either implicitly or explicitly. I don't inherently work with the perception that debate is (just) a "game", but if given a good argument as to why I should take on that perspective (in this round, all the time, etc) I'll take on that perspective. I prefer not to feel like a worker in the debate factory who needs to take notes and produce a ballot, but idk maybe I should function in that way-just tell me why that's true.

Evidence Reading: I will read your cards if you urge me to look at them, or if they are contested during the round. Otherwise, I am assuming they say what you tell me they say. IF you don't mention the evidence outside of the 1ac/1nc, they most likely wont stay in the forefront of my mind during the debate. This means reading the evidence will a clear voice will give you an advantage with me, because I will most likely understand the evidence better.

Impact: Proximity and likelihood> magnitude and time frame

MISC:

Clipping Cards is an auto DQ.

I really don't care what you do as far as tag teaming, changing format, playing music, using stands, seating placement, etc. Do you, just don't make the debate go longer than it needs to. Also feel free to talk to me before, after and during prep in rounds. I generally enjoy talking about debate and like helping young peeps. Just chit chat and such.

Policy- I think that a straight up policy plan is dope. MY biggest concern is the debaters ability to explain numbers to me. ITs hard for me to do the calculations and understand why specific stats are important and win you the debate. I am pretty line by line when it comes to a policy debate. Id say with me, focus on some impact calc because thats usually where my attention is mostly at. Liklihood and proximity are more important than severity, magnitude. Time-Frame is iffy but doable.

FW- Honestly, framework is pretty cool. I think its become kind of a meme at this point about my annoyance with whiney FW debaters, so make sure you are being real with your critique. Framework says that there is a structure which needs to be followed for this activity to run efficiently. This assumes that the game of debate is good, so explain why the game is good, or why your specific version of the game is good. When you run framework you are saying that the other team is debating in a way that lessens/nullifies the benefits of debate. That is a big claim, so treat it as such. If you are just using it strategically- more power to you buuuuuuut, it makes you hella less persuasive if thats how you are coming off. Also, Fairness is not inherently a terminal impact, lol. At least mention debate is a game and tell me why the games good.

K- I love k's, but they get hella sloppy. With k's, i need to know that you are solving your impacts. seems basic but im shocked at how often debaters dont explain how their "self abolishment" solves antiblackness. Acknowledging that there is a problem isn't a solution, or plan or anything. It's just a diagnosis. I need a prescription. HAving said that, Im pretty open minded when it comes to different strats. The more weird the more fun for me.

I'm way more truth than tech.

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.

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.