Ok firstly I am now currently a varsity LD debater at the Delores Taylor Arthur school, so I have a lot of experience with trad cases! and other circuit arguments

MAKE SURE YOU CAN LINK BACK TO THE FW I will proudly vote you down if you don't show me any evidence on how you link back to the fw

please fill your speech times. if you don't fill your speech times and your opponent does 75% chance that your opponent is going to have higher speaks than you >. <YOU CAN LOSE WITH HIGH SPEAKS.

please use your time accordingly don't spend like 1 minute on fw if y'all both have the same fw stuff like that

make sure your kind and respectful to your opponent make sure you avoid saying racist/homophobic comments I will vote you down with the lowest speaks I possibly can.

I love shells just make sure if you run them, that they actually make sense instead of some nonsense shell like debaters should wear black shoes or something like that

tricks/frivolous theory is going to get down voted no matter what so don't even waste your time or mines.

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

Im Jaden Williams and I am a junior at The Delores Taylor Arthur School. I primarily do LD and am experience with phil, trad, and have some knowledge on Ks. If it's well explained, I can evaluate it. Keep it simple and I'll be able to judge it. Nothing too complicated.

Link back to the fw. If you dont do that, I wont vote on you.

Phil/Th- 1

Trad- 2

K's-3

Dont be Racist or homophobic. Dont argue on topics you cant relate to directly (Eg. Running Afropess and you're not Black or have a Black coach or so)

If you need to add me to an email chain, Its Jadenwilliams.debate@gmail.com

About Me

(he/him)

Associate Director, The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men

10 years in debate, 6 coaching

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

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

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

Questions: blakeziegler.debate@gmail.com

Disclaimer

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

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

Pref Shortcuts

1 - Ks, K-affs/topicality

2 - policy args, soft left affs

3 - phil* (read below), theory

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

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

General Thoughts on Debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Note on Judge Commitments

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

Miscellaneous Thoughts

tech > truth within reason

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

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

performance of the argument matters just as much as the argument

brief and clear off-time roadmaps please

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

Speaker Points

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

29.5-29.9: Excellent skills and strategy, good delivery

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

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

27-28.4: Needs work on argumentative and delivery skills

<27: You did something morally repugnant or concerning.

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