Impact Calc.

Show me why your argument is better

I will vote for anything as long as it is explained

I like ethos inside of the debate

please say "next" in-between cards

do some kind of impact interaction

explain why I should vote

if all is done u should win

I do not care about tag team in cross x

Have good document organization and sign posting

Jordanbranch91@gmail.com for email chains

Just call me Calvin.

Of course I want to be on the email chain –

chwangdebate@gmail.com

mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

ipostround@googlegroups.com

HS Debate: Walter Payton (2019-2023)

College Debate: University of Michigan (2023-present)

Debate Coach: Walter Payton (2023-present), Mamaroneck (2024-present).

IP Specific Thoughts:

It seems like this topic is generally worse for the negative, with no unifying negative ground. I think that patents bad is false on a truth level, but is strong in debate because "ban patents" is probably competitive and the AFF needs to do a lot of work to overcome it. Monopolies are not as bad for innovation as a lot of people think.

Top Level:

I think that my judging record provides more realistic information than what is typed in my paradigm. Judging Record

Heavily tech over truth. I will judge the round with the absolute minimum amount of intervention that is needed to judge the debate round. Everything in my paradigm is easily overcome by uttering a singular word on the flow. I do not share beliefs of many versions of “tech over truth” where I carve out caveats for death good or wipeout, and I will not immediately disregard something because it is “stupid” or “offensive,” although the stupider and more offensive it is the easier that it should be to answer.

If I need cards after a round I will ask for them.

As a debater, I have done both policy and kritikal strategies as both a 2A and a 2N. I have debated a variety of strategies, with big stick, soft-left, and kritikal affs, as well as 9-off 1NCs and 1-off K 1NCs. However, my current style of debate is much more rooted in policy rather than kritik. The vast majority of work I do now is argument coaching, and whilst I coach both K and policy teams, the majority of the research that I do and cards that I cut are based in the policy side.

I do not care if you post-round me, nor do I share in sentiments about post-rounding being bad; I am a firm believer that debaters have a right to justify why you think that you have won the round. Debaters invests a lot of time into winning debate rounds, and I think that to deny them the opportunity to justify why they think that the time that they invested should result in a win. If you think that part of my decision is wrong, feel free to express so; I actively welcome it and will not hold it against you in any way.

I flow on my computer because I am significantly faster on computer than on paper. The only time that I will not be on tabroom, docs, or my flow is during prep.

Things that I like:

Clear framing of my ballot.

Smart technical debating, including tricks and concessions.

When debaters time their own speeches (this has not happened a surprising number of times).

Fun, light hearted rounds.

Things that I don’t like:

Referencing my paradigm in your speech. Saying "you said you think that this topic is bad for neg ground so you should vote us up on T" does not contain a warrant.

Being a jerk to your partner to seem cool (again, happens a surprising number of times).

When it is start time and I am still waiting for teams to create an email chain or setting up their stands.

I would prefer it if both people did not leave the round after the round ends. If I need cards after the round, it is significantly easier for me to ask you to send it rather than me going searching through several speech docs looking for a singular card.

AFFs

Do whatever you want.

I think that there is more strategic utility to reading a soft-left aff. I think that I am comparatively better for evaluating soft left and framing debates.

In my experience, 2ACs on the case page are making arguments that lack warrants, and that negative teams are letting them get away with it. Almost every 2AC case flow sounds like "1NC is wrong, doesn't assume x."

K-AFFs

These are some of my favorite debates to watch and judge. I will vote for the team that is winning the flow; if you read a planless aff and believe that you can out-tech your opponent, you should pref me. If you are unable to, but instead rely on vague assertions with minimal application to the arguments in the round, I am probably not the best judge for you.

In front of me it makes more sense to go for impact turns to the negative model of debate rather than a counter-interpretation. The strategic utility to the impact turn is vastly better than the strategic utility to the counter-interpretation.

Fairness is probably the best impact to go for in front of me, but I can be persuaded that it is an internal link with proper debating.

Teams are not willing to go for presumption in the 2NR (at least part of it) even if it is the right 2NR. I am more than willing to pull the trigger on presumption should the 2NR be winning on it technically, varying inconsistencies between affirmative speeches makes me all the more willing to pull the trigger on presumption.

I have little experience with KvK debates. In a perfectly even debate I would likely conclude that the aff gets perms but shiftiness about the advocacies makes it easier for either side to win.

My understanding of post-modern/post-social theory is lacking, so you should err on the side of over-explaining.

Kritiks

Similarly to above, I am good if you are able to out-tech your opponent, and comparatively worse if you fail to do so.

Fine for the fiat K, floating PIK, whatever strategy you are deploying.

I am best for kritiks that defend a model of debate that moots the 1AC. I find that the vast majority of times winning "we meet" is, by design, incredibly difficult, and requires you to win an alternative model of debate. I like creative framework interpretations that attempt to do this in creative ways that deviate from "weigh the 1AC as an object of research." I think that middle ground interpretations are strategically worse.

Topicality

Probably better for these debates than most. There exists a strange paradox where judges assert their technical prowess in judging yet display strong preconceptions towards topicality that would signal that it is all but unwinnable for the negative. I have no such preconceptions.

I go both ways on plan text in a vacuum, but I think that the negative needs to present an alternative interpretation other than the aff's model being bad.

I have no preference for one standard over another, and am fine for either side of the “predictability/precision outweighs limits” or “limits outweigh predictability/precision” debate.

Reasonability is winnable but requires significant investment to overcome the debatability push.

I am almost certainly more open to evaluating a T - subsets than most judges are. That does not mean that I lean neg, but rather that I do not hold T - subsets to a different, more arbitrary standard of evaluation that precludes T - subsets from being the 2NR. This is all just to say that if you are winning it, you should go for it.

Theory

Similarly to topicality, there are people that assert they are tech over truth but instead maintain caveats and preconceptions on theory that signal that it is unwinnable. I am incredibly receptive to good theory debates. That being said, most theory arguments are better used as competition rather than reasons to reject the team.

Perfectly debated, I think arbitrariness is a difficult standard for most affirmative interpretations to defeat, but it still conquerable with proper debating.

Very open to a good conditionality debate, and am more than willing to vote either way for it. In a world of perfect debating I default to conditionality being good. While I think particularly egregious CPs like 2NC CPs out of a straight turn can be potentially illegitimate, I will most likely default neg in a perfectly even debate. People automatically assume that new AFFs justify infinite condo. While I understand the justification, I don't think it to be as true or strong as most believe.

Counterplans

Better for process and competition debates than most, but admittedly am not super caught on modern nuances like "textual topicality". I’d advise slowing down a little and explaining your warrants to concepts like that.

“Textual” alone is hard to debate and I am significantly better for “text and function” or “function only.” In a vacuum I think that function only is probably the best, but am easily persuaded otherwise.

I generally think that Word PICs are unpersuasive, but I judge it like every other type of argument.

Some of my favorite arguments are topic specific process CPs. That is not to say I dislike "generic" process CPs, or that I will vote them down because they are "generic", but simply that topic specific process CPs interest me the most.

Disads

I think that zero risk is real, and I have not heard a convincing reason for why it is not. That being said, I think that it is very hard to obtain zero risk.

There is not much else that can, or should be said. There is a strange dilemma surrounding politics and “generic” DAs which I really don’t get. A disad is just a negative implication to the plan, there realistically shouldn’t be this much hemming and hawing to what that means. Read the disads you think will win.

Impact Turn

I love these debates. While some impact turns are quite stupid, they allow for the opportunity to research and deploy arguments that defy conventional wisdom, and are thus fun to evaluate.

I have no strong preconceptions on either side of any impact turn. Obviously there are some sides that are truthfully correct, but I won't carve out a caveat for or against your favorite impact turn like wipeout, russia war good, warming good, etc.

I have deep knowledge on both sides of the heg good/bad debate. Interpret that as you will.

Online Debate

While I believe that online debates are a nuisance, I think that they make it significantly easier for teams (especially smaller ones) to attend tournaments.

I don't care if you have your cameras on or off, it provides minimal value. My camera will be on for the entire debate, including if I am not currently at my computer.

It would be wise to noticeably slow down. If you are spreading at full speed I will pick up less of your arguments. This is especially true if you are not clear in-person.

Speaks

Theoretically the mean speaks should be 28.5, and I try will give speaks around there. The chance that (unless something went terribly astray) you get a 27 or a 30 is basically 0. I have and will give substantially different speaker points between partners if it is fitting, and I think low point wins are more common than documented.

I will not give increased speaks for things like "make me laugh" or "mention x debater,” which I think is dumb. I also think that taking away speaker points for doing things like calling me judge is really dumb. If you are a funny debater that probably already affected the speaks I am giving you positively, so adding more just artificially inflates speaks.

Misc. Thoughts

While I think that author indicts are fine, the way that most people are using them is unpersuasive. Generally, I will raise the question of the impact that the indict has on the evidence that you are presenting. Arguments like "x person has financial incentives to misrepresent facts" carry a certain impact to why I should prefer your evidence instead, and obviously I think that attached to epistemological indicts are fine, but indicts that are just "x person supports x country/organization or said something mean on twitter which means you strike the card" are nonsense and probably carry no weight to the rest of the card.

I am the Co- Director of Debate at Wylie E. Groves HS in Beverly Hills, MI. I have coached high school debate for 49 years, debated at the University of Michigan for 3.5 years and coached at Michigan for one year (in the mid 1970s). I have coached at summer institutes for 48 years.

Please add me to your email chains at johnlawson666@gmail.com.

I am open to most types of argument but default to a policy making perspective on debate rounds. Speed is fine; if unintelligible I will warn several times, continue to flow but it's in the debater's ball park to communicate the content of arguments and evidence and their implication or importance. As of April 2023, I acquired my first set of hearing aids, so it would be a good idea to slow down a bit and make sure to clearly articulate. Quality of arguments is more important than sheer quantity. Traditional on- case debate, disads, counterplans and kritiks are fine. However, I am more familiar with the literature of so-called non mainstream political philosophies (Marxism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, objectivism) than with many post modern philosophers and psychoanalytic literature. If your kritik becomes an effort to obfuscate through mindless jargon, please note that your threshold for my ballot becomes substantially higher.

At the margins of critical debate, for example, if you like to engage in "semiotic insurrection," interface psychoanalysis with political action, defend the proposition that 'death is good,' advocate that debate must make a difference outside the "argument room" or just play games with Baudrilliard, it would be the better part of valor to not pref me. What you might perceive as flights of intellectual brilliance I am more likely to view as incoherent babble or antithetical to participation in a truly educational activity. Capitalism/neoliberalism, securitization, anthropocentrism, Taoism, anti-blackness, queer theory, IR feminism, ableism and ageism are all kritiks that I find more palatable for the most part than the arguments listed above. I have voted for "death good" and Schlag, escape the argument box/room, arguments more times than I would like to admit (on the college and HS levels)-though I think these arguments are either just plain silly or inapplicable to interscholastic debate respectively. Now, it is time to state that my threshold for voting for even these arguments has gotten much higher. For example, even a single, persuasive turn or solid defensive position against these arguments would very likely be enough for me to vote against them.

I am less likely to vote on theory, not necessarily because I dislike all theory debates, but because I am often confronted with competing lists of why something is legitimate or illegitimate, without any direct comparison or attempt to indicate why one position is superior to the other on the basis of fairness and/or education. In those cases, I default to voting to reject the argument and not the team, or not voting on theory at all.

Specifically regarding so-called 'trigger warning' argument, I will listen if based on specific, explicit narratives or stories that might produce trauma. However, oblique, short references to phenomena like 'nuclear war,' 'terrorism,' 'human trafficking,' various forms of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the abstract are really never reasons to vote on the absence of trigger warnings. If that is the basis for your argument (theoretical, empirically-based references), please don't make the argument. I won't vote on it.

In T or framework debates regarding critical affirmatives or Ks on the negative, I often am confronted with competing impacts (often labeled disadvantages with a variety of "clever" names) without any direct comparison of their relative importance. Again, without the comparisons, you will never know how a judge will resolve the framework debate (likely with a fair amount of judge intervention).

Additionally, though I personally believe that the affirmative should present a topical plan or an advocacy reasonably related to the resolution, I am somewhat open to a good performance related debate based on a variety of cultural, sociological and philosophical concepts. My personal antipathy to judge intervention and willingness to change if persuaded make me at least open to this type of debate. Finally, I am definitely not averse to voting against the kritik on either the affirmative or negative on framework and topicality-like arguments. On face, I don't find framework arguments to be inherently exclusionary.

As to the use of gratuitous/unnecessary profanity in debate rounds: "It don't impress me much!" Using such terms doesn't increase your ethos. I am quite willing to deduct speaker points for their systemic use. The use of such terms is almost always unnecessary and often turns arguments into ad hominem attacks.

Disclosure and the wiki: I strongly believe in the value of pre-round disclosure and posting of affirmatives and major negative off-case positions on the NDCA's wiki. It's both educationally sound and provides a fair leveling effect between teams and programs. Groves teams always post on the wiki. I expect other teams/schools to do so. Failure to do so, and failure to disclose pre-round, should open the offending team to a theory argument on non-disclosure's educational failings. Winning such an argument can be a reason to reject the team. In any case, failure to disclose on the wiki or pre-round will likely result in lower speaker points. So, please use the wiki!

Finally, I am a fan of the least amount of judge intervention as possible. The line by line debate is very important; so don't embed your clash so much that the arguments can't be "unembedded" without substantial judge intervention. I'm not a "truth seeker" and would rather vote for arguments I don't like than intervene directly with my preferences as a judge. Generally, the check on so-called "bad" arguments and evidence should be provided by the teams in round, not by me as the judge. This also provides an educationally sound incentive to listen and flow carefully, and prepare answers/blocks to those particularly "bad" arguments so as not to lose to them. Phrasing this in terms of the "tech" v. "truth" dichotomy, I try to keep the "truth" part to as close to zero (%) as humanly possible in my decision making. "Truth" can sometimes be a fluid concept and you might not like my perspective on what is the "correct" side of a particular argument..

An additional word or two on paperless debate and new arguments. There are many benefits to paperless debate, as well as a few downsides. For debaters' purposes, I rarely take "flashing" time out of prep time, unless the delay seems very excessive. I do understand that technical glitches do occur. However, once electronic transmission begins, all prep by both teams must cease immediately. This would also be true if a paper team declares "end prep" but continues to prepare. I will deduct any prep time "stolen" from the team's prep and, if the problem continues, deduct speaker points. Prep includes writing, typing and consulting with partner about strategy, arguments, order, etc.
With respect to new arguments, I do not automatically disregard new arguments until the 2AR (since there is no 3NR). Prior to that time, the next speaker should act as a check on new arguments or cross applications by noting what is "new" and why it's unfair or antithetical to sound educational practice. I do not subscribe to the notion that "if it's true, it's not new" as what is "true" can be quite subjective.

PUBLIC FORUM ADDENDUM:

Although I have guest presented at public forum summer institutes and judged public forum rounds, it is only more recently that I have started coaching PF. This portion of my philosophy consists of a few general observations about how a long time policy coach and judge will likely approach judging public forum judging:

1. For each card/piece of evidence presented, there should, in the text, be a warrant as to why the author's conclusions are likely correct. Of course, it is up to the opponent(s) to note the lack of, or weakness, in the warrant(s).

2. Arguments presented in early stages of the round (constructives, crossfire) should be extended into the later speeches for them to "count." A devastating crossfire, for example, will count for little or nothing if not mentioned in a summary or final focus.

3. I don't mind and rather enjoy a fast, crisp and comprehensible round. I will very likely be able to flow you even if you speak at a substantially faster pace than conversational.

4. Don't try to extend all you constructive arguments in the final stages (summary, final focus) of the round. Narrow to the winners for your side while making sure to respond to your opponents' most threatening arguments. Explicitly "kick out" of arguments that you're not going for.

5. Using policy debate terminology is OK and may even bring a tear to my eye. I understand quite well what uniqueness, links/internal links, impacts, impact and link turns, offense and defense mean. Try to contextualize them to the arguments in the round rather than than merely tossing around jargon.

6. I will ultimately vote on the content/substance/flow rather than on generalized presentational/delivery skills. That means you should flow as well (rather than taking random notes, lecture style) for the entire round (even when you've finished your last speech).

7. I view PF overall as a contest between competing impacts and impact turns. Therefore specific impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame, whether solving for your impact captures or "turns" your opponents' impact(s)) is usually better than a general statement of framework like "vote for the team that saves more lives."

8. The last couple of topics are essentially narrow policy topics. Although I do NOT expect to hear a plan, I will generally consider the resolution to be the equivalent of a "plan" in policy debate. Anything which affirms or negates the whole resolution is fair game. I would accept the functional equivalent of a counterplan (or an "idea" which is better than the resolution), a "kritik" which questions the implicit assumptions of the resolution or even something akin to a "topicality" argument based on fairness, education or exclusion which argues that the pro's interpretation is not the resolution or goes beyond it. An example would be dealert, which might be a natural extension of no first use but might not. Specifically advocating dealert is arguably similar to an extratopical plan provision in policy debate.

9. I will do my level headed best to let you and your arguments and evidence decide the round and avoid intervention unless absolutely necessary to resolve an argument or the round.

10. I will also strive to NOT call for cards at the end of the round even if speech documents are rarely exchanged in PF debates.

11. I would appreciate a very brief road map at the beginning of your speeches.

12. Finally, with respect to the presentation of evidence, I much prefer the verbatim presentation of portions of card texts to brief and often self serving paraphrasing of evidence. That can be the basis of resolving an argument if one team argues that their argument(s) should be accepted because supporting evidence text is read verbatim as opposed to an opponent's paraphrasing of cards.

13. Although I'm willing to and vote for theory arguments in policy debate, I certainly am less inclined to do so in public forum. I will listen, flow and do my best not to intervene but often find myself listening to short lists of competing reasons why a particular theoretical position is valid or not. Without comparison and refutation of the other team's list, theory won't make it into my RFD. Usually theoretical arguments are, at most, a reason to reject a specific argument but not the team.

Overall, if there is something that I haven't covered, please ask me before the round begins. I'm happy to answer. Best wished for an enjoyable, educational debate.

Brad Meloche
he/him pronouns

Piper's older brother (pref her, not me)

Email: bradgmu@gmail.com (High School Only: Please include grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com as well.)

(I ALWAYS want to be on the email chain)

The short version -

Tech > truth. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true. "Tech" is obviously not completely divorced from "truth" but you have to actually make the true argument for it to matter. In general, if your argument has a claim, warrant, and implication then I am willing to vote for it, but there are some arguments that are pretty obviously morally repugnant and I am not going to entertain them. They might have a claim, warrant, and implication, but they have zero (maybe negative?) persuasive value and nothing is going to change that. I'm not going to create an exhaustive list, but any form of "oppression good" and most forms of "death good" fall into this category.

Stealing this bit of wisdom from DML's philosophy: If you would enthusiastically describe your strategy as "memes" or "trolling," you should strike me.

Specifics

Non-traditional – I believe debate is a game. It might be MORE than a game to some folks, but it is still a game. Claims to the contrary are unlikely to gain traction with me. Approaches to answering T/FW that rely on implicit or explicit "killing debate good" arguments are nonstarters.

Related thoughts:

1) I'm not a very good judge for arguments, aff or neg, that involve saying that an argument is your "survival strategy". I don't want the pressure of being the referee for deciding how you should live your life. Similarly, I don't want to mediate debates about things that happened outside the context of the debate round.

2) The aff saying "USFG should" doesn't equate to roleplaying as the USFG

3) I am really not interested in playing (or watching you play) cards, a board game, etc. as an alternative to competitive speaking. Just being honest. "Let's flip a coin to decide who wins and just have a discussion" is a nonstarter.

4) Name-calling based on perceived incongruence between someone's identity and their argument choice is unlikely to be a recipe for success.

Kritiks – If a K does not engage with the substance of the aff it is not a reason to vote negative. A lot of times these debates end and I am left thinking "so what?" and then I vote aff because the plan solves something and the alt doesn't. Good k debaters make their argument topic and aff-specific. I would really prefer I don't waste any of my limited time on this planet thinking about baudrillard/bataille/other high theory nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K or to permute an uncompetitive alternative.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, especially when they are introduced as "the alt is compatible with politics" and then become "you dropped the floating PIK to do your aff without your card's allusion to the Godfather" (I thought this was a funny joke until I judged a team that PIKed out of a two word reference to Star Wars. h/t to GBS GS.). In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go.

Theory – theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” are rarely reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged in the speech as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals – By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - ...are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual to the tournament, division, round, etc. I am more likely to reward good performance with high points than punish poor performance with below average points. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style. Being rude to your partner or the other team is a good way to persuade me to explore the deepest depths of my point range.

Cheating - I won't initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

Random

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision. Inserting a chart where there is nothing to read is ok.

Absent a tournament rule allowing it, cross-x and prep time are NOT interchangeable. You have 3 minutes of time to ask questions. Cross-x time shall not be used for prep, and other than MAYBE a quick clarification question, prep should not be used to grill your opponents.

Please include me on the email chain: ryannierman@gmail.com

Please also add the email grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com to the email chain.

Top Level: Do whatever you want. My job is to evaluate the debate, not tell you what to read.

Speed: Speed is not a problem, but PLEASE remain clear (especially important for online tournaments) and remember pen/typing time is a thing. This likely means to slow down on procedural or analytic heavy flows and don't frontload your CP block with 4-5 perm texts, etc.

Topicality: I am willing to vote on T. I think that there should be substantial work done on the Interpretation vs Counter-Interpretation debate, with impacted standards or reasons to prefer your interpretation.

CPs: Sure. Whether a CP is abusive or not is up for debate.

Disads: Sure. There should be a clear link to the aff. Yes, there can be zero risk. Overviews should focus in on why your impacts outweigh and turn case. Let the story of the DA be revealed on the line-by-line.

Kritiks: Sure. Make sure that there is a clear link to the aff, read new links in the block, utilize aff ev to prove your links, etc. Explain the alternative. What is the role of the judge? Do you need to win spillover? How do I weigh impacts? I am probably familiar with whatever author you are reading, but the burden is on the team reading the lit to explain their argument to me; don't assume I will do work for you.

Theory: Condo is probably good. Often these debates just turn into rereading blocks, which often makes them hard to decide. In-depth clash and line-by-line always helps. If there are dropped independent voters on a theory debate, I will definitely look there first. Most theory is likely a reason to reject the arg, not the team.

Performance: Sure. I prefer if the performative affirmation or action is germane to the topic, but that is up for debate. Once again, the debate is for you and not me, so I will evaluate any argument as fairly as possible and to the best of my ability.

Paperless Debate: I do not take prep time for emailing your documents, but please do not steal prep. I also try to be understanding when tech issues occur, but will honor any tech time rules established and enforced by the tournament. I will have my camera on during the round. If my camera is off, please assume that I am not there. Please don't start without me. Email chains are preferable to Speech Drop and other file share processes, but will default to whatever method has been established by the tournament (should one exist). Word docs > Google Docs > PDFs. I understand resources, funding, access to programs vary based on person, school district or team protocols, but please don't intentionally PDF documents so that they cannot be utilized in the debate for recutting/rehighlighting purposes or to get some sort of strategic advantage.

Other general comments:

Line-by-line is extremely important in evaluating the rounds, especially on procedural flows.

Clipping cards is cheating! If caught, you will lose the round and get the lowest possible speaker points the tournament allows.

I do not feel comfortable voting on issues that happen outside the round.

Debate is a speaking activity. Small rehighlightings/recutting of ev to prove that something was out of context or that is sufficiently explained in a a short tag can be inserted. Reading several sentences or cutting another section of their article, etc should be read. Inserting graphs, charts, etc is obviously fine.

Please make sure that your cards are highlighted in a way that makes grammatical sense. The growing trend of "word salad" is concerning. I understand the desire to read more ev, but please make sure that you ev makes sense, is highlighted in context, and contains warrants. I will not piece together your evidence after the round to make a coherent argument. Quality > Quantity every time.

Cross-x is a speech - it should have a clear strategy and involve meaningful questions and clarifications. Concessions gained in cross-x should make it into speeches. The ability to effectively utilize cross-x in a meaningful way always boosts speaker points.

Finally, don't change what works for you. I am willing to hear and vote on any type of argument, so don't alter your winning strat to fit what you may think my philosophy is.

Have fun, be kind, and put all of your hard work into action!

I have been judging policy debate for three years. Rate of delivery and the use of technical language does not matter to me. When taking notes I write down key arguments. Coming from a PA forensics background I value style and argument equally. The criteria I look for is quality sources and specific arguments. Arguments I have found most persuasive in the past are ones defended in depth. If you are going to make an argument, make the argument. I would expect debaters to keep conduct civil and professional.

I have the following preferences, but I will vote counter to these biases if a team wins 
their arguments in the debate. 
1. I view debates from a policy perspective as clash of competing advocacies. For me 
this means that minus a counterplan, the affirmative must prove that their plan is better 
than the current system. Fiat operates only to bypass the question of whether something 
could pass to focus the debate about whether something should pass. I do believe that 
fiat is binding so rollback arguments can be difficult to win. 
2. I will vote on topicality if the negative can clearly articulate how the affirmative is 
non-topical and why their interpretation is superior for debate. In this regard I see 
topicality debates as a synthesis between a good definition and a clear explanation of the 
standards. Critical affirmatives must be topical if the negative is to be prepared to debate 
them. I won’t vote on topicality as a reverse voting issue under any circumstance. 
3. I don’t find most theory debates to be very compelling, but I have voted for these 
arguments. These debates are often filled with jargon at the 
expense of explanation. If you do want me vote on these arguments then don’t spew your 
theory blocks at me (I’ve tried – but I just can’t flow them). Have just a couple of 
reasons to justify your theoretical objection and develop them. Pointing out in-round 
abuse is helpful, but if their position justifies a practice that is harmful for debate that is 
just as good. Identifying the impact to your theory arguments in the constructive is a 
must. 
4. I am a big fan of all types of counterplans (pics, agent, consult etc.). The only 
prerequisite is that they be competitive. I am not a big fan of textual competition and tend 
to view competition from a functional perspective. When evaluating counterplans I believe that the negative has the burden to prove that it is a reason to reject the plan. This 
means that the counterplan must be net beneficial compared to the plan or the 
permutation. Affirmatives can prove that some of these counterplans are theoretically 
illegitimate, but be aware of my theory bias (see above). 
5. Kritiks are fine as long as it is clear what the argument is and that there is a clearly 
defined impact. Statements that the kritik takes out the solvency and turns the case need 
a clear justification. Hypothetical examples are extremely useful in this regard, and the more specific the example the better. I prefer frameworks discussions occur on a separate page from the K – from a judging perspective I’ve noticed that when it’s all done on one piece of paper things tend to get convoluted and debate gets extremely messy. Having an alternative is helpful, but I can be persuaded that you don’t need to have one. 
7. The most important thing for you to know to get my ballot is that my decision is highly 
influenced on how arguments are explained and justified during the course of the debate 
rather than thru evidence. While I do think that at certain levels you must have evidence 
to substantiate your claims, good cross-examinations and well developed explanations and comparisons are often the key to persuading me to vote for one side over the other. Other than that just be polite but competitive, intelligent, and enjoy the debate. 

Put me in the email chain tyjuan.thirdgill98@gmail.com

If you ever have any questions about my decision always feel free to reach out to me via email.

I am not going to lie to you and say I am a Tab judge and I will vote for anything because that is just not true.

I don't like new arguments in the 2NC by that I mean I don’t like entire new off case arguments in the 2NC I think its really abusive to the 1AR. With that being said I am willing to listen to abuse arguments about how that is bad for debate. Although I am more inclined to reject the argument and not the team.

Non-Disclosure Theory

I will actually never vote for this theory.  I think disclosing hurts small schools who don’t have enough coaches to help them prep for rounds. I absolutely don’t care if the other team drops it/never answers it I still will not vote for it. So please for your sake and mine do not run it because you will not be happy with my not voting on it.

Topicality

By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. I don't hate T nor do I love it. I use to love it but I don't think teams do enough work on the flow. Teams are always either winning the interpretation debate but losing the standards and voters of vice versa. That being said I will vote on T and I don't mind voting on team but you need to win the entire flow. This means having a good debate about whose interpretation is better on down to the violation and all the way through to the standards and voters.

Specifically, on T I HATE reasonability as a no voter. I think that it is your job to debate the T flow well enough so that I come to the conclusion that you are reasonably topical.

Please don't run and RVI on T I am not that likely to vote for it that being said if its dropped I will vote for it with great protest.

Theory

I evaluate theory the same as I evaluate Topicality: it is only as important to me as you tell me it is. I can be swayed either way on theory; whether it's on condo, multiple worlds etc. With that being said, teams need to be able to explain the implications of what the other team did for me to vote on said theory. If you don't explain why I should vote on it, then I won't vote on it. My default on the theory flow is to reject the argument and not the team. For example, even if the neg drops the condo flow but you don’t tell me to drop the team instead of the argument I will just kick the argument. With that being said you need to little work on the flow for a dropped theory argument in order for me to vote on it.

Kritiks

I love a good K debate. You have the potential to make me vote for any Kritik that you want me to vote on. Ks that do not engage with the substance of the aff are rarely reasons to vote negative. I'm really not here for your generic K’s don’t waste my time with this. A good K debate needs to make it so that even if the judge hasn't heard the K before they grasp and understanding of the story you are telling with the K. I don't need to walk away being a scholar on the K for me to vote for it I simply need a clear picture of the impact of the K and how the world of the alt differs from the aff .

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K. I am more than willing to listen to a discussion centered around their need to defend the scholarship of the 1ac and how they should be forced to defend the epistemology of the 1ac but this should be used as a reason why the perm fails and why they don’t gain access to your impacts or maybe even their impacts but not as a reason why they can’t weigh the aff against the K.

HI,

I am Sarah Walker and I have been apart of the Michigan debate community since 2019. I am pretty traditional judge and I am open to whatever argument as long as it is answered/ explained functionality.

I started debate last year when I formed my schools first debate team. I am now the novice coach of that team after winning the National Urban Debate League National Championship last year. I am open to any agruments as long as they are understood and followed thorugh by the debaters. It is important to me that debaters point out flaws in agruments or inconsistances in the debate. If they don't notice or say something that the opposing team did incorrectly like dropping a argument, then I am less likely to vote on it. I almost always go easy on novice teams and hardly ever vote on if debate etiquette was poor. Clarity over speed makes for better debates. I think DAs and CPs are always great offcase, I find myself voting on them often. Kritiks and theory are also acceptable as long as they debaters understand and are very clear on what they are arguing. Email chains are always super helpful and unless not allowed I will always have my email in the chat. Lastly, be nice to each other and have fun!

Scott Warrow

Debate Philosophy Statement

I have been judging, teaching, and coaching policy debate for over 30 years at a variety of schools in Michigan and have always been open to a variety of arguments so as long as they are well-development and explained. Arguments need to be reasonably well understood by the debaters, more than just reading of tagline and evidence, debaters need to be able to explain the interconnectedness between arguments on and issues, the relationship between different issues, and the framing of the debate with a coherent narrative. Providing multiple avenues to show how you win and why relative to the opposing team, with the assumption that you may not win every argument, is critical to sound argumentation and my ballot.

I do like a well-developed and explained Kritik (AFF or NEG) debate. Don’t assume that I know what you are talking about or have read up on what is trending in the national circuit. I am familiar with popular Ks (Capitalism, Security, ect) and like creative thinking. But I don’t tend to fill in the holes with my own interpretation. So, a lackluster, undeveloped K does you more harm than good. That said, comparatively I do prefer policy-based debates that are strategic and thoughtful. I am not a fan of a negative team that runs eight off, with external contradictory positions. I am also not a fan of an Aff with a slew of undeveloped Advantages. Perhaps my least favorite group of arguments is theory debates. I often find them confusing and a regurgitation of taglines. Unless purposeful and strategic or completely dropped, I tend not to vote for a team to win the round on theory. Topicality, on the other hand, if thoroughly argued, I enjoy listening, however; it hard for me to vote Neg on T for a mainstream Aff that has been run all year.

Also, It is very important that debaters compare evidence and a weigh issues and arguments in rebuttals. I won't do it for you unless you leave me no choice. The line by line is important, but I am not going to vote on an undeveloped argument just because it is dropped on the flow. I need to be able to understand the arguments and evidence clearly in the context of the whole debater.

Finally, show respect, have fun, learn, and grow, and do your best. You can ask me any questions.

David Zin

Debate Coach, Okemos High School

debate at okemosk12.net

Quick version: If you want to run it, justify it and win it and I'll go for it. I tend to think the resolution is the focus (rather than the plan), but have yet to see a high school round where that was a point with which anybody took issue or advantage. I like succinct tags, but there should be an explanation/warrant or evidence after them. I do pine for the days when debaters would at least say something like "next" when moving from one argument to another. If you run a critical argument, explain it--don't assume I understand the nuances or jargon of your theory. Similarly, the few critical debaters who have delivered succinct tags on their evidence to me have been well-rewarded. Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but I can't flow your 55-70 word tag, and the parts I get might not be the parts you want. I think all four debaters are intelligent beings, so don't be rude to your opponent or your partner, and try not to make c-x a free-for-all, or an opportunity for you to mow over your partner. I like the final rebuttals to compare and evaluate, not just say "we beat on time-frame and magnitude"--give me some explanation, and don't assume you are winning everything on the flow. Anything else, just ask.

The longer version: I'm a dinosaur. I debated in college 40 years ago. I coached at Michigan State University for 5 years. I'm old enough I might have coached or debated your parents. I got back into debate because I wanted my children to learn debate, and have stayed on.

That history is relevant because I am potentially neither as fast a flow as I used to be (rest assured, you needn't pretend the round is after-dinner speaking) and for years I did not kept pace with many of the argumentative developments that occurred. I know and understand a number of K's, but if you make the assumption I am intimately familiar with some aspect of of your K (especially if it is high theory or particularly esoteric), you may not like the results you get. Go for the idea/theme not the author (always more effective than simply saying Baudrillard or Zizek or Hartman or Sexton). If you like to use the word "subjectivity" a lot on your K argumentation, you might explain what you mean. Same thing for policy and K debaters alike when they like to argue "violence".

Default Perspective:

Having discussed my inadequacies as a judge, here is my default position for judging rounds: Absent other argumentation, I view the focus of the round as the resolution. The resolution may implicitly shrink to the affirmative if that is the only representation discussed. If I sign the ballot affirmative, I am generally voting to accept the resolution, and if the affirmative is the only representation, then it is as embodied by the affirmative. However, I like the debaters to essentially have free rein--making me somewhat tabula rosa. So if you prefer a more resolution focus rather than plan focus, I'm there. I also like cases that have essential content and theory elements (stock issues), but if one is missing or bad, the negative needs to bring it up and win it to win. I do generally view my role as a policy maker, in that I am trying to evaluate the merits of a policy that will be applied to the real world--but that evaluation is being done in a format that has strong gamelike aspects and strong "cognitive laboratory" aspects. A policymaker perspective does not preclude examining critical/epistemological questions...but ultimately when I do so, I feel it's still through some sort of policy making perspective (educational policy, social policy, or "am I thinking about this correctly" when considering my view on the policy question: if my epistemology is a geocentric universe and the plan wants to send a mission to Mars, do I have the right knowledge system to guarantee the rocket arrives in the right place). I will accept counter-intuitive arguments (e.g. extinction is good) and vote on them--although you will have to justify/win such an approach if it is challenged and in many cases there is a bit of a natural bias against such arguments. Plus there is a reason why they are counter-intuitive: if they weren't counter-intuitive we would already believe them, so there are probably a lot of very sound arguments against them that end up making the persuasion bar a lot higher than on other arguments.

I say "absent other argumentation" because if you want me to use another process, I'm all ears. I'm pretty open-minded about arguments (even counter-intuitive ones), so if you want to run something, either theoretical or substantive, justify it, argue it, and if you win it, I'll vote for it.

Weighing Arguments:

The biggest problem I observed when I judge is that debates about how I should evaluate the round are often incomplete and/or muddled, such as justifying the use of some deontological criteria on utilitarian grounds. While such consequentialism is certainly an option in evaluating deontological positions, I struggle to see how I'm not ultimately just deciding a round on some utilitarian risk-based decision calculus like I would ordinarily use. I've had this statement in my philosophy for years and no one seems to understand it: if I reject cap, or the state, or racism, or violations of human rights, or whatever because it leads to extinction/war/whatever, am I really being deontological--or just letting you access extinction via a perspective (using utilitarian consequences to justify your impacts, and some strategy or rhetoric to simply exclude utilitarian impacts that might counter your position). That fine if that's why you want it, but I think it makes "reject every instance" quite difficult, since every instance probably has solvency issues and certainly creates some low internal link probabilities. If you do truly argue something deontologically, having some sort of hierarchy so I can see where the other team's impacts fit would be helpful--especially if they are arguing an deontological position as well. Applying your position is appreciated: think how you would reconcile the classic argument of "you can't have rights if you are dead, yet many have been willing to give their life for rights". Sorting out that statement does an awful lot for you in a deontology vs. utilitarianism round. Why is your argument the case for one or the other?

Given my hypothesis-testing tendencies, conditionality can be fine. However, as indicated above, by default I view the round as a policy-making choice. If you run three conditional counterplans, that's fine but I need to know what they are conditional upon or I don't know what policy I am voting for when I sign the ballot—or if I even need to evaluate them. I prefer, although almost never get it, that conditionality should be based on a substantive argument in the round, preferably a claim the other team made. Related to that, you can probably tell I'm not a fan of judge kick for condo. If you have it in 2NR, my perspective is that is your advocacy option...and if it isn't internally consistent, you may have problems. Similarly, if you are aff and your plan merely restates the resolution but your solvency evidence and position clearly are relying on something more nuanced (and obviously you don't have it in your plan), you make it difficult for me to give you a lot of solvency credibility if the neg is hitting you hard on it (if they aren't, well that's their poor choice and you get to skim by).

Theory and K's:

I can like both theory args, especially T, when the debate unfolds with real analysis, not a ton of 3-5 word tags that people rip through and questionably make it to my flow. Theory arguments (including T) can be very rewarding, and often are a place where the best debaters can show their skills. However, debaters often provide poorly developed arguments and the debate often lacks real analysis. I do not like theory arguments (including framework arguments) that eliminate ground for one side or the other, are patently abusive, or patently time sucks; which means these have a much higher threshold before I'm voting on them. I like theory arguments but want them treated well. Those who know me are aware I like a good T argument/debate more than most...I'm just complaining that I rarely see a good T debate.

I'm not a fan of K's, but they definitely have a place in debate. I will vote on one (and have voted for them numerous times) if two things happen: 1) I understand it and 2) you win it. That's a relatively low threshold, but if you babble author names, jargon, or have tags longer than most policy teams' plans, you make it much harder for me.

Style Stuff:

As for argument preferences, I'll vote on things that do not meet my criteria, although I dislike being put in the position of having to reconcile two incomprehensible positions. I'll vote on anything you can justify and win. If you want me in a specific paradigm, justify it and win that I should use it. I like a 2ar/2nr that ties up loose ends and evaluates (read: compares)--recognizing that they probably aren't winning everything on the flow.

I don't like to ask for cards reviewing evidence post-round and will not ask for a card I couldn't understand because you were unintelligible. If there is a debate over what a card really says or signifies, or it seems to contain a nuance highlighted in the round that is worth checking, I may take a look at the evidence. Similarly, if I'm left with ambiguity over positions at the end of the round, I may see how well your evidence seemed to support your claims.

I traditionally rely on providing nonverbal feedback but am not good about sending it as such—if I'm not writing anything, or I'm looking at you with a confused expression, I'm probably not getting what you are saying for one reason or another.

Debate is still a communication activity, even if we rip along at several hundred words a minute. If I missed something in your speech, that is your fault--either because you did not emphasize it adequately in the round or you were unintelligible. If you are a gasper, you'll probably get better points if you slow down a bit. I tend to dislike prompting on content, but keeping your partner on pace is fine. I'd prefer you ask/answer your own c-x questions. I like numbering and organization, even though much has apparently died. At this point, even hearing "next" when going to the next tag would be a breath of fresh air (especially when it isn't being read off of a block). Similarly, I'll reward you if you have clear tags that would fit on a bumper sticker I could read without tailgating. Humor is a highly successful way to improve your speaker points. If you are organized, intelligible and funny, the much-sought-after 30 is something I have given. I haven't given many, but that reflects the debaters I've heard, not some unreasonable predisposition or threshold.

If you have questions about anything not on here, just ask.