Andrew Greene

He/Him

Maine East '26

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

Top-level for novices:

Most importantly, clash with your opponent's arguments. The easier it is to connect your arguments to your opponent's arguments on my flow, the cleaner the debate will be, and your speaker points will increase as a result. Don't run anything you don't understand. I advise you to go for 1 strategy in the 2NR. For every additional argument/strategy in the 2NR, the ballot gets more and more difficult for you to win. Finally, extend and apply the warrants for cards, please don't restate the tag. Contextualize everything in the final rebuttals in the scope of the debate. Do impact calculus, and explain how a dropped argument implicates each flow and my ballot.

Everything else:

Tech>Truth: I can be convinced of pretty much any well-explained argument during a debate round.

Case turns/disadvantages:

Both are underutilized, but both require substantive impact calculus. For disadvantages, the link debate is crucial. Both teams should spend significant amounts of time here. Absent a clear winner on the uniqueness claim, the risk of the link will implicate the impact calculus significantly.

Counterplans:

I thoroughly enjoy counterplan debates. After evaluating perms/competition and theory, I will weigh the net benefit against the solvency deficit(s). Sufficiency framing doesn't make sense to me in the slightest. If you manage to provide a concrete definition and justification for it, I will frame the counterplan through sufficiency. As a 2N, the counterplan is by far my most used 2NR strategy, and am very willing to listen to debates over nuanced competition or counterplan theory. Always great for perm theory too. I won't judge kick.

Kritiks:

I have rarely run kritiks, but I don't underestimate their strategic value. Framework usually has the most impact on my ballot. If the 2NR is a kritik, win framework or have a very good reason why you win under the alternative interpretation. The more specific the link is to the aff, the better. A specific link utilized correctly can put you ahead on impact calculus, perm debates, and debates about the alternative. I find it harder to evaluate a K with no alternative extended into the 2NR, absent an independent voter.

Topicality:

I think it's an underused strategy. Please make sure that you're showing why your standards matter, and contextualize them into this round. Caselists and TVAs are super persuasive. Please also show why your standards matter and how that plays into a specific round. I rarely see why winning plan text in a vacuum should affect my decision, so explain why it should. I believe It's best as the sole 2NR strategy.

Theory:

I enjoy theory debates, and I don't believe proving in-round abuse is crucial for winning my ballot. Whether or not theory is "a voting issue" is up for debate and I don't think it belongs in my paradigm. That being said, always try to contextualize abuse in the round at stake. I think theory is useful as a strategy or just to bog down the opponent's speech time.

Speaker points:

Dos:

-Do what you do best

-Make debates interesting

-Keep debate fun

-Keep the flows organized

-Give me judge instruction/impact calculus

-Go off the flow

-Speak clearly (I'll give you more leniency if what you're reading is in the speech doc)

Don'ts:

-Don't end speeches/CX early

-Don't card dump for no reason (do impact calc instead!)

-Don't express anger toward your partner or your opponent

-Don't say, "They dropped x y and z arguments so vote aff/neg" (contextualize them in the round)

You can e-mail me at kimbrell@cbhs.edu.

I coached for Saint Ignatius High School for 10 years in the 90s. I coached for Case Western Reserve University from 1995-2006. I started coaching again in 2016. My current teams are mostly policy style debates which aligns with the regions in which we compete. I am fine with any type of argument, but I tend to enjoy fast, evidence intensive, traditional policy debates that collapse down well to a few clear reasons for me to prefer.

I do my best not to interject my opinions or perspectives into the decisions. I like being told how to sign the ballot and will try to pick either the 2NRs or 2ARs interpretation of the round. I like the analysis of warrants. The clash between competing warrants makes for the best debate.

Bravado is encouraged as long as it is done within the confines of fun, friendliness, and fairness.

DAs: Analysis of the evidence, comparison of evidence, and clear articulation of uniqueness, link, and impact are important to me.

TOPICALITY:I like topicality debates but rarely see them. I look to compare two competing interpretations. I probably have a lower threshold than most for having to justify it as a voting issue.

KRITIKs: They are fine. I treat them like any other argument. The more specific the link evidence and link story is to the affirmative, the more engaged I will be. Multiple links are exponentially more persuasive. Permutations need to be clearly explained. I am open to K is bad arguments. I am not deep into all of the literature.

COUNTER PLANS: Counter Plans are fine. Permutations need to be clearly explained. Solvency for counter plans matter.

FRAMEWORK:Clarity on Framework is helpful early on in the debate.

I have a bias towards new/odd arguments. Especially creative DAs and Counterplans. If you are looking to test something out, I may be a good judge to try it on. I'll make sure I give you all the feedback you need.

The most important thing to know about me is that while I would like to be included in the email chain, I will not read evidence during the round. I believe it risks too much judge bias even from the most experienced judges. I will read evidence at the end of the round if things are close or if the one of the debaters convinces me I need to look at one or two key pieces of evidence. Ultimately, I will vote on my flow. This means a minimum level of speaking articulation, clarity, and general ease of flowing does matter. If I can not understand a speaker I will verbally give a warning or two with no penalty.

nathan li

UC Lab'25

hli@ucls.uchicago.edu

he/him

excited to judge!

TLDR: i go mostly for the k now but did a couple years pure policy, so you do you

don't do ad-homs or -isms (obviously)

spread, as long as you're intelligible enough i can flow you (obviously there's a difference between being unclear with tags and bodies of cards but it's probably better for you if I get the warrants of your cards down earlier). if it's bad i'll clear you

a lot of people seem to have a lot of thoughts on what's strategic or what's more persuasive. i don't really have these predispositions. i’ve switched my argument selection a lot. so, I'll evaluate anything with as much of a blank slate as possible given they don't violate the stuff above.

i'll give generally good speaks but even higher if you know what you're talking about in cross/throughout the debate, number/signpost your arguments, and give speeches such that it's obvious you flowed

be respectful

Specifics:

DAs: turns case and aff turns da arguments are massive and will make your opponents chance of winning very low. i think impact turning the da can be strategic and fun. novices please make sure you’re answering aff offense when kicking out. zero risk is probably possible. impact analysis in the final rebuttals is important for making the magnitude timeframe etc of the other team's impact taper.

CPs: functional competition seems more intuitive than t+f. your persuasiveness will fade. please make it obvious what the net benefit is(is it a da or an inb, etc) early on. i WILL vote for theory (fifty state, process bad) but anything other than condo is prolly whining. perm other issues is great.

Topicality:

Haven’t gone for it in a 2nr (except once when the aff DEFINITELY altered an entire subset)and have only extended it in the block a couple of times. that being said, i do understand HOW to debate topicality so if this is your thing by all means go for it. caselists are good. so is evidence comparison for interps. default to competing interps

K's: idc what the 2nr is, I've literally gone for fiat ks 90% of my 2nrs. could care less if its a reps k or a k with links to the plan and a fiated alt.

I'm familiar with: techno-orientalism, postcolonialism/racial ir, settler-colonialism, cap k, mbembe and the various ways he's read in debate. dabbled in baudrillard, foucault, bataille, some virilio, and recently agathangelou. regardless, im a sucker for any kind of k and will be interested in whatever it is you read (obviously you still have to win the flow to win). lowk i find pomo/post-structuralism really interesting and am not predisposed against them being read in debate so feel free to go wild. i will probably vote for death good but please don't read it if your opponents ask you not to.

Neg K Framework: I am amenable to middle ground interps. no I'm not gonna arbitrarily make one for you but I think that if you read an interp that gives you your links and maybe weighs the aff's plan that seems pretty reasonable and probably resolves a lot of aff fw offense. You don't need to win subject formation to win framework unless you're going for some subjectivity offense as solvency.

K-affs/T-USFG: TVA's are persuasive IF you explain how it solves offense and not just read the like plan text.

Ballot framing is HUGE. If the aff wins something like it's try or die for a risk of spill-out solving structural racism or the neg wins the only thing the ballot remedies is fairness the round is probably over unless you're winning some wild terminal defense elsewhere.

Impact Turns: LOVE them. Democracy bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, spark, warming good, war with x country good, etc etc are all fair game. who doesn't enjoy reading a bajillion cards in the block instead of actually doing line-by-line.

.

have fun and ask questions!

*2024 HS topic note: I've taught at SWSDI alongside Gerard Grigsby and I was a substitute for the second week of CDSI. My roommate is trying to study for the patent bar and using me as a Quizlet. I'm pretty surrounded by the topic at this point but I also have a lot more to learn and I hope your rounds help me do that.

I'm working on restructuring this. We're all aware it looks a bit silly. So some parts might be out of place, but I want to put them in here.

Some updated things to know:
No, you don't have to adapt your strategy to be more K heavy because my paradigm has a furby. In fact, I will be annoyed if you seem to pander.
Along this vein - I wouldn't consider myself a K hack. I find more and more that I am very comfortable voting on conceded procedurals. To me, "this theory argument doesn't matter/isn't good" as a one-sentence response with no warrants is categorically conceding it. But this goes from procedurals generally, and isn't really very K-related in my mind.
I prefer flowing off the speech unless I can't, so I might not notice clipping. Feel free to challenge.
If you are going for a K, the 2NR should make some commitment to explaining your alt.
My topic knowledge is literature-heavy, jargon, not so much. This is to say, please don't rename their DA to another name you've heard for it because this gets a bit confusing to me during roadmaps. Just call it what it was in the 1NC and I will be a happy camper.
I really like weighing debates, especially at the impact level. Link debates I feel require intervention far more often.
More and more I feel like being a good judge means being a lazy judge - not as far as flowing, I try to take the flow extremely seriously. I more find that the more I consider my own philosophy in a decision, the more I worry I'm intervening. That being said, tabula rasa probably isn't possible - my philosophy is a bit less predictable than other judges. I have tried to annotate the consequential things up here. If you're completing TOC prefs and have questions, feel free to email.

Last Update 08/13 - Policy debaters, you're in the right spot. PF, scroll down to the bottom for the relevant section.

Sections:
(1) About Me; (2) a section about keeping debates safe; (3) how I give speaker points; (4) a disclaimer about my side bias for neg; (5) my thoughts on K's; (6) general thoughts on evidence/weighing; and (7) a PF section. If you don't care about these things specifically, there is no reason to read the rest of my paradigm. Unless maybe you're bored, but I'd say a game of chess rock climbing would be a better way to alleviate that. lichess.org is a good place for that.(Unfortunately, I've been told you cannot rock climb on lichess.org).

TLDR: I'll find the cleanest path to the ballot on the flow. Tech >>> Truth. Don't be violent, make debate an educational activity and I'll probably be a good judge for you.

abigailnspencer[at]gmail.com.

(1) About Me
Coaching: University of Chicago Lab, South Shore, Potomac Debate Academy
Formerly: McDade Classical, Lindblom, Phillips Exeter, SWSDI, CDSI, CSSI

Competed in NDT/CEDA policy debate and AFA-NIET speech (Arizona State). Top 10 NSDA point earners '20. I've done most events. I can flow. I did a lot of hybrid partnerships, so I've run arguments across the spectrum. Performance, trad, it's all cool.

(2) PLEASE BE A GOOD HUMAN
Disclaimer: I do not give you a W or higher speaker points for respecting pronouns. I think that respecting pronouns is a good way to make debate a safe and welcoming space. If you want to know my values, read my debate background. I am tired of being treated like a judge who will vote for you just because you asked for your opp's pronouns.

that being said, you should use they/them pronouns for anyone who has not disclosed otherwise in your round. I'm seeing an influx of trans debaters cling to this activity as a safe space - don't be what shatters that.

there's also an unspoken imbalance in the accessibility of pronoun disclosure. it takes 10 seconds to update your bio to tell the homies you're cis. for trans debaters this decision carries all the weight in the world and isn't always instantaneous. not disclosing pronouns does not mean you do not care. it is often because it is not safe to do so.

make debates safe before you make them winnable. your words may just change someone's life.

(3) Things that I give high speaks for:
Argumentative and strategic consistency and awareness- in every cross or speech you give, I can identify a clear understanding of your case and strategy. You're not just reading each speech in front of you, you're thinking about the round as a whole.

Also, I am always impressed by good topic knowledge. I don't expect this, since topics are broad and you're not required to be an expert, but for me I will definitely bump up speaks if you clearly know a lot about this topic from your research.

Finally, I don't really care about how you speak/where you speak in the room. I don't care about eye contact. What I consider to be good for "professionalism" is being accountable for prep time, speech times, and cross times. I won't be upset if you take a second to get ready when you are about to start your speech. But if you're consistently ending prep and speaking very promptly after, I will reward that with higher speaks since I do kind of dislike when people "end prep" and then very clearly continue to read through their speech and mentally prep until they start talking.

Be kind to your partners. Do not be overly cocky.

(4) am I BIASED??? (not clickbait)
I've been voting neg a lot recently. I'm not a neg hack, but I think a lot of affs forget how easy it is to vote neg and not intervene when the aff isn't weighed against the status quo. Please extend your impacts! An overview that's even 30 seconds in the 2AR is critical to explaining why the aff is a good idea if you want me to vote for it.

I am finding more and more debates decided during the last speech on each side. I think debates can totally be won or lost earlier, but I'm just not seeing that at the hs level. This is all to say - frame, frame, frame. Cool debaters have cool voters. I vote on the flow and I don't necessarily care that a card or two were dropped, unless you want to explain why it loses the debate. Spend less time extending cards and more time telling me why you win and they lose - I crave judge intervention less than you do, trust me.

(5) Your name makes you sound like a neolib, but you have college policy experience...can I read my K?
I fall into the category of K debater that appreciates a good K but has a visceral reaction to a bad one. I don't see the same novelty most judges do in your performance, I'm sorry. I hit a sex worker/call girl rage performance in college and since then I've realized that anything can happen in these rounds. Please don't assume that me having K experience means reading a K is the best strategy. I will totally vote for your K, but I will hold you to defending it properly and explaining how you solve your impacts - especially if you want me to accept a non-traditional ROB, like "always vote for this K, no matter what."

Essentially, debate the way you want to and I'll evaluate accordingly.

THE DEFAULT IS debate is a game, you win on the flow. You can read another interp though, I'll evaluate whatever you tell me debate is.

(6) The other, less interesting debate stuff you should know.
I will warn that coming from Policy I'm a bit sussed out by why the one card they dropped is more important than all the other work they did on your flow. Do not expect me to do the work for you. I'm looking for the cleanest path to the ballot, but please explain why I should vote on something. Conceded offense probably isn't great for you, but if you just extend a dropped turn that wasn't ever fleshed out and they're winning case, it comes down to who does the better comparative. Framework debates are cool.

You make my job so much easier when you define an aff world against a neg world. What actually happens when the resolution is "passed"? I don't want to re-read your link story after the round, and I'm more likely to believe it hearing it in summary and final focus than I am when critically evaluating my flow. Extend impacts, they won't do it by themselves (trust me).

Speed's cool with me if it's cool with all debaters in the round. I'd personally send out a speech doc after 300wpm because of the likelihood of lag in online settings. In general, if you want your arguments on my flow make sure you're loud and clear. I flow everything on its own sheet, so off-time road maps are cool. Signposting is even cooler.

Don't use unnecessary jargon. Unless this is visibly a higher level tech round, I do believe you should be doing everything in your power to make sure everyone in round has access to the same education you do.

Make debate educational, above all else. Accessibility is a pre-requisite to education. Exclude, you lose.

(7) PF gets a tiny lil spot here
1. I coach/teach classes in ES and MS PF - even though I judge policy more often, I'm very familiar with PF as an event and don't expect you to act like high schoolers or policy debaters. Don't get overwhelmed by my paradigm! I can judge you.

2. Weighing arguments in summary/final focus is essential for me, more than any other thing. Weighing just means comparing your case to theirs and specifically telling me why I vote for you and not them. Just because your arguments are good isn't enough; I need to know why they're better.

3. Crossfire is not a speech, so if you make a good attack on their argument in cross that you want me to evaluate on the flow, bring it up in your next speech.

4. Extensions can be simple, I just need to know you haven't forgotten your case - like, you don't have to rexplain your whole case in every speech, but it also doesn't look good if you spend so much time responding to what they ay that you don't talk about your case after constructive.

(8) I know I didn't put this in my roadmap, so this is a top secret section...Middle School Debate!
Who am I kidding...middle schoolers don't read paradigms. But then again, does anyone anymore?