Name: Aris Ferreira

Current Affiliation: Barack Obama Male Leadership Academy

Conflicts: Barack Obama Male Leadership Academy

Debate Experience: 3yr. Coaching middle and high school

How many rounds have you judged in 2022-23: at least 30

arguments that you prefer to listen to/debate.

1. Theory debates
2. Ethics
3. Race

arguments that you prefer not to listen to/debate.

1. Climate change arguments can get redundant.

I do like to do or like watch other people do.

1. I do like line by line

stylistics items you do not like to watch other people do.

1. I prefer clarity over speed

2. I prefer closed debates

I have a background in rhetoric therefore I prefer to listen more nuanced debate rounds. While I appreciate a technical debate as much as the next judge, I find it more interesting and compelling to listen to a debate with a foundation in persuasion and rhetoric. Strong logical arguments with sound reasonings.

Background:

Policy debater for 4 years. 2A/2N

Okemos '23, MIT '27

Top Level

Please add me to the email chain: stephdebate@gmail.com

Aff: I'm fine with judging any aff, but assume I have no prior knowledge and explain the aff well. K affs must have a clear solvency mechanism for me to vote on it.

DAs: I'm fine with any DA, but clearly explain the link.

CPs: Explain the CP and why it's competitive.

Ks: Please explain the K well.

T/FWs: Clearly explain the violation and why it matters.

Keep overviews short and explain in 2NR/2AR why your impacts outweigh/why should you win.

Please be kind and respectful to everyone in the round.

...

2024-25 Update

I have limited experience on this topic, so explain your arguments, especially what you want me to vote on.

Online Debate

Make sure my camera is on / I indicate I'm ready before you begin your speech.

T/FW

I enjoy T debates, but make sure to explain the standards, voters, and violation. Please be consistent with your interpretation throughout the round.

DAs

The more specific the link, the easier it is for me to vote for the DA. Do impact calc in the final rebuttals. Turns are great.

CPs

I default to judge kick the counterplan. I'll vote on whether the CP has a net benefit unless instructed otherwise, so please explain the net benefit and why the CP solves.

K/K-aff

I'm fine with Ks, but please assume I don't have prior knowledge and explain the K well. I have experience with Cap and Security, but still explain the link, alt solvency, and impact.

Theory

I'll vote on theory, but it needs to be well-developed. Explain the voters and the violation.

Speaks

I'll reward clarity and good arguments. I'm fine with spreading as long as you don't sacrifice clarity. I prefer more analytics than cards in the rebuttals.

Miscellaneous

When extending an argument, please extend the warrant even if the argument is dropped. Tagline extensions will have a lower threshold to beat.

Clipping and cheating result in an automatic loss.

Feel free to email me with questions after the round!

...

X marks the judge position:

No Tag Team CX--------------------X-------------Yes Tag Team CX

Tech------X-------------------------------------Truth

No cards----------------------X-----------A lot of cards

Read cards in rebuttals-------------------------------X----------Don't read cards in rebuttals

Clarity----------X-----------------------------------Speed

2NRs that condense to a couple arguments--X--------------------------------2NRs that go for everything

2AR/2NRs that are like the 1AR/1NRs------------------------------X--2AR/2NRs that write the judge ballot

Explain everything-----X--------------------------------Don't explain anything

You do you and I'll judge accordingly. Run the arguments with which you are most comfortable.

Email chain, please! jhollihan18@gmail.com

he/him

I debated for four years in high school, most of that time being a 1A/2N, and on these topics: China Relations, Education, Immigration, and Arms Sales. Most of my 1ACs were soft left and I usually went for DA + case or the Cap K in the 2NR.

Some relevant predispositions:

- I have not debate competitively since high school, so please slow down. I'm not saying that you cannot go fast, but since being away from the national circuit, I have become more numb to it. If you are going at top speed, I may miss something and therefore, it won't go on my flow and therefore, I cannot evaluate it.

- I usually err neg on conditionality unless there are more than three advocacies. Personally, I think that perf con is a more interesting theory argument.

- My knowledge of critical scholarship ranges in the fields of antiblackness, capitalism, gender, and security.

- 1NCs with more than five off case positions annoy me. I won't stop you from reading more than five, but I will be sympathetic to new 1AR arguments.

Director of Debate at Alpharetta High School where I also teach AP US Government & Politics (2013- present)

Former grad assistant at Vanderbilt (2012-2013)

Debated (badly) at Emory (2007-2011).

I am currently serving a three-year term on the topic committee.

Please add me to the email chain: laurenivey318@gmail.com

I try my best to be a tabula rasa judge and simply evaluate the round in front of me with as little intervention as possible.

I do not flow off the doc, but I do spot check for clipping and as I've gotten older I am increasingly willing to just say if I can't understand what you are saying it's not getting flowed.I think I am decent at flowing so if I miss something because you were unclear it seems reasonable your opponents would miss it too.

I am increasingly frustrated by teams just dropping random buzzwords and asserting these are arguments. The word "semiotics" or "fungibility" and then moving on is not an argument. Asserting something is a "sequencing DA" and moving on without an explanation of the argument is not an argument. I am not going to vote for you unless I can explain the argument back to you, so you need to make sure claims (or words) have warrants and explanations.

Counterplans- I like a good counterplan debate. I generally think conditionality is good, and is more justified against new affirmatives. PICs, Process CPs, Uniqueness CPs, Multiplank CPs, Advantage CPs etc. are all fine. On consult counterplans, and other counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive, I tend to lean aff on CP theory. All CPs are better with a solvency advocate. If the negative reads a CP, presumption shifts affirmative, and the negative needs to be winning a decent risk of the net benefit for me to vote negative.

Disads- The more specific, the better. Yes, you can read your generic DAs but I love when teams have specific politix scenarios or other specific DAs that show careful research and tournament prep. If there are a lot of links being read on a DA, I tend to default to the team that is controlling uniqueness.

Topicality- I find T debates sometimes difficult to evaluate because they sometimes seem to require a substantial amount of judge intervention. A tool that I think is really under utilized in T debates is the caselist/ discussion of what affs are/ are not allowed under your interpretation. Try hard to close the loop for me at the end of the 2nr/ 2ar about why your vision of the topic is preferable. Be sure to really discuss the impacts of your standards in a T debate.

Framework- Framework is a complicated question for me. On a truth level, I think people should read a plan text, and I exclusively read plan texts when I was a debater. However, I'll vote for whoever wins the debate, whether you read a topical plan text or not, and frequently vote for teams that don't read a plan text; in fact, my voting record is better for teams reading planless affirmatives than it is for teams going for FW. However, I also think this is because teams that don't defend a plan are typically much better at defending their advocacy than neg teams are at going for FW. I tend to think affs should at least be in the direction of the topic; I'm fairly sympathetic to the "you explode limits 2nr" if your aff is about something else. Put another way, if your aff is not at least somewhat related to the topic area it's going to be harder to get my ballot. I do think fairness is a terminal impact because I don't know what an alternative way to evaluate the debate would be but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Kritiks- I am more familiar with more common Ks such as security or cap than I am with high theory arguments like Baudrillard. You can still read less common or high theory Ks in front of me, but you should probably explain them more. I tend to think the alternative is one of the weakest parts of the Kritik and that most negative teams do not do enough work explaining how the Kritik functions.

Misc-If both teams agree that topicality will not be read in the debate, and that is communicated to me prior to the start of the round, any mutually agreed previous year's topic is on the table. I will also bump speaks +0.5 for choosing this option as long as an effort is made by both teams. I am strongly in the camp of tech over truth. I flow on paper and definitely need pen time; I've tried to flow on the computer and it just doesn't work for me.

I am unlikely to vote on disclose your prefs, wipeout, spark, or anything else I would consider morally repugnant. I also don't think debate should be a question of who is a good person. While I think you should make good decisions out of round, I am not in the camp of voting for people based on allegations made in round about out of round behavior. But, I have voted against teams or substantially lowered speaks for making the round a hostile learning environment and think it is my job as a judge and educator to make the round a safe space.

Good luck! Feel free to email me with any questions.

Raleigh Maxwell

MBA Debate '24

Emory Debate '28

Editor at Policy Debate Central

He/him

Email Chain

raleighdebate@gmail.com

debatemba@gmail.com

IPostRound@googlegroups.com

Flowing Disclosure

I flow on computer straight down. I generally transcribe as much as I can, unless speed or clarity prevent me. I read along and do not flow the 1AC. My primary source of information is your voice. I flow with the doc up, although I rarely scroll through it. I don't flow CP or perm texts but usually read along in the doc when they are being read.

Paradigm

First and foremost, I'm a 2A at heart. Every fiber in my body exudes the predispotions of a 2A. I do, however, attempt to judge debates in the most technical manner possible. I'll vote on dropped theory arguments (if they are clearly flagged as a voting issue), spark, wipeout, the death K, and even CPs that require the "butterfly effect" card to establish competition. As a fair warning, don't expect good speaks if these arguments are your primary strategy.

Topicality: Good for limits offense on the IP topic if you can find a workable definition. Decent topic knowledge about T interps.

Counterplans: Good for almost anything. I don't like generic process garbage, so I'll be aff-leaning on competition. There are plenty of generic CPs on the IP topic. Condo's probably good.

Disads: I love a good DA and case 2NR, but I do realize those might be untenable on this topic.

Kritiks: I am not your best judge for kritiks but will vote for the team who presents a better story to me. Ballot solvency is important for models debates.

Kritikal Affirmatives: Fairness is an impact but a very small one. Big fan of the Ballot PIK. I was a 2A in high school and rarely extended T-USFG, so err on the side of over-explaining things on both the aff and neg.

Case: Teams do not know how to write affirmatives coherently. Exploit it. Especially on the IP topic.

Speaker Points

+.1 for thorough and organized wiki disclosure. Let me know after the round that you open source, or I will not award the bonus.

+.1 for debating entirely off of your paper flow in the 2NR or 2AR. Ineligible for people who flow on their computer and for 1Ns/1As.

Ways to get higher speaker points:

1. Organization: stay organized on the flow and on speech docs.

2. Clarity: self-explanatory.

3. Efficiency: clear, quick arguments will be rewarded.

4. Research: it is incredibly easy to tell who has cut the cards in a debate round.

Pet Peeves

AFF (acronym) < Aff (shortened word)

Seepee < counterplan

Judge < Raleigh

Rehighlighting

The norm of "inserting rehighlightings" has proliferated across the high school debate community, so it is worth explaining my thoughts on the practice. I do believe you are allowed to insert rehighlights for text that has already been introduced in the round, either highlighted or unighlighted, underlined or un-underlined. You do, however, have to read text that is from other portions of an article and not merely "insert" it. To me, this standard represents the only reasonable way to evaluate inserted rehighlightings. That being said, I'll vote on an illegitimate inserted rehighlight if it's not contested by the other team on theory grounds.

Card Doc

I usually won't want/need a card doc, but sometimes I will ask for one. Part of the reason I dislike card docs more than other judges is due to the my frustration with teams inserting things other than "cards" in a card doc. It is called a card doc for a reason. If I see an analytic, an extension (even the grey highlighting extensions), or a block header that says "conceded," I will close your card doc and not use it to make my decision. All you need in a card doc is the cards you read and sometimes cards the other team read that you conceded. If there is a significant abuse of the card doc, I will dock your speaks. I would prefer not to do that and will only reserve it for extreme cases.

Ethics

Entirely agree with Truf's guidelines to ethics issues in debate rounds.

Other Notes

If you would like the round to be recorded and posted on YouTube (either unlisted or listed on Policy Debate Central), please let me know.

Also, if you want Emory Debate stickers, let me know.

LD

I've never judged LD. Do with that what you will. I struggle to understand how the format is not incredibly neg-biased, so I will not be lenient on new arguments in the NR. Bad for phil/tricks/etc.

Policy Debate - I have 1 year of experience judging LD/PF debates and two years of judging Policy Debate. I have been judging on the national circuit as a Policy Judge, gaining a better understanding of the fundamentals. I also judged Policy at the National Debate Tournament in Des Moines, Iowa.

Email chain: adrnobrn@gmail.com

Off-time roadmaps - I LOVE off-time roadmaps.

Spreading/Spewing—This past season, I have found that I don't mind speeding or spewing. As long as I have the document, feel free to deliver your arguments rapidly. I rely heavily on the document but have developed the ability to flow somewhat by listening. While clarity is not critical, I must understand where you are in the document. Shout those taglines!

Arguments:

Kritiks- I'm open to kritiks. I'm not deeply familiar with all the literature. While I'm open to framework arguments, I'm not very into theory, so please explain everything in detail. I prefer if the alternative to the Kritik relates to the real world and you prove how it solves the issues rather than just focusing on the framework. Please explain the whole story of the Kritik—the links, the internal connections, the impacts, and the alternatives.

K Affs—I was exposed to them last season, and I don't dislike them, but I suggest you run them at your own risk.

T/Theory—I don't love theory-only debates; however, I am open to evaluating actual in-round abuse. The threshold for proving in-round abuse is going to be pretty high.

However, topicality is a little bit different. I believe it is the aff's burden to be topical, so if the neg can solidly prove why it is untopical and how that hurts the debate space, I will vote on it.

Counterplans—I love counterplans. I will not vote on a counterplan if it doesn't have a net benefit; I will not kick out counterplans for you. Please be very clear on what you are kicking. If the CP doesn't solve for the DA and you don't kick out of the CP, you will lose on both. Going along with net benefits, please specify which one it is because I am still learning to evaluate everything.

Disads - This is pretty basic; make it make logical sense. Tell me the story of the disad, and link it to the impact. I like a good extinction impact, and I'm very pleased if you can convince me, but I will admit that very few teams have been able to get me there.

Case - The aff should be a clear and coherent story. I am heavy on solvency, so you must prove solvency. If you don't prove how this is an issue, you lose. Extend your evidence; your best evidence should be in the 1AC.

Other thoughts - I am very story-driven. Tell me how we get to where we get to. Outline it very clearly for me. I love off-time roadmaps so that I can organize the flow better. I will try to keep up, but there are no guarantees I will catch everything. Your cards are critical. I rely heavily on them. The more organized your cards are, the better. Don't be afraid to tell me how you are winning in the cards. Spell it out, highlight it, bold it - color it, and keep sending it to me until the very end; I don't care if it's the same cards --- remind me why you are winning! It's a crutch I'm happy to use until I get better. Make sure your cards are up to date. I've voted against teams specifically because of the fact that the cards were obsolete. It's policy, and you are arguing for real-world change. I've witnessed a seasoned judge checking recent news to verify if a cited card was applicable, and unfortunately, it wasn't. As a result, that team lost. I adhere to that approach. Debate hard and have fun!

Email: jessiesatovskydebate(at)gmail(dot)com

Note for 2025 topic: I have 0 topic knowledge and very little experience judging on this topic, so keep that in mind when debating in front of me and make sure to explain topic acronyms, etc.

I have 6 years' debating experience from high school and 2 years at Emory.

I prefer policy arguments since I have a better understanding of them, but I have a pretty good grasp of just about any argument. Bottom line: read what you want, explain it well, and be respectful to your opponents!

----Policy:

K arguments:

I have a bias against random K arguments so unless you can explain them to me well, probably don't go for it (ie: ontology-esque, Baudrillard/Post-modernist critiques, and things that don't seem to be an opportunity cost to the aff, etc.).

Framework almost always decides this debate. Middle-ground frameworks are confusing---the affirmative saying that I should "weigh the links against the plan" provides no instruction regarding the central question: how does the judge compare the educational implications of the 1AC's representations to the consequences of plan implementation? "Hard-line" frameworks that exclude the case or the kritik are much clearer.

I will decide the framework debate in favor of one side's interpretation. I will not resolve some arbitrary middle road that neither side presented.

If the k is causal to the plan, a well-executing affirmative should almost always win my ballot. The permutation double-bind, uniqueness presses on the link and impact, and a solvency deficit to the alternative will be more than sufficient for the affirmative. The neg will have to win significant turns case arguments, an external impact, and amazing case debating if framework is lost. At this point, you are better served going for a proper counterplan and disadvantage.

Topicality

T-USFG --

I'm pretty neg-leaning here, and generally believe that topical plans are the best route to fair and predictable engagementToto win as a K-aff on framework, you will need to either impact turn framework or provide a counter-model and a good description as to why your model best solves your framework and makes sense in a space like debate, which relies upon rules and predictability for both teams to be adequately prepared to debate one another. Doing impact calculus with your offense and explaining why the debates under your model are good and why debates under their model are net worse is important and helpful for me when resolving your debate.

Other T -- make sure to do good impact calculus and contrast models (see above for T-USFG).

Policy arguments

Disadvantages -- you need to be thorough in your explanation and point out why the aff specifically triggers the link, otherwise it's low-risk and I'll probably defer aff.

Counterplans -- point out why it solves the aff specifically, and affs should focus on quantifying the solvency deficit, otherwise a risk of the net benefit probably outweighs.

Dropped arguments

Make sure to point out they're dropped, and in the rebuttals explain why that's important so I know how to evaluate it. Please don't excessively say arguments are dropped if they're not, it's redundant and wastes your speech time.

Lay Debate

Generally, please go slower, I'll judge like a lay round unless specifically instructed that y'all want it to be a circuit round. You don't have to go as slow as you would with a parent but slow the debate down and spend more time explaining your arguments than spreading through cards.

----LD:

I've never competed in the activity so I'm not familiar with the specific theory/tricks and will view the debate similarly to how I'd view a policy debate. Explicit judge instruction and impact calc will go a long way for me, especially in the final rebuttals.

Things that will lower your speaks: stopping prep time before you start creating your speech doc, egregiously asking your opponent what was marked/not read, and going for an RVI.

Misc

- Online debate = it's harder to hear, so please try to be extra clear, and slow down so that you can be even clearer if needed.

- Time yourself, and please don't steal prep. It makes you look bad and I'll dock your points.

- Please keep your camera on if possible; looks less shady and lets me connect with y'all.

- *Make sure to check that I (in addition to everyone else in the round) am ready before you start, or I'll probably miss something.

Most of all, do your best and have fun!

Mike Shackelford
Head Coach of Rowland Hall. I debated in college and have been a lab leader at CNDI, Michigan, and other camps. I've judged about 20 rounds the first semester.

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible.

Key Preferences & Beliefs
Debate is a game.
Literature determines fairness.
It’s better to engage than exclude.
Critique is a verb.
Defense is undervalued.

Judging Style
I flow on my computer. If you want a copy of my flow, just ask.
I think CX is very important.
I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions.
Add me to the email chain: mikeshackelford(at)rowlandhall(dot)org

Feel free to ask.

Want something more specific? More absurd?

Debate in front of me as if this was your 9 judge panel:

Andre Washington, Ian Beier, Shunta Jordan, Maggie Berthiaume, Daryl Burch, Yao Yao Chen, Nicholas Miller, Christina Philips, jon sharp

If both teams agree, I will adopt the philosophy and personally impersonate any of my former students:

Ben Amiel, Andrew Arsht, David Bernstein, Madeline Brague, Julia Goldman, Emily Gordon, Adrian Gushin, Layla Hijjawi, Elliot Kovnick, Will Matheson, Ben McGraw, Corinne Sugino, Caitlin Walrath, Sydney Young (these are the former debaters with paradigms... you can also throw it back to any of my old school students).

LD Paradigm

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of my expectations and preferences. I spend most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I do teach LD and judge practice debates in class. I try to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: I'm unlikely to vote here. Most theory debates aren't impacted well and often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: Clarity > Speed. That should be a no-brainer. That being said, I'm sure I can flow you at whatever speed you feel is appropriate to convey your arguments.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.

Lowell '23

Emory '27

Please add lowelldebatedocs@gmail.com to the email chain

LD: I have learned I am not good for tricks, philosophy or theory. I did policy in high school, now do policy in college, and have only judged a couple rounds of this event.

It's helpful if chains are titled: Tournament Round # --- Team Code [AFF] v Team Code [NEG]

2024-25 IP Rights: I have next to no topic knowledge ---err on the side of over explanation, I have judged few rounds on this topic.

TLDR: Debate is a game and is played to win. Tech outweighs truth. Judge instruction rules all and should be the first sentence of your 2NR or 2AR. I actively attempt to avoid intervening in my decisions.

I debated at Lowell High School in San Francisco, and as a result almost all my thoughts are very similar to Debnil Sur's. During this time, I debated on the national circuit as well as our local circuit (which was much more lay). I now debate in college at Emory University.

Any confusion about my paradigm or how I judge can be resolved by reading Debnil Sur's, Jessie Satovsky's, or Taylor Tsan's, as all of my thoughts about debate are the shoplifted, trickle-downed version of theirs.

• Conditionality is most probably good. I went for the K on the neg sometimes in high school and also read many off policy strategies - as a result, I am pretty much cool to judge many things (absent pomo-esque, niche Ks, and a KvK debate, in which I may be quite confused and not give the most thorough decision).
• I think I am better for "bad" neg strategies than many. In this category, I think people would put things like process counterplan/competition debates, K tricks, word PICs, etc - I think that these debates can be fun and interesting
• I really dislike debaters being condescending in round — I don’t think it makes you seem smarter, and it makes the round unbearable to debate in and judge. That being said, I understand that it’s a competitive activity and emotions can run high, but for everyone’s sake, please be respectful. What you take away from debate will not be crushing freshman with 10 off, but your teammate ditching you at NSDA for a week to go home early, or your friends getting roasted in an RFD and laughing about it for months after.

GGSA/Lay

I am totally down for a fast circuit style round, BUT if both teams do not want a fast round that's totally fine — lay debate is a good skill to cultivate and learn. I think judge adaptation and learning to read panels is good, so adapt however YOU think is best. I will most likely decide the debate on a technical level, because I don't think there's any more objective way for myself to evaluate a round with the background I have. At the end of the day, it is an activity in convincing a judge (or winning the panel), and this is the best way that I think you can get my ballot.

Miscellaneous

Read anything you want. If an argument is truly bad, do not instruct me to reject it, but instead just beat it. I do not understand judges who will claim to be tech over truth and then have predispositions against arguments that inform their decision.

I flow on computer. That being said, I am not the fastest typer, and have found that speeding through theory blocks, or having no distinction between pages will not be in your favor.

Clipping allegations must be recorded.

An evidence ethics issue becomes an issue if you have contacted the team and they have ignored your correction. Else, I will probably not be swayed by your challenge to reject the team. These issues should be debated like any other argument.

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign '28 ('27?)

If you are going to UIUC next year and want to continue debate, contact me. We will likely have a policy squad with a couple of teams and would appreciate any help that we could get whether its research help or actually debating. There's no "real" program, and we don't have money or coaches or anything.

Fox Chapel '24

Other conflicts/coaching: Gunn KB, Edison BB, Jenks GH, Whitney Young SV/MB, Unionville HK

Email: adhi[dot]thirumala[at]gmail[dot]com

Varsity only, add this as well: realartistsofguantanamobay[at]googlegroups[dot]com

I've decided to do version-control on this page; you can find previous versions at my Github.

Long story short, dishonorable victory is preferable to honest defeat. Because some people have misinterpreted this line in the past, this does NOT mean to do academic dishonesty.

I've been every speaker position, gone for every kind of argument, and debated at every level of the activity from the most lay to the most circuit. This used to be a lot longer. I thought that I needed to express all these random thoughts about the activity, but as I kept going on, I realized that I don't actually care that much. (UPDATE: I do care actually. This document gets bigger after every tournament.) Debate made me happy in high school, and I enjoyed doing it. One of the few things that caused me anguish while I competed was judge intervention, either at the level where they would enforce argument preference, or at the level where they would make poor technical decisions and not take the simplest path to a victory. Part of what made the activity so fun was going for whatever positions I wanted, whether they were "honorable" or not. I will try my hardest to listen to whatever is in front of me because at the end of the day, the debate is about you, the debaters, not me.

I will intervene and end the round only in one of the three following circumstances.
1. A debater asking to end the round.
2. A debater not capable of communicating to me that they would like the debate to continue (e.g. someone unconscious, linguistic barrier, etc.)
3. Tabroom telling me to make a decision in a certain manner.

A couple of thoughts from an older version of this document that I think are still necessary for me to express (and some that are new).
1. Remember to have offense. Posturing and asserting that your opponent has gone for a "bad" argument does nothing to beat back the "badness" of it. This applies a lot in theory, competition, and topicality debates a lot. Having strong vision in these debates is something that will result in high speaker points.
2. Send me emails with proper subjects, WORD documents with proper names and headers. Preferably nothing in the body of an email either. My computer is already cluttered; don't make it worse.
3. I don't want a card document. I think most judge screws come from judges going rogue and reading evidence. I will try my hardest not to do this unless instructed to by debaters. I also think that card documents give debaters an incentive to add cards not extended or rewrite headers to imply arguments not made. I don't want to deal with that.
4. I find myself in a lot of clash debates now. I guess that's the price to pay for someone that's argumentatively agnostic, and I now understand why a lot of the judges I preffed high as a debater found themselves here. After judging a fair amount of these, I've found modern T - USFG debates boring when they're just brute forces of the "microaggression" vs the "fairness paradox". Please innovate on both sides to prevent my soul from wasting away in clash purgatory. Examples include cool carded T arguments that are takeouts to things like "microaggressions evaluation good", "subjectivity shift", or "K v K debates good". The same applies to the affirmatives in these debates. I also think that this strategy will help you a lot more than "go to tab + guilt assuasion" vs "tab is biased against *insert group*". To be fair, this doesn't change the way I'll evaluate such debates, but it can boost my value to life during the monotony that is online debate which is a good thing for all of us.
5. It is better to fill in offense than to create defense out of nothing. What does this mean? Imagine that the 1AR does not extend an internal link to an impact and just makes terminal impact claims, but the 2NR never extends an internal link defense argument. Now imagine that the 2AR once again only extends a terminal impact. What does one do here? Some judges would not vote for the advantage because the 2AR didn't extend an internal link. Inevitably, these judges get post-rounded, get asked the question "where did the 2NR say this", and then fold. Inversely, if judges vote affirmative, then the case for "Why did you vote aff when the 2AR didn't extend an internal link" is simple: "I was not told to do such a thing." It might seem obvious what to do in this specific scenario, but these scenarios show up in much more complicated debates all the time. Debate is more about the burden of rejoinder than the burden of proof.
6. I don't judge kick by default. My justification for this it that it seems to be interventionist to make a decision without either teams asking me to do so, almost akin to filling in defense arbitrarily by kicking a counterplan. I think that judge kick is likely truthfully a good thing, and if the block/2NR says some amount of words, it is hard for the affirmative to articulate an alternative to judge kick without winning condo (and rarely does it invest precious 1AR time into doing so).
7. Time prep yourself. In varsity, I generally trust debaters enough to do such a thing. Honestly, I forget to time it myself a lot of the time.
8. Postround me. Disagreement is the highest form of respect (we're in DEBATE). I am a lowly first-year who is only slightly better than average at flowing. Debate is quite stressful, and talking it out after a round is certainly better than ruminating on a round for much time after. Taking that into account, I understand if you get slightly heated in a postround and won't hold it against you personally at all. You are all high-schoolers. I am an adult. It would be weird for me to hold grudges or get needlessly enraged at you.

Now, to end this page, imagine that I quoted that line about science fiction, trolls, and blank checks.

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" or "we win on framework, that turns all their offense"--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 keep 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 something 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 genocide, 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 a 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 with other arguments, 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 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--and that seem to consist of little more substance than "ground" or "fairness". 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.