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

Background:

Varsity Policy Debater 1A/1N

Okemos High School '26

akshara.devendiran@gmail.com - add me to the chain

TL:

- Tech > Truth 100%

- Can handle speed

- Going LBL and grouping args key

- Smart re-highlights, analytics, cross applications will earn you speaks

- Will tank your speaks if you are rude, bigoted, or otherwise damaging during the round

T:

Neg - a clear interp, violation, standards, and voters. Be consistent in your interp throughout the round. Impact needs to be extended in round for me to vote on. Double binding with case solvency is good. Aff - 2ac should have a “we meet” and counter interp. I am not against RVIs, especially if neg interp is clearly abusive.

CPs:

I default to judge kick on CPs. Explain why the CP is competitive, net benefit, and perms. I like short overviews in 2ar/2nr. Theory is one of the most underappreciated arguments against abusive CPs.

DAs:

A good DA has a clear link to impact chain. Internal links can mean lower probability of impact on the DA. For aff, I have a lower threshold for voting on uniqueness - especially if neg uniqueness evidence is not definitive. Link turns and impact turns will regain ground.

K:

I’m familiar with the typical - Cap, Biopower, Ballot, Setcol, Security, Academy, and other identity K’s. I will vote for other high theory type K’s, but don’t extensively rely on academic buzzwords and jargon. Framework is the most important part and evaluated first for both teams - ROB and explanations of standards like stasis points, objectivity/subjectivity, competitive equity will put you in the lead. Links need to be strong and case-specific. For aff, impact inevitable args or link/impact turns tend to bring most clash. Theory and solvency attacks on perm and alt are important. Neg - kick the alt if needed in 2nr to avoid a high theory arg, etc.

Case:

Aff - I have seen too many teams drop their case. Go line by line, group, and extend cards. Use marginal reasonability presumption framing against no solvency args. Neg - I will vote on 2nr that is just case on presumption. Turns, solvency deficits, author indicts will make a good case debate.

Theory:

Unless it’s over 8 off, condo or disp bad probably isn’t abusive. I have a higher threshold but will still vote on it if argued well. On the other hand, I am 100% willing to vote on a neg perf con.

Important notes for 24-25 season:

I have been very distantly involved in debate over the past year or so, which means I am not too familiar with this years topic. Keep that in mind during the debate. It would be beneficial for my understanding of your arguments if you reduce the use of topic specific terms of art or acronyms (without necessary context). In general, just try not to rely on arguments that hinge on a judge being familiar with this years topic. That being said, I'd like to think I'm a smart guy, so it likely won't be the end of the world. Just a little food for thought..

General:

My email is Benglick78@gmail.com, I'd like to be on the chain.

If I ever judge you and you have questions that you didn't ask after the round, please feel free to email me whatever your questions are.

I'm Ben Glick, a former policy debater at Groves High School. My pronouns are he/him.

I'm a normal person, so you can call me Ben, not judge, if you're comfortable. Being called judge is fine, just feels a little odd and impersonal.

I will very likely forget to include a lot of relevant information, so you can ask me anything about my paradigm before the debate.

Questions like where did you end or what cards did you read are cross ex questions. If you're gonna ask, do it in cross not before.

Ks:

I'm probably not the best judge if you plan on reading high theory or super complex Ks. Considering I haven't read a lot of K lit, if you plan on reading these types of Ks make sure you are explaining it. During my time debating and judging, I've become more familiar with several Ks: Death Drive, some queer theory, some reps Ks, set col, misc Ks. Point being, I can understand the K, and I really enjoy K debates. However, there is a lot of lit am unfamiliar with, so make sure you actually understand the K you are running the the point where you can clearly articulate the concept of your K, the alt, and the links to the aff. Historically, I have been more sympathetic to voting on f/w plus links than I think other judges are, so if you are clearly winning on f/w thats an option assuming you're reading the right type of f/w. I also really enjoy subject formation type arguments because I think they are generally true in the case of debate.

K affs:

My thoughts on this are very similar. My knowledge of the specific literature for K affs is also limited. I have read, helped make, and judged k affs before, so I am not clueless. The parts of the K aff that I have a weaker understanding of would be your specific solvency mechanism or specific K theory. I'm probably not a great judge to read a K aff in front of, but it's not something I will refuse to hear in a debate.

T:

One suggestion I will make is if you're extending T into the block, please don't just go full speed, monotone through the whole flow. T debates don't use a lot of cards, and it's hard to flow when I'm getting 18 unclear analytics per second. So just be clear and signpost between arguments on the flow.

Please have an interpretation that makes sense with your violation. I have seen too many rounds in the state of Michigan where a team just doesn't read a interpretation or reads a violation that doesn't make sense with the interpretation read. Think of it like a DA. You wouldn't read a politics DA without uniqueness, and you wouldn't read a plan saps PC link with a floor time uniqueness story.

Also, neg you don't need to formally concede T, and aff you don't need to inform me that the neg did not extend T

CPs and CP theory:

As a debater, I tended to lean neg on counterplan theory, the consequences of being a 2N. More recently, I think my opinions have began to move in the other direction. Really, I can be convinced of anything, just be able to defend whatever type of CP you're reading. I'm up for a theory debate. I love a smart PIC.

Case:

I think the case flows are a really underappreciated portion of debate. I really enjoy negatives that take advantage of 1AC rehighlights and creative offense on case. Honestly, creative arguments in general. They will go a long way. When we have to sit through 3 straight minutes of impact defense, no one wins.

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.

Cavanaugh Truluck

Varsity Policy Debater at Okemos High School

truluckc27@okemosk12.net

The Important Things

-Tech > Truth 100%

-I will vote on any argument that is well run. If you want to run Spark, I'm here for it as long as you do it well.

-I can handle novice speed and most varsity speed.

-I value clarity in speaking a lot.

How I Determine Speaks

-25% speaking clarity

-50% tactical argumentation

-10% style

-15% creative arguments

-I will not hesitate to tank your speaks if you are rude, bigoted, or otherwise damaging during the round. Just be nice, it's not that hard.

For The Negative

Case - I feel like negative case debate is often underutilized. I love a good case debate. Turns, solvency deficits, author indicts, etc... Impact defense is not a case debate and should only ever be your sole case argument if the aff is running something incredibly obscure.

T - Topicality is by far the most underappreciated argument in debate. I adore good T teams and will readily vote for one if the argument is done well. The other side of this is that I hate bad T debates. Your Tneedsto have an interpretation, a violation, standards, and voters. Standards are a different beast than voters and I wish more teams understood this.

DA - A good DA should have an easy to follow path from link to impact. The longer your link chain, the lower probability the DA probably has. I don't have a ton to say about this.

Politics DA - They get their own separate section because of how much I hate them. Tics are the single worst thing the debate community has ever invented. While I will still vote on it, my threshold is incredibly high.

CP - Much like DAs, I don't have a ton to say. I'm inclined to believe perms are legitimate for all forms of CP, but I can be convinced otherwise if you give me a reason.

K - While I am by no means an expert, I consider myself able to judge most Ks. I'm not very knowledgeable about high theory type Ks, but I'm not opposed to voting on them. That being said, don't rely on academic buzzwords and jargon too much. Explain to me what the K actual means in a manner I can more thoroughly understand and the threshold for me to vote on it is far lower. I absolutely love Biopower and its variants. I enjoy a good cap, setcol, security, ballot, or academy k. I'm fine with pessimism, antiblackness, queer theory, feminism, or other identity Ks. Beyond that, assume I don't know anything about your K besides what you explain.

-Theory - Most theory debates are boring and pointless. That being said, I will still vote on theory if you do it well. Just know that I have almost as high a threshold for disclosure theory as I do for the nonsense joke theories people seem to enjoy running.

For The Affirmative

Case - This is your single most important argument. I have seen too many teams, especially novices, ignore case. Don't do that. You know your case. Win it.

T - An aff answer to T needs to have a "we meet", a counter interpretation, counter standards and answers to the neg standards, and answers to the negative voters. If you don't have those, you probably will lose T. I'm not a huge fan of RVIs on T, but I'm willing to hear you out, especially if the T is blatantly abusive.

DA - Links and internal links tend to be the weakest part of a DA, so you should probably focus on that. If that's not your style, I'm also a huge sucker for impact turns.

CP - Go for the perm, take out the net benefit, and you should be fine. I don't have anything else to say here.

K - See the negative comments on this. I'm inclined to favor a policy framework, but you still need to argue it well.

Theory - Unless its 8 offcase, condo probably isn't abusive. I'll still vote on it, but the threshold is high. Dispo is the same. Perfcon, on the other hand, is something too many negs get away with. I am 100% willing to vote on a negative performance contradiction.

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.