I prefer Stock Issues (I don't love T arguments unless necessary), but if the round moves that way.

CPs are ok, but running a K will be lost on me.

Ok with speed but I prefer not to see it unless necessary

hi everyone! my name is emma and I use she/her pronouns. before i get into stuff i would like to note that the use of content warnings is very important not only to me as a judge, but also to the other competitors in the room. given as i cannot leave the room, it's nice to have a heads-up! also competitors, please please PLEASE feel free to leave the room if it's needed for your mental well-being. your safety is more important than anything else!!

background:

Winston Churchill Speech '23

Texas Speech '27

interp events:

• one of the most important things im looking for in these performances is meaning. why are you performing this character? why is this story being told? every performance, regardless of the event, holds an argument. i really consider this when it comes to decisions.
• characterization!! how are you performing this character? is their performance distinctly different from you, the performer? these characters are most commonly inspired by real people and their stories, is this performance a realistic approach to how someone would react to these situations, or is it more of an unrealistic caricature? I have a history of acting, im looking for clean and believable stories.

public address (primarily OO/INFO):

• when looking at the topics of your speeches, I really look for speeches that give me new information on an issue or idea. specifically in INFO, the purpose of your speech is to inform me of a topic, if the topic is something commonly known, why in particular is your speech important? The same goes for OO but with your argument. It is totally ok for your speech to be on a common topic, but at that point, I'm highly looking for solutions that would not initially be considered or haven't been argued before.
• your performance is incredibly important to me! i look a lot for someone who can capture and command the room with not only their written speech but their vocal presentation as well. are you showing confidence in your words? are you speaking at just one flat tone, or are you incorporating a mix of levels and vocal variety? a good speech will always be an engaging performance.
• EXT...now i don't have a whole lot of experience with extemp, so I'm really looking for speeches that are clear and concise. if i can't follow the structure of your speech, then I fear you have lost me as a listener. That being said, don't be afraid to have fun with your speech! i love a good moment of individuality and humor as it can really help add some levity to these typically serious topics. I do also look a lot at the overall performance of you as a speaker. were you engaging? speaking at a good pace, enunciating clearly, etc.?

im so excited to be judging you all, and i can't wait to see what yall bring to the table! please if you have any questions about something i wrote on a ballot, college speech, etc, feel free to reach out to me at: emabb210@gmail.com.

Wishing you all the best of luck!!

My background is in two years of high school debate and university Model UN. My approach to judging policy debate is tabula rasa.

LD: I am a traditional LD judge. This means the debate should be a value debate. Framework of the debate is of the utmost importance because it will force me to evaluate your impacts before the other team’s impacts and nullifies most, if not all, of the other team’s offense. The contentions should be used to demonstrate a real-world example of the framework in action. For any claim made during the entire debate (constructive and rebuttal speeches), you should have evidential support. PLEASE weigh your arguments, make it clear how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and show me what really matters in the round. Explain clearly why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. There is no need for spreading. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. I do not form part of the email chain. If it's important, make sure to explain it clearly during your speeches.

IEs: I've judged all IEs for over 30 years for different circuits and at different levels (including state and nationals). On EXTEMPT/INF/OO, make sure to speak clearly avoiding excessive word crutches and cite your sources. Follow the standard speech outline for each event and approach topic creatively. Make sure to actually answer the question (topic chosen) clearly and that the points discussed in the body of the speech support the answer. Use time wisely/effectively to fully develop the speech. If you are using props (for speech events), make sure they go with the topic and are easily handled. They don't need to be complicated. The simpler the better. On INTERP, I look at who transported me into the story and kept me there. Make sure all movements (gestures, head, and other body movements) are done with purpose and should not distract from the selection being presented. Characterization is also very important to keep me in the story. Use the whole "stage" for your presentation if the event allows it. It's your performance. Entertain me! POI: You can incorporate the binder as a prop if you want making sure it isn't so distracting that it takes away from your program.

Congress: When preparing a speech, make sure to follow standard speech outline and cite your sources. Approach legislation creatively. If you speak later in the session, do not rehash old arguments already brought up by previous representatives. Bring in new arguments to advance the debate. Also, you must clash with opponents. Don't just give your speech. It's a debate after all. Bring up points mentioned by opposing side, show your view point and not just say they are wrong or you don't agree. Give specific reasons why you don't agree and provide the evidence to prove your point. Have your speech so well prepared that you will be able to defend it during cross and not stumble during questioning. As Parliamentarian, I will make sure correct parliamentary procedure is followed.

WSD: Since arguments should be based in reality and each team is fighting on behalf of their respective worlds, the debate should show which world is more likely and/or better and how it will be actualized in the big picture rather than the individual arguments being made. Provide specific world (not just U.S.) examples to your claims. Burdens and mechanism/model should be clear. On the reply speeches, crystallize the round highlighting the main points of contention (2 or 3 key points) and tell me why your team won those points therefore winning the debate. Make sure there is clash on both sides and watch rate of delivery.

PF: Pro should advocate for the resolution’s worthiness while the Con should show the disadvantages of the resolution and why it should not be adopted. In the 1st speech, both teams should have an introduction to frame the team’s case. The summary needs to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the differences exist and are clear and the issues need to be prioritized. Final focus needs to be a big picture concept. I will evaluate your evidence and expect you to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. PLEASE weigh your arguments and make it clear how I should evaluate this round and what really matters. Explain why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. I do not form part of the email chain.

CX: As a stock issues judge, I expect the affirmative team’s plan to retain all stock issues and should label them clearly during the debate. The negative needs to prove that the affirmative fails to meet at least one issue in order to win. I require both sides to provide offense. Sufficient evidence is needed for any claim made during the entire debate. All debaters must speak clearly in order for me to hear all of their points and must watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important, how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and why I should vote for them. I do not form part of an email chain since I don't want to read speeches. I want to hear them. If it's important, make sure to express it clearly.

CX(Policy) Debate

I LOVE direct clash, so if you can ensure that your arguments are responding to what's been presented in the round, then that will certainly be reflected in the speaker points for the round.
I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. Throughout the round, I have always encouraged signposting. It ensures that your arguments end up on the flow where you want them to go, if you do not do this, then you run the risk of me putting it where I think it should go, and this could work against you. Take control of the round. Do not let me do this simply by signposting the argumentation throughout your speech.

T-Topicality
I have a low threshold on T for this resolution(24-25), so I would not spend much time on it past the constructive. Unless the AFF is truly not topical, which is difficult to imagine with the broadness of this year's topic. I would encourage addressing it and moving on to the NEG again unless the AFF is truly not topical and the violation is abundantly clear. Then, I probably won't be voting on this in the round.

DA-Disadvantage
In my personal opinion, this is the 2nd highest level of the debate that has been participated in for this topic. I love for the link-internal link chain to clearly show me how we get to whatever impact you advocate for throughout the DA(s) you run in the round. I would highly recommend impact analysis as the round progresses. Please know the difference between impact calc and impact weighing. Both are good. Just don't say you are doing an impact calc when you are actually doing impact weighing.

CP-Counterplan
I don't mind these, but want a clear explanation throughout the round as to why they can't be permed, what are the net benefits of doing it through the CP, and why the CP is competitive compared to the AFF. There are many ways for the AFF to answer the many different CPs that have come through on this resolution, and I have enjoyed the CP debate on this year's topic more than in previous years. For the NEG these take a ton of work for me to vote on, and for my ballot, it is not difficult for the AFF to answer them in the rounds.

K-Kritique
I will not interfere, but I do not spend much time, if any at all, with the literature, so you are going to have to do a ton of analysis...which, as a NEG Strat in my rounds, is probably a bad idea cause I tend to vote on clash and where that's happening. I'm not saying don't do it but be prepared to lose me quickly and lose my ballot quickly if the K does not make sense or has all the right elements to the argument.I think the most important part of this for you to see when it comes to K-Debate is that if this is your strat for the round to read a K. I will not reject the argument inherently, but want you to know I may not understand your argument at first and you may have to do more explanation and give more time when I am looking for DA and On-case position arguments. If you read this please make sure you have a complete K and are ready to explain the literature and how it is advocating for the change you want to see.

ON-CASE
THIS IS MY FAVORITE!!!! Especially this year, the abundance of evidence that generally links to the case that AFFs have to work through or that AFFs get to extend through the round has been incredible.

Realistically, I am looking for the stocks to be upheld, but want to make my decision based on those and what I believe will be the best policy in the round.

Last, I WILL NOT INTERFEER. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way. Please understand everything above is what I prefer to see in a round, and for me, the clash is the highest priority and the AFF burden to prove that policy is beneficial. Those are my two presumptions before the round ever begins, so whoever meets those and proves to me the policy is net beneficial or will lead to existential harm typically is who gets my ballot.

Speed, since that is what this question is really asking...I tend to err on the side of technical over articulate, as this is an incredibly technical event, and know how much time it has taken to develop that skill. That being said, POP THE TAG AND EVIDENCE TO ENSURE THAT IT MAKES THE FLOW...SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!!! I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO KNOW YOUR CIRCUIT AND THE EXPECTATIONS...

(I,E UIL/TFA/TOC/NSDA EXPECTATIONS)

I will warn you to watch me or my pen. If I am not flowing the round, then there is a high probability that I am not following along with you, and the only saving grace for you is the speech drop, file share, or email chain if there is one. Please be present in the round and observant that it could be the difference in your win or loss, simply because I could not understand your attempt at spreading.

Again, this is not to say you can't, but I would for sure slow down on taglines/claims. Pop the source or card information before going full howitzer in the warrants of the evidence.

LD Debate

I am as traditional as it gets. I tend to keep a more technical-based flow. Slow, pretty speaking, and thorough argumentation. I weigh heavily on the Value and Criterion clash. I love good voters at the end of the rebuttal phase. I do understand progressive argumentation but for the sake of LD, I would keep it to a minimum. Signpost well and keep off-time roadmaps brief. Even though I prefer traditional LD Debate, I understand the merit of research that comes with progressive LD, I will evaluate these rounds and am quite capable of doing so since I spend most of my fall semester judging policy rounds. I would encourage you to read my CX(Policy) paradigm if this is your style. It will better help you navigate these rounds. I will also caution you with called drops especially if it appears this strategy is being used just to grab a win, I believe that harms the education in the round and makes me less likely to warrant them as drops rather than a lack of information. I would prefer an analysis of why the arguments are still valid and voting issues in the round rather than just calling them drops or unanswered arguments. Again, I stress reading the CX event above this to get a better understanding of how I will evaluate the round.

Please tell me when and where I will vote to control my flow and the ballot. If you do this, it should be a good round for you. I can not emphasize enough that CLASH is crucial, and I will know if you do not interact with arguments made by you and your opponent. If you declare it as an offense and can justify this claim, it could win you the round!

Congress

When it comes to a congress chamber, I have found that I enjoy healthy debate and awareness in a chamber. What this means is that for a PO and the chamber to understand when the debate has begun to circle around and there are no new arguments being developed...It is probably time to move to a previous question. If you feel that you have a really strong speech to give, but it is the same argumentation that has already occurred, I would encourage you to make sure that you are working on elements of refutation to direct speakers in the chamber along with crystalizing how the arguments have worked throughout the chamber. If this is not the strategy, it will probably hurt you to just get up there and give another 3:00 speech, developing the same cycle of arguments in the chamber. I really enjoy it when the debate on items is well developed and students are aware enough to understand when it's over and should be moving to the previous question for the vote to get to the next item in the chamber.

I have found that my ranks tend to be evaluated from the following parameters, but I do not think this is by any means the only way I would evaluate a chamber.

1st Priority--- Effective PO Procedures and chamber management. I do believe the PO is one of the most influential characters in the chamber. It is your job to have a clean and clear understanding of the parliamentarian procedures, and it is your job to reinforce the rules of the chamber. I do expect you to know the rules of the circuit for the tournament so know the differences between UIL, TFA, and NSDA.

2nd Priority---Quality of Speeches

3rd Priority--- Activity in the chamber (total) This covers # of speeches, questions, and general participation for me in the chamber

I have found that most PO in my balloting history will start in the 3 positions, and your effectiveness in this position will dictate if you move up or down from this position. I do place a premium on speeches, as I still think this is the most important piece to the event, so it will be common for my ballot that the speakers are ranked higher than POs, but if this is done well can push them to the top of a chamber but it is harder for these characters in the chamber to get my 1s.

Extemp

The core question for extemp is how to get my 1. Or what is the difference between my 1 & 2?

My 1's are nearly perfect speakers, the fillers are minimal and you are doing all the extemp nuances that we are looking for in these speeches. Sources are incredibly important and more does not always equal 1 but it can be the difference. I am also looking for you to analyze and give me your insight into the topic. Working that in could be the difference between 1 & 2. Time could also be a factor in judgment. Know the rules between different circuits!

Interp

These are my weakest events to judge...That doesn't mean that I can't, just that I believe my qualifications are less in this event. I do place a premium on some of the speaking tactics over the theatrical elements (blocking). Not that I won't appreciate your movements and evaluate them throughout the performance, but it's not unheard of that someone who can tell an effective story and take me through their performance allowing me to feel what their performance is asking, will have better success with me over someone who uses blocking to communicate these moments throughout your performance. I would encourage you to utilize both throughout the performance as that is ideally what I am looking for in this performance. My best encouragement to you if I am judging your interp round, is to probably block less and what you do block, make sure that it has a purpose other than the "over-top" movements won't be as effective with me at the back of the room. I will evaluate and enjoy your performance, giving you feedback on things that I really enjoyed, and areas that I think you might want to consider growing the performance!

stockdale 23

add both - email for the chain is vaibhavarhan2@gmail.com and aggarwaldebate@gmail.com

you can call me judge or vee or rly anything during round wtv floats ur boat

ill look at the docs if i need to but if its incoherent imma yell clear like twice max

coming out of a policy background - did progressive ld for a little too. with that in mind, my focus during hs was mainly a traditional style of debate so if you're going for super high tech rounds - sry, probably not your person im afraid.

ill do my best if i get in these rounds but honestly, you do you. if you have to lose me to get the rest of the panel, do it.

policy

plans and larp are obviously the most familiar and if you main that pls do read that so go for the cps, das, etc.

k's r chill too, probably not the absolute best but i def know the basics and have read cap, set col, security, etc. make the link clear and i think we should be chilling

k-aff's aren't as clear cut for me bc i j didnt have much experience with them till senior year - you can try just dont be reading something completely random yk, if thats true neg def has an easier wall to climb with fw

t/theory - no friv, thought this was pretty annoying in hs and haven't changed thoughts about it since

condo is bad like post 4 condo advocacies as a catch all but i can be convinced otherwise just debate it well

ld

same as policy mostly

just strike me if you run phil or trix, i was confused about that in hs and i certainly havent looked at since i graduated

I was a speech and interp kid NOT a debater- have judged debate before though

Spread at your own risk - if I miss it - I miss it :)

If you run a K it better be darn good and very backed up - if its not then why run it?

Give the how AND the why for your cards

I love roadmaps, they help me flow along - when you miss them, it makes my life hard

Cross x - be nice :)

Be ethical and cool

In short: I'll vote for anything if it's impacted well. I'm not the fastest flow, so don't speed through arguments please, particularly in the later parts of debating theory and disads. Default to competing interpretations in T-debates, ok with CPs, and partial to the K. With Ks, I'm not so seasoned with the theory that is popular in K debates, so please explain the theory in its application to the aff. Clear taglines and be collegial.

I am an old school traditional judge who does a lot of congress and extemp.

In Congress - If you ask for an in house recess to pad a speech or to address the chamber because no one is speaking - DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK! Nothing annoys congress judges more than 15 minutes of caucusing and getting splits, only for no one to be ready. The PO should be running the round and is perfectly capable of admonishing those who are not ready to speak. Otherwise, I like a good intro with a 2 pt preview and good, creative arguments that show critical thinking. Be active in the round and ask good questions. As for trigger warnings: unless you are giving some graphic description of something, there is no need. The simple mention of a word does not require a trigger warning.

PF - Keep it simple. If you run a plan, a K, or theory, you are unlikely to get my ballot. Treat me like I have no idea what this topic is and explain EVERYTHING. Weigh impacts to get my ballot. Don't complicate a pro/con debate.

LD - For UIL, stick to a traditional format with Value/Criteria and Contentions. Weigh and give voters. For TFA, just know that I loathe rapid delivery and love explanations. If you are going to run a counterplan in absence of an affirmative plan, I will not vote on it. LD is not 1 person policy. Uphold your value throughout the round.

Extemp - I like a good AGD and want effective communication and sources are essential.

Remember, debate is impossible without effective communication.

FLASHING IS PREP TIME! If you are not speaking, you are prepping. My prep time clock is the official prep time clock.

To win my ballot, you will need to speak at a rate that I can understand what you are saying. In addition, please make sure that your arguments are backed with evidence, but are not absent logic.

Debate should be a learning and fun experience. Take a deep breath and enjoy. Also, courtesy and kindness towards your opponent go a very long way for me.

I grew up in Arizona and debated L/D in high school. I debated at tournaments in AZ, CA, NM, UT, and at nationals in 1996. In college I did Parliamentary debate for 2 years.

For L/D, I'd like to hear a solid consideration of value and criteria. While cards/evidence are necessary, tell me why they are important. Why does it matter, how does it link back to your value and criteria, and how does it relate to the resolution?

I competed in policy debate in high school, parliamentary debate in college, and I have been coaching since 2001. I would consider myself a tabula rasa judge, as much as that is possible. I feel comfortable with any line of argumentation, but expect clear articulation of said argumentation. I want you to provide me with compelling reasons why you should win the debate. Generic argumentation, weak links, and time sucks are not appreciated. I don't judge a ton (in my local circuit I am in tab a lot and I work tab at Nationals). I keep a detailed flow so staying organized is key to winning my ballot. Pronouns: she/her/hers. If you have questions, feel free to ask before the round starts. Email for the chain: amdahl-masona@nclack.k12.or.us.

i judge debate rounds like the new york times editorial board: i just wish i could vote for everyone!

2015-2019 circuit pf/extemp at theodore roosevelt in des moines, iowa

put me on the chain: finnm.cool02@gmail.com

DEBATER MATH IS BAD MATH

not a huge fan of friv theory

tl;dr anything not discriminatory goes, please comparatively weigh, collapse strategically, and frontline!!!

first to steal some from other paradigms:

ethics > tech > truth, if I think that voting for you makes debate more exclusionary, in a manner I find indefensible, I will have no problem dropping you without a technical justification. Sorry not sorry.

the most enjoyable part of debate is when debaters successfully mold a convincing narrative out of ridiculous concepts

I will not vote on any case arguments addressing domestic violence, sexual violence, or rape that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll listen/be receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote a particular way based on the introduction of that issue. That doesn't mean I'll automatically pull the trigger on it one way or the other, but I will be exceptionally open to doing so if the argument claiming I should evaluate the mere fact that the sexual violence argument is made is won in the debate.

now, some thoughts of my own:

Ks encouraged, your speaks will reflect that if you run them well...

HOWEVER if you run an identity-based position and neither of you are a member of that community, don't

i'd prefer theory to be run in shell form but i won't penalize you if you're unfamiliar with formal technical structure, just explain why your opponents are being abusive/bad for debate and why that means i should vote for you

if strictly a substance debate, i evaluate the fw debate first and do impact calc under that

good and interesting fw debates will lead to high speaks, but also don’t throw a framework in just because (especially CBA, which is just a waste of time in constructive)

presume 1st speaking team if no offense, absent a presumption arg made in the round

if an argument is not addressed in the next speech, it is a dropped argument (this means yes, you do have to frontline in second rebuttal)

defense is sticky!!! if you drop terminal defense on an argument i won't vote for you on it, even if it never comes up again after first rebuttal

weigh comparatively ideally beginning in rebuttal, if your "weighing" is just yelling your impact and some buzzword like magnitude at each other, nobody's gonna be happy

for me to vote on any offense and frontlined defense that is in final focus, it must also be in summary

be strategic! you don't have to go for everything, and it's never a good idea to do so!

speed-wise I’m good for ~250wpm anything more and I’ll need a speech doc to avoid missing things (but if you feel excluded by your opponents going too fast, implicate that as in-round abuse for a path to the ballot)

evidence should have author last name and date

extensions have warrant and impact, actually explain the argument and why it matters rather than just “extend Whalen 14 moving on”

speaks are 27 and above unless you’re big heinous

plz plz plz ask me any questions you have before/after the round, this is an educational activity

ill disclose speaks if you ask me

auto-30s if you:

-win on anthro or baudrillard (this doesn’t mean I’ll hack, you have to actually win the arg)

-take no prep time & win

Add me to the email chain: sdandersondebate@gmail.com. I prefer email chain to Speechdrop, but either work.

Background

I competed in LD from 2009-2013 and have been the LD coach at Eagan (MN) since 2014 and judge 100+ rounds a season. I qualified debaters to the TOC from 2021-2023 who won the Minneapple and Dowling twice. One primarily read phil and tricks while the other primarily read policy arguments, so I am pretty ideologically flexible and have coached across the spectrum.

If you're not at a circuit tournament, scroll to the bottom for my traditional LD paradigm.

Sections/State 2025 Updates

- I've updated my locals paradigm at the bottom, not with new rules or constraints but more detailed thoughts on how I tend to judge and how you should try to win my ballot.

- Topic note: obviously this topic cannot be debated as a "general principle", which is my preferred approach to traditional LD. I strongly prefer that the 1AC choose to unconditionally defend UNCLOS, ICC, or both (really, choosing just one is better, although that's just a personal preference), and think it is clearly the "framer's intent" to give the affirmative pre-round rather than in-round flexibility in choice of advocacy. As such, I think it's appropriate for me to vote on theory arguments introduced by the negative to enforce this norm and deter shenanigans.

- MSHSL rules state that LD and PF debaters "should" read oral full source citations, while all debaters "must" be able to provide written full source citations: https://www.mshsl.org/sites/default/files/2024-08/2024-2025-debate-rules-and-policies.pdf. My understanding is that the word "should" typically denotes a recommendation, as opposed to shall/must which imply a mandate (see, e.g.: https://www.rpharmy.com/blog/should-shall-must-interpreted). Accordingly, I will not be voting on the MSHSL full source rule until this ambiguity has been resolved.

- That being said, author qualifications are an important aspect of evidence comparison, and I encourage you to raise this as a substantive, rather than procedural, issue.

General Info

• I won't vote for arguments without warrants, arguments I didn't flow in the first speech, or arguments that I can't articulate in my own words at the end of the round. This applies especially to blippy and underdeveloped arguments.

• I think of the round in terms of a pre- and post-fiat layer when it comes to any argument that shifts focus from the resolution or plan (theory, Ks, etc.). I don't think the phrase "role of the ballot" means much – it's all just impacts, the strength of link matters, and your ROB is probably impact-justified (i.e. instrumentally valuable and arbitrarily narrow).

• I tend to evaluate arguments on a sliding scale rather than a binary yes/no. I believe in near-zero risk, I think you can argue that near-zero risk should be rounded down to zero, but by default I think there’s almost always a risk of offense.

• As a corollary to the above two points, I will vote on very frivolous theory or IVIs if there’s no offense against it, so make sure you are not just defensive in response. “This crowds out substance which is valuable because [explicit warrant]” is an offensive response, and is probably the most coherent way to articulate reasonability.

• I reserve the right to vote on what your evidence actually says, not what you claim it says.

• As a corollary to the above, you can insert rehighlighting if you're just pointing out problems with your opponent's evidence, but if you do then you're just asking me to make a judgment call and agree with you, and I might not. If it's ambiguous, I'll avoid inserting my own interpretation of the card, and if you insert a frivolous rehighlighting I'll likely just disagree with you. If you want to gain an offensive warrant, you need to read the rehighlighting out loud.

• Facts that can be easily verified don't need a card.

• I'm skeptical of late-breaking arguments, given how few speeches LD has. It's hard to draw a precise line, but in general, after the 1N, arguments should be *directly* responsive to arguments made in the previous speech or a straightforward extrapolation of arguments made in previous speeches. "Here's new link evidence" is not a response to "no link". "DA turns case, if society collapses due to climate change we won't be able to colonize space" is fine in the 2N but "DA turns case, warming kills heg, Walt 20:" should be in the 1N.

• Any specific issue in this paradigm, except where otherwise noted, is a heuristic or default that can be overcome with technical debating.

Ks

This is the area of debate I'm least familiar with – I've spent the least time coaching here and I'm not very well-read in any K lit base. Reps Ks and stock Ks (cap, security, etc.) are okay, identity Ks are okay especially if you lean in more heavily on IVI-type offense, high theory Ks are probably not the best idea (I'll try my best to evaluate them but no promises).

• The less the links directly explain why the aff is a bad idea, the more you'll need to rely on framework, particularly if the K is structured like "everything is bad, the aff is bad because it uses the state and tries to make the world better, the alt is to reject everything". If you want me to vote on the overall thesis of your K being true, you should explain why your theory is an accurate model of the world with lots of references to history and macro trends, less jargon and internal K warranting with occasional reference to singular anecdotes.

• Conversely, if you're aff you lose by neglecting framework. If you spend all of 10 seconds saying "let me weigh case – clash and dogmatism" then spend the rest of your speech weighing case, you're putting yourself in a bad position. I don't start out with a strong presumption that the aff should be able to weigh case or that the debate should be about whether "the aff is a good idea".

• For pess Ks, I'll likely be confused about why voting for you does anything at all. You need a coherent explanation here.

• I don't think "the role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater" means much. I'm going to vote for the person who I think did the better debating, but that's kind of vacuous. If your opponent wins the argument that I ought to vote for them because they read a cool poem, then they did the better debating. You need to win offensive warrants on framework.

• I’m bad for K arguments that are more rhetorical than literal, e.g. “X group is already facing extinction in the status quo” – that’s just defining words differently.

• Not a fan of arguments that implicate the identity of debaters in the round. There's no explicit rule against them, but I'm disinclined to vote for them and they're usually underwarranted (e.g. if they're not attached to a piece of evidence they're probably making an empirical claim without an empirical warrant and your opponent should say that in response).

• K affs: not automatically opposed, not the ideal judge either. I'm probably biased towards K affs being unfair and fairness being important, but the neg still needs to weigh impacts. I’m very unlikely to vote on anallytic RVIs/IVIs like T is violent, silencing, policing, etc. unless outright dropped – impacts turns should be grounded in external scholarship, and the neg should contest their applicability to the debate round. You also need a good explanation of how the ballot solves your impacts or else presumption makes sense. "Debate terminally bad" is silly – just don't do debate then.

Policy

This is what I spend most of my time thinking about as a coach. Expect me to be well-read on the topic lit.

• There is no "debate truth" that says a carded argument always beats an uncarded argument, that a more specific card always beats a more general card, or that I'm required to give more credence to flimsy scenarios than warranted. Smart analytics can severely mitigate bad link chains. It is wildly implausible that banning megaconstellations would tank business confidence, causing immediate economic collapse and nuclear war – your cards *almost certainly* either don’t say that or aren’t coming from credible sources.

• Probabilistic reasoning is good – I don't think "what is the precise brightline" or "why hasn't this already happened" are damning questions against impacts that, say, democracy, unipolarity, or strong international institutions reduce the overall risk of war.

• Plan vagueness is bad. I guess plan text in a vacuum makes sense, but I don’t think vagueness should be resolved in a way that benefits the aff.

• I’m baffled by the norm that debaters can round up to extinction. In my eyes, laundry list cards are just floating internal links until you read impacts, and if your opponent points that out I don’t know what you could say in response. I encourage you to have good terminal impact evidence (particularly evidence from the existential risk literature that explicitly argues X actually can lead to extinction or raise overall extinction risk) and to be pedantic about your opponent's. Phrases like “threatens humanity”, “existential”, etc. are not necessarily synonyms for human extinction.

• Pointing out your opponent’s lack of highlighting can make their argument non-viable even if they’re reading high-quality evidence – you don’t get credit for the small text.

• Some circumvention arguments are legitimate and can't just be answered by saying "durable fiat solves".

Counterplans

• In general, I lean towards the view that the 1N should make an argument for how the counterplan competes and why. I think 2N definition dumps are too late-breaking (although reading more definitions in the 2N to corroborate the 1N definition may be fine).

• Perms should have a net benefit unless they truly solve 100% of the negative’s net benefit or you give me an alternative to offense/defense framing, because otherwise I will likely vote neg if they can articulate a *coherent* risk. E.g. if the 2AR against consult goes for perms without any semblance of a solvency deficit, perm do both will likely lose to a risk of genuine consultation key and the lie perm will likely lose to a risk of leaks – even if the risk is vanishingly small, “why take the chance?” is how I view things by default.

• I think counterplans should have solvency advocates and analytic counterplans are bad except in the most trivial of cases. E.g. if the aff advantage is that compulsory voting will increase youth turnout and result in cannabis legalization, then “legalize cannabis” makes sense as a counterplan because that’s directly in the government’s power. Otherwise, you should have evidence saying that the policy you defend will result in the outcome that you want.

• Normal means competition is silly. It’s neither logical nor theoretically defensible if debated competently.

• There’s probably nothing in any given resolution that actually implies immediacy and certainty, but it’s still the aff’s job to counter-define words in the resolution.

• I spent a good amount of time coaching process counterplans and have some fondness for them, but as for whether they’re theoretically desirable, I pretty much view them as “break glass in case of underlimited topic”. A 2N on a process counterplan is more “substantive” in my eyes than a 2N on Nebel, cap, or warming good. If you read one and the 1AR mishandles it, the 2N definitely should go for it because they make for the cleanest neg ballots. I’ve judged at least a few rounds that in my eyes had no possible winning 2AR against a process counterplan.

Theory

• I consider myself a middle of the road judge on theory. Feel free to go for standard policy theory (condo, various cheaty CPs bad, spec, new affs bad, etc.) or LD theory (NIBs / a prioris bad, combo shells against tricky strats, RVIs, etc.), I won't necessarily think it's frivolous or be disinclined to vote for it. On the other hand, I don’t like purely strategic and frivolous theory along the lines of "must put spikes on top", etc. I'm also not great at evaluating theory on a tech level because it mostly consists of nothing but short analytics that I struggle to flow.

• Checks on frivolous theory are great, but competing interps makes more sense to evaluate based on my views on offense/defense generally. Reasonability should come with judge instruction on what that means and how I evaluate it – if it means that I should make a subjective determination of whether I consider the abuse reasonable, that's fine, just make that explicit. The articulation that makes the most sense to me is that debating substance is valuable so I should weigh the abuse from the shell against the harm of substance crowd-out.

• Both sides of the 1AR theory good/bad debate are probably true – 1AR theory is undesirable given how late-breaking it is but also necessary to check abuse. Being able to articulate a middle ground between "no 1AR theory" and "endless one-sentence drop the debater 1AR shells" is good. The better developed the 1AR shell is, the more compelling it is as a reason to drop the debater.

T

• If debated evenly, I tend to think limits and precision are the most important impacts (or rather internal links, jurisdiction is a fake impact). There can be an interesting debate if the neg reads a somewhat more arbitrary interpretation that produces better limits, but when the opposite is true, where the neg reads a better-supported interpretation and the aff response is that it overlimits and kills innovation, I am quite neg-leaning.

• Nebel T: I’m open to it. It’s one of the few T interps where I think the overlimiting/innovation impact is real, but some LD topics genuinely are unworkably big (e.g. “Wealthy nations have a moral obligation to provide development assistance to other nations”). The neg should show that they actually understand the grammar arguments they’re making, and the aff’s semantics responses should not be severely miscut or out of context. “Semantics are oppressive” is a wildly implausible response. I view “semantics is just an internal link to pragmatics” as sort of vacuously true – the neg should articulate the “pragmatic” benefits of a model of debate where the aff defends the most (or sufficiently) precise interpretation of a topic instead of one that is “close enough”, or else just blow up the limits impact.

• RVIs on T are bad… but please don’t just blow them off. You need to answer them, and if your shell says that fairness is the highest impact then your “RVIs on T bad” offense probably should have fairness impacts.

Phil

• I debated in a time when the meta was much more phil dominant and I coached a debater who primarily ran phil so this is something I'm familiar with. That being said, heavy phil rounds can be some of the most difficult to evaluate. I'm best for carded analytic moral philosophy -- Kant, virtue ethics, contractarianism, libertarianism, etc. I'm worse for tricky phil or hybrid K-phil strategies (agonism, Deleuze, Levinas, etc.).
• By default I evaluate framework debate in the same offense-defense paradigm I evaluate anything else which means I'm using the framework with the stronger justification. Winning a defensive argument against a framework is not *automatically* terminal defense. This means you're likely better off with a well-developed primary syllogism than with a scattershot approach of multiple short independent justifications. Phenomenal introspection is a better argument than "pain is nonbinding", and the main Kantian syllogisms are better arguments than "degrees of wrongness".
• If you'd rather not have a phil debate, feel free to uplayer with a TJF, AFC, IVIs, etc. I also don't feel like I ever hear great responses to "extinction first because of moral uncertainty", more like 1-2 okay responses and 3-4 bad ones, so that may be another path of least resistance against large framework dumps.
• If you're going for a framework K, I still need some way to evaluate impacts, and it's better if you make that explicit. Okay, extinction-focus is a link to the K, but is utilitarianism actually wrong, and if so what ethical principles should I instead be using to make decisions?

Tricks

I'm comfortable with a lot of arguments that fall somewhere under the tricks umbrella -- truth testing, presumption and permissibility triggers, calc indicts, NIBs that you can defend substantively, etc. That being said, I'm not a good judge for pure tricks debate either -- evaluate the round after X speech, neg must line by line every 1AC argument, indexicals, "Merriam-Webster's defines 'single' as unmarried but all health care systems are unmarried", "you can never prove anything with 100% certainty therefore skep is true and the resolution is false", etc. I don't have the flowing skill to keep up with these, many of these arguments I consider too incoherent to vote for even if dropped (and I'm perfectly happy for that to be my RFD), and I really don't like arguments that don't even have the pretense of being defensible. I also think arguments need clear implications in their first speech, so tricks strategies along the lines of "you conceded this argument for why permissibility negates but actually it's an argument for why the resolution is automatically false" are usually too new for me to vote for.

Non-negotiables

• I have a strong expectation that debaters be respectful and a low tolerance for rudeness, overt hostility, etc.
• If you’re a circuit debater hitting someone who is obviously a traditional debater at a circuit tournament, my only request is that you not read disclosure theory *if* preround disclosure occurred (the aff sends the 1AC and the neg sends past speech docs and discloses past 2Ns 30 minutes prior). If they have no wiki or contact info, disclosure theory is totally fair game. Beyond that, I will probably give somewhat higher speaks if you read positions that they can engage with, but that’s not a rule or expectation. If you’re a traditional debater intending to make arguments about accessibility, I’ll evaluate them, but I will have zero sympathy – a local tournament would be far more accessible to you than a circuit tournament, and if there’s not a local tournament on some particular weekend, that simply is not your opponent’s problem.
• I reserve the right to ignore hidden arguments – there’s obviously no exact brightline but I don’t view that as an intrinsic debate skill to be incentivized. At minimum, voting issues should be delineated and put in the speech doc, arguments should be grouped together in some logical way (not “1. US-China war coming now, 2. Causes extinction and resolved means firmly determined, 3. Plan solves”).
• I’ll drop you for serious breaches of evidence ethics that significantly distort the card. If it’s borderline or a trivial mistake that confers no competitive advantage, it should be debated on the flow and I’m open to dropping the argument. I don’t really understand the practice of staking the round on evidence ethics; if the round has been staked and I’m forced to make a decision (e.g. in an elims round), I’m more comfortable with deciding that you slightly distorted the evidence so you should lose instead of you distorted the evidence but not enough so your opponent should lose.
• I’ll drop you for blatant misdisclosure or playing egregious disclosure games. I’d rather not intervene for minute differences but completely new advantages, scenarios, framing, major changes to the plan text, etc. are grounds to drop you. Lying is bad.

Traditional LD Paradigm

• This is my paradigm for evaluating traditional LD. This applies at tournaments that do not issue TOC bids (with the exception of JV, but not novice, divisions at bid tournaments -- I'll treat those like circuit tournaments). It does not apply if you are at a circuit tournament and one debater happens to be a traditional debater. And if you're not at a bid tournament but you both want to have a circuit round, you also can disregard this.
• Good traditional debate for me is not lay debate. Going slower may mean you sacrifice some amount of depth, but not rigor.
• The following is a pretty hard rule: "Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of their side of the resolution as a general principle." At NSDA Nationals, this is written on the ballot and I treat that as binding. Outside of nats, I still think it's a good norm because I believe my ballot should reflect relevant debate skills. I do not expect traditional debaters to know how to answer theory, role of the ballot arguments, plans, non-T affs, etc. Outside of circuit tournaments, one side should not auto-win because they know how to run these arguments and their opponent doesn't. However, "circuit" arguments that fall within these bounds are fair game -- read extinction impacts, counterplans, dense phil, skep, politics DAs, topical Ks, whatever, as long as you explain why they affirm or negate the resolution.
• As a caveat to the above statement, what it means to affirm or negate the resolution as a general principle is something that is up for debate and depends on the specific wording of the resolution. I'm totally open to observations and burden structures that interpret the resolution in creative or abusive ways, and think those strategies are often underutilized. If one side drops the other's observation about how to interpret the resolution, the round can be over 15 seconds into rebuttals. They just need to come with a plausible argument for why they meet that constraint.
• Another caveat: I think theoretical arguments can be deployed as a reason to drop the argument, and I'll listen to IVI-type arguments the same way (like this argument is repugnant so you shouldn't evaluate it). They're just not voting issues in their own right.
• You cannot clip or paraphrase evidence and need a full written citation, regardless of your local circuit's norms. The usual evidence rules still apply.
• Your opponent has the right to review any piece of evidence you read, even if you're not spreading.
• Flex prep is fine -- you can ask clarification questions during prep time.
• Because (typically) there's no speech doc and few checks on low-quality or distorted evidence, I will hold you to a high standard of explaining your evidence in rebuttals. Tagline extensions aren't good enough. "Extend Johnson 20, studies show that affirming reduces economic growth by 20%" -- what does that number represent, where does it come from? This is especially true for evidence read in rebuttals which can't be scrutinized in CX -- I will be paying very close attention to what I was able to flow in the body of the card the first time you read it.
• Burdens and advocacies should be explicit. Saying "we could do X to solve this problem instead" isn't a complete argument -- I *could* vote for you, but I won't. This can take the form of a counterplan text / saying "I advocate X", or a burden structure that says "Winning X is sufficient for you to vote negative because [warrant]" -- it just needs to be delineated.
• Even if you're not reading a big stick impact, you still benefit a lot by reading terminal impact evidence and weighing it against your opponents' (or lack thereof). When the debate comes down to e.g. a federal jobs guarantee reducing unemployment vs. causing inflation, even though both of those are intuitively bad things, it's really hard to evaluate the round without either debater reading evidence that describes how many people are affected, how severely, etc.
• Normative philosophy is important as a substantive issue, but the value and criterion are not important as procedural issues. I do not mechanically evaluate debates by first deciding who wins the value debate, and then deciding which criterion best links into that value, and then deciding who best links into that criterion. Ideally your criterion will be a comprehensive moral theory, like util or Kant, but if not then it's your proactive burden to explain why the arguments made at the framework level matters, why they mean your offense is more important than your opponent's. This applies when the criterion is vague, arbitrarily narrow, identifies something that is instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, etc. (Side note: oppression / structural violence frameworks almost always fall into one of the latter two categories, sometimes the first.)

• I have at times had a pretty extreme neg bias this year (2024-25), and this mostly comes down to me likely being stricter when it comes to rebuttals than most judges, and in particular when it comes to impacts and weighing. The 1AR and 2AR need to extend everything necessary for your offense to function -- identify a harm in the status quo, tell me why it's bad, tell me why affirming solves (or go for deontological offense). On every component of this story, you should be comparative where necessary -- tell me why your offense outweighs your opponent's, why the reasons you do solve are stronger than the reasons you don't, etc. The negative needs to do this as well, but given the nature of LD speech times, it's much more likely that the neg ends up with some piece of uncontested offense.

  Take a standard affirmative argument on the wealth tax topic, that it would raise substantial revenue that would be put towards social programs. Sometimes the affirmative blows past solvency, not explaining why the amount of revenue raised outweighs the negative fiscal impacts from administrative costs, capital flight, etc. Sometimes the affirmative blows past the impact, just saying "trillions will be spent on social programs" without explaining why that matters or why that's a more important internal link to poverty than a loss of wages and jobs. In these rounds, unless I think the affirmative is beating the neg on every one of these arguments, the threshold for "the aff wins X but the neg wins Y, there's no comparison between X and Y so it's at worst a wash, I vote neg on Z" is a lot lower.

  For example, compare the following extensions:

  "Extend Saez and Zucman, Warren's wealth tax raises $3 trillion over a decade."

  "Extend Saez and Zucman, Warren's wealth tax raises $3 trillion over a decade, this comes from a model that assumes a 15% avoidance/evasion rate based on European studies which already accounts for their solvency takeouts."

  The first gives me little to work with which spells trouble if you drop a solvency takeout, while the second drastically lowers the threshold for aff responses to solvency takeouts.

  So to win my ballot, first, extend impacts. Don't just leave it at "affirming solves democracy / climate change / economic inequality / etc.", give explicit reasons why these things matter. I won't do that for you. Second, weigh. Weighing is not just extending your impact and saying it outweighs on magnitude/probability, it requires comparative analysis between your offense and your opponent's. These two are really important -- there have been several rounds where I voted neg but thought a 2AR that spent about 20 extra seconds extending their impact and doing explicit comparison would have cleanly won. Finally, you'll likely need to collapse more. It's rare that the 2AR goes for two pieces of contested AC offense and I think that was a good idea -- more often it means you're skimping on necessary extensions/weighing, dropping line-by-line responses, or undercovering the NC, unless the neg has made major errors or you are significantly more technical than they are.

Hey y’all. I’m David and I debated at Newark Science for 4 years on the state, regional, and national level.

College Debate: rundebate@gmail.com

High School Debate:asafuadjayedavid@gmail.com

My influences in debate have been Chris Randall, Jonathan Alston, Aaron Timmons, Christian Quiroz, Carlos Astacio, Willie Johnson, Elijah Smith in addition to a few others.

Conflicts:

-Newark Science

-Rutgers

I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Two primary beliefs:

1. Debate is a communicative activity and the power in debate is because the students take control of the discourse. I am an adjudicator but the debate is yours to have. The debate is yours, your speaker points are mine.

2. I am not tabula rasa. Anyone that claims that they have no biases or have the ability to put ALL biases away is probably wrong. I will try to put certain biases away but I will always hold on to some of them. For example, don’t make racist, sexist, transphobic, etc arguments in front of me. Use your judgment on that.

FW

I predict I will spend a majority of my time in these debates. I will be upfront. I do not think debate are made better or worse by the inclusion of a plan based on a predictable stasis point. On a truth level, there are great K debaters and terrible ones, great policy debaters and terrible ones. However, after 6 years of being in these debates, I am more than willing to evaluate any move on FW. My thoughts when going for FW are fairly simple. I think fairness impacts are cleaner but much less comparable. I think education and skills based impacts are easier to weigh and fairly convincing but can be more work than getting the kill on fairness is an intrinsic good. On the other side, I see the CI as a roadblock for the neg to get through and a piece of mitigatory defense but to win the debate in front of me the impact turn is likely your best route. While I dont believe a plan necessarily makes debates better, you will have a difficult time convincing me that anything outside of a topical plan constrained by the resolution will be more limiting and/or predictable. This should tell you that I dont consider those terms to necessarily mean better and in front of me that will largely be the center of the competing models debate.

Kritiks

These are my favorite arguments to hear and were the arguments that I read most of my career. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. As I mentioned on FW there are terrible K debates and like New Yorkers with pizza I can be a bit of a snob about the K. Please make sure you explain your link story and what your alt does. I feel like these are the areas where K debates often get stuck. I like K weighing which is heavily dependent on framing. I feel like people throw out buzzwords such as antiblackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. Explain it or you will lose to heg good. K Lit is diverse. I do not know enough high theory K’s. I only cared enough to read just enough to prove them wrong or find inconsistencies. Please explain things like Deleuze, Derrida, and Heidegger to me in a less esoteric manner than usual.

CPs

CP’s are cool. I love a variety of CP’s but in order to win a CP in my head you need to either solve the entirety of the aff with some net benefit or prove that the net benefit to the CP outweighs the aff. Competition is a thing. I do believe certain counterplans can be egregious but that’s for y’all to debate about. My immediate thoughts absent a coherent argument being made.

1. No judge kick

2. Condo is good. You're probably pushing it at 4 but condo is good

3. Sufficiency framing is true

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

Theory
Just like people think that I love K’s because I came from Newark, people think I hate theory which is far from true. I’m actually a fan of well-constructed shells and actually really enjoyed reading theory myself. I’m not a fan of tricky shells and also don’t really like disclosure theory but I’ll vote on it. Just have an actual abuse story. I won’t even list my defaults because I am so susceptible to having them changed if you make an argument as to why. The one thing I will say is that theory is a procedural. Do with that information what you may.

DA’s

Their fine. I feel like internal link stories are out of control but more power to you. If you feel like you have to read 10 internal links to reach your nuke war scenario and you can win all of them, more power to you. Just make the story make sense. I vote for things that matter and make sense. Zero risk is a thing but its very hard to get to. If someone zeroes the DA, you messed up royally somewhere.

Plans

YAY. Read you nice plans. Be ready to defend them. T debates are fairly exciting especially over mechanism ground. Similar to FW debates, I would like a picture of what debate looks like over a season with this interpretation.

Presumption.

Default neg. Least change from the squo is good. If the neg goes for an alt, it switches to the aff absent a snuff on the case. Arguments change my calculus so if there is a conceded aff presumption arg that's how I'll presume. I'm easy.

LD Specific

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

I competed in extemp, public forum, and congress at Shrewsbury High School for four years.

I go for argumentation over style, and I primarily vote by resolving the weighing debate and vote for who best links into the weighing.

Preferences:

- Please start weighing early

- No kritiks, plans, or theories

- I am okay with faster speeds but I will likely be unable to keep up with spreading

- I do not flow cross, unless there is a significant concession.

- No new weighing in second final focus

Most importantly, expect a L0 for any ___ist arguments, and please do not be demeaning towards anyone in the round.

Feel free to reach out to me at steve.a.0119@gmail.com

Background: I competed for the UNT debate team, mostly in NPDA and NFA LD. In high school I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate. I qualified for nationals three times in high school and three times in college, best finish was top 40ish one year.

I am fine with anything (Obviously excludes any argument based in rhetoric that disparages any marginalized groups) but in terms of what I weigh with each individual argument here is how I view each of them:

K - If you run a K I want to know the specific role of the ballot and why the alt will solve for the problems manifested within the K. It's a lot harder to get me to vote for the K if the alt is just a way to reshape thinking or the way we talk about things, for me a K needs a tangible way to fight back against the impacts. For example instead of just having the alt be a shift towards communal thinking I want it to be a way that we can effectively mobilize that. This doesn't have to be through the USFG.

T - Standards and voters in terms of the real world are how I vote on topicality.If there is ground loss but you do not talk about why that is a voting issue, I am not going to vote for it. For example if the topic is on climate policy the t shell should tell me why it’s important to debate about in regards to our world and lives.

DA - Big on impact calculus, make sure to weigh the impact of DA’s vs the advantages of the aff. Generic links aren’t as persuasive as links based in specific policies.

CP - I need a flushed out method on why the Net Benefit of the CP should outweigh the case. Not a huge fan of plan-inclusive CPs but I'll still vote on them in some cases.

Theory- I'm fine with theory, just gotta win proven or potential abuse. Proven abuse is definitely an easier way to get the ballot than potential for me.

Speed - I am fine with speed, if you go to fast or your diction isn't keeping up with your speed I'll say clear. Cards you can speed through fine because I'll still have those to read over and check in round, but please either include analytics on the doc or slow down on them.

If you choose for the round to be a more traditional V/C setup I tend to vote mostly on impact calculus that is made at the contention level. I love seeing these impacts used in conjunction to try and turn the other sides value. If you give me another framing argument up top on what my role of the ballot is I will default to whichever side wins framing though.

Feel free to email me with any questions- Josiah.atkinson@westhardin.org

LC Anderson 22

UT Austin 26 - Westlake debate consultant

email for email chains:

eliza.avramova@gmail.com

ld: Tech > Truth

Policy---Best for this. cp debates are fine to an extent, but best to evaluate substance.

Theory---Would prefer if the brightline for abuse was in–round. Out of round violations are generally unverifiable, putting me as a judge in an awkward position trying to evaluate a squabble between two debaters, but otherwise good.

Tricks---probs don't read that in front of me.

K’s---minimal knowledge. there's a chance i won’t know the literature base you are reading, but I can flow plus comprehend pretty well. Make sure that the 2NR/2AR slows down, does impact calculus and weighs between their offense and your offense. I will try my best to adjudicate and have no predisposed biases’ towards any critical argumentation, but can't guarantee a perfect eval.

phil - have read some bc of college but that being said you need to fill in the blanks for me big time

Other things:

Presumption is negative unless the 1NC introduces a counter advocacy to the 1AC, then it flips affirmative.

Competing Interps----X---------------------------Reasonability

Judgekick----------------X----Debaters Kicking

Infinite Condo----------X-----------No Condo

if you have a question about any of these ask me before round!

pf: speed is fine, cards should be well cut, bring up everything you want me to know in your speech, framing should happen in constructive or top of the rebuttal, disclosure also needs to happen in constructive, no new offensive arguments past rebuttal - offense needs to be extended in summary, your links should be coherent, if something important happens in cross, make sure to also mention it in subsequent speeches, summary and final focus should mirror each other, tech > truth but remember that one to an extent determines the other, love a line by line, defense is not sticky, extend it in every speech if you want it evaluated; for progressive arguments i will try my best to evaluate them but probs not to the extent of a cx judge so keep that in mind when running them; postround me till you understand my decision

congress: clash! warrant your arguments and weigh your impacts - comparative framework works best since there are so many arguments made in the round / internal links need to be coherent / i am open to diff types of arguments and structures / too much rehash = lower rank, but a good constructive with clash will be ranked high. make sure to be engaging (don't rely too much on reading off the pad), but remember that this is a debate event in the first place - no canned agds pls - try to find a uniqueness that works for you; sources (reputable and academic in nature) need to be cited and used always, with that being said your research is just one part, but your analysis is what matters most / good crystals will be ranked high - but it needs to go above weighing in the comparative framework --> in addition to that extend your side with new impact or evidence, win the side and debate overall. pls don't use a questioning block just to agree with a speaker, this time should be used for rebuttal. be convincing, but respectful; be active - congress is all about strategy / win the game; being aggressive (yelling and getting mean) doesn’t make you win the round - for po's: i will rank you, but you need to know rules/structure of debate and be able to move the debate along smoothly, i shouldn't need to interfere, but i will always keep a chart to keep track - if there are consistent errors i will rank you lower

feel free to ask me questions before the round starts!

have fun!!

Istealprep@gmail.com

Top level

Debate is meant to be fun. I demand that you have it. If you can not find enjoyment in this activity do not ruin other peoples love for this activity.

***NDT/TOC Update: I have noticed a disturbing trend of more and more teams having evidence ethics issues. This includes but is not limited to: putting the wrong citation for their evidence, leaving out paragraphs in the middle of evidence, and getting information in the citation wrong (date and/or author). The community seems to have different standards for these types of arguments so I want to be explicit about mine. If you make an evidence ethics violation you must end the round and stake the round on the claim. I will then issue my decision based on if I believe there has been an evidence ethics violation. My decision will only be based on if there is in fact an evidence ethics violation. "we didn't mean to", "it wasn't done maliciously", and "we stole this evidence" are all irrelevant to me. You are responsible for the evidence you choose to enter into a debate.

Do not say anything obviously problematic or violent to the other team. I will end the round immediately and assign the lowest possible speaker points the tournament will allow.

Tech over truth. This applies to all arguments. If the other teams arguments are not backed by rigorous research then defeating them should be simple and easy. If you cannot defeat them without me intervening and asserting what I "know" to be true than by all definition you have lost the debate.

I will only consider arguments that happened in the debate about the debate. I am fundamentally uninterested in resolving any interpersonal beef you may have with another team.

If you do not feel safe engaging in a debate for any reason please communicate that to me, tab, and/or your coaching staff, and the necessary actions will be taken.

Planless affirmatives

Generally fine for these debates. I would prefer the 1AC actually defend a method and be related to the topic if possible instead of being a walking impact turn to framework but I digress. As long as you win your arguments and are ahead on the flow I will vote for you.

"vote aff cause it was good" means nothing to me. Explanations of why you resolve the impacts of the aff and why the ballot is key should come early and be contextualized well.

"Why vote aff" followed by "why not" is not compelling for the same reason. 1AC's have the burden of proof. I will struggle to burden the negative with rejoinder if I don't think the 1AC has met the burden of proof after 1AC CX.

Framework/T-USFG

Framework 2NR's tend to be too defense oriented to win most debates. Negatives should be impact turning or link turning aff DA's to framework more often. If not that then there needs to be a large explanation of why clash accesses aff offense and/or why they don't get an aff because of fairness.

Everything is and is not an impact. Fun, Clash, Fairness, Burnout, etc... You should explain why those things matter and why I should care.

KvK

Method v method debates in my mind lack the pre prescribed norms of competition that usually appear in policy v policy debates. You should use this to your advantage and explain how competition ought to work in a world where the affirmative is not held to a plan text.

Figuring out what the aff will defend and pinning them to that seems important, especially when the opportunities to disagree with the 1AC are already limited.

K's on the neg

If the aff is going for a framework that says "No K's" and the neg is going for a framework that says "No aff" then I will pick one at the end of the debate. I will not intervene and concoct a "perm" where the aff gets the aff and the neg gets their links. Of course you are free to advocate the perm/middle ground.

Explanation is usually much better when contextualized to links, alt, f/w, etc... and not a chunk of text for a minute at the top of a speech.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality as offense/defense just like every other argument in debate. Affirmative reasonability arguments are much better framed as reasons why limits are bad/an impact to overlimiting or precision.

Aff's should be more offensive when answering neg limits and grounds arguments. Most of the time the actual weight of these arguments seems stringent as best and made up completely at worst.

Evidence that describes topic mechanisms and lit direction are important. The same is equally if not more true for the interpretation debate.

Counterplans

Everything is legit until somebody says it isn't in which case then it becomes a debate. I think most affirmative theory arguments are much better deployed as competition arguments. I am unlikely to ever be persuaded by "solvency advocate theory", "process CPs bad", or the like, unless the neg completely whiffs. This doesn't apply when the neg CP doesn't pass the sniff test. I.e. international fiat, private actor fiat, etc...

I generally lean towards infinite condo being good. Obviously this is a debate that can take place and I will evaluate as offense/defense like normal, I just think the negative arguments in regards to this are much more compelling.

I default to judge kick but just please say it in the block.

0 Idea how anyone evaluates CP's besides sufficiency framing and I have yet to hear a alternative way to evaluate them. Grandstanding about sufficiency framing in the 2nr is about as useful as saying that they have conceded the neg gets fiat.

2NC CP's out of add-ons are fine. 2NC CP's out of straight turns are not fine. If it goes in the 1NC be prepared to hold the line.

Disadvantages

Fine for every politics DA you want to throw from your box. What fiat means can be debated like any other argument.

Link and Internal link turns case arguments are extremely important. Our nuclear war impact turns your nuclear war impact arguments are extremely not important.

Case

Try or die is important to me. If the negs only answer to case is solvency pushes but concedes the squo causes extinction and doesn't have a CP to remedy that then even a small risk the aff solves will almost certainly win them the debate. The opposite is true if aff drops an internal net benefit to a process CP, as the neg now controls try or die.

0% risk is definitely possible on both sides.

Misc

I will not read or consider rehighlightings you did not read yourself. Text must be actually read for it to matter, debate is a communicative activity and you must communicate. If you read it in cross-x and then insert it that is fine.

Cross-x can only make modifications to speeches if both sides consent. If the other team asks you about a card you do not get to scratch it in the middle of cross-x unless they agree. The same is also true for reading evidence obviously.

Cross-x is binding and I will be flowing it.

Speaker points are my decision and I will not listen to arguments about them. You can ask for a 30 if you want, but you will be wasting speech time.

I'm a PF coach. I have been coaching since 2017 and debated PF when I myself was in high school. I judge rounds with a coaching lens and mindset. Thus, my feedback is centered around seeing you grow as a debater, not to be a harsh hater. I want every team to grow and do better, not just my own. Any pointed feedback is not to tear you down, but to offer clear and direct points of improvement.

Pace, evidence citations and signposting are some of the most important elements to having a great debate, in my opinion. I do as best I can to keep up with people, but if I, someone who has been in this activity for more than a decade plus, cannot keep up with you, how are you expecting parent judges to do so? Debate, at its core, is a persuasion based activity. It is not a contest of who can say the most words in a four minute period. The way you communicate and present MATTERS. Introduce an idea, develop it and build it up with great evidence.

If I do not know where your evidence is coming from and what it is, it's hard for me to put any weight on it. So if you give me just a name and number, for example "Baker 17" I don't know ANYTHING about the quality of that evidence. Tell me why they are qualified. For example, Alex Baker, professor of public policy at the University of Minnesota argues for the New York Times in 2017, "......." A critical element of evidence citations is also making it clear what is evidence and what is your own analysis. So if you're not pausing before and after you read the evidence, or verbally saying "quote/unquote" it's next to impossible for me to tell what is actually from the card and what is your own analysis. If you want me to put weight on your evidence, please present it in a clear and properly cited fashion.

I should know where you are on the flow at ALL TIMES. The easiest way to do this is to signpost. For example, "in response to their contention two, I have three responses. First...." This serves multiple purposes. First, it helps you stay organized, on track, and offering distinct responses to an argument. Second, it makes life MUCH easier on the judge so they know exactly what you're responding to.

Here's the best ways to avoid losing a round that I am judging: DON'T read fast. DON'T be rude to your opponents in crossfire. DON'T cite just a name and date without any other information. For example, if you say "Baker 2017 argues ______" what am I supposed to do with that if I don't know who the person is, why they are qualified, who they are writing for and so on? For all I know you could be citing your uncle, but maybe your uncle is qualified to speak on the subject matter. But how would I know without a more complete citation than just a name and a number? If you speak at a reasonable pace, are generally pleasant and have great evidence, you'll sound like a winner to me.

Debate coach specializing primarily in Public Forum debate.

Things that generally make a debate round enjoyable for me are the interactions between debaters through clash, cross examination, rebuttals, POIs, etc.

I don’t like judging rounds where I am just being read at.

When it comes to speed, I prefer slower deliveries. I value speeches that are understandable, stylized, and with inflections that highlight the most important aspects of your case. A rapid delivery dumping card after card does not impress me.

I value manners and sportsmanship EXTREMELY heavily. Debate is supposed to be fun and engaging. If I feel like a debater/team is being overly aggressive, demeaning, or rude, the speaker points and possibly the ballot will reflect that. You should ultimately welcome a lively discourse with your opponents. Even if you are facing a team that is inexperienced or unprepared you should try to promote a discourse and avoid intimidating or shutting them out of the round.

Ultimately, thank you for the time and effort you put into debate. It’s a pleasure to be involved in the debate community and to work with debate students. I hope you get something valuable out of the debate experience and make some lasting memories.

PF Specific Items:

I prefer the "old PF" style where speeches were more persuasive and accessible to the general public and less about dumping cards.

Truth > tech

I do not like Ks or Theory arguments in PF. I do not want to be on any email chains.

Please do not cite NSDA, TFA, or the Public Forum "rule books" to me at any point in the round. Yes I know PF shouldn't have counterplans, bring up new evidence in the final focus, etc. and I can decide what I won't consider in a decision. I'm also not going to decide a round on minor technicalities.

The easiest PF rounds for me to judge are the ones where debaters use their final focus speeches effectively. I don't need to hear the line by line recap of the round for potentially the third time. I want to hear why your team won and it should be more than just how the other team dropped all their arguments or how all your arguments went conceded. Highlight the most important argument in the round and key areas of clash and how (through weighing/calculus) your side wins the clash. If done correctly, I should be able to recite parts of your final focus in my Reason For Decision.

Dear all,

I am Ramanathan (Ram) working for an IT company in Greenville, SC. I was born and raised in India and immigrated to the US 14 years ago.

I enjoy judging speech and debate (especially your round) and it’s great to be part of this event which not only helps to shape the life and future of the students but also for myself with a greater understanding of current issues and topics.

I’m fluent in English but I would appreciate it if you (debaters) can avoid jargon as well as speaking too fast. I remain a judge/spectator for the entire part of the debate and step in if and only there is a need (exceeding time limit, inappropriate language, etc.). Also, I keep time for the entire round just to make sure the burden is not on the debaters.

It’s great to meet you all and look forward to judging your event. All the very best!!

Our activity should first and foremost be an educational experience for everyone involved. Because we are practicing an academic exercise in a competitive space, sportsmanship is imperative. I tell my students to model the type of debate they would like to compete against; if the way they engage in the activity makes their opponents want to quit our activity...they are doing it wrong. Debate should be for everyone - a healthy debate circuit, like a healthy democracy, thrives off high engagement/participation. I invite you to engage with this narrative; if you love this activity, you should want to share it with as many as possible.

Debaters are sometimes shocked when they come into a round asking me for my paradigm; I will often defer my paradigm to be determined first by the preferences of their opponents. I bring this up because I would rather all participants be comfortable setting norms with one another prior to engaging with what my preferences are as an adjudicator--it makes for a more balanced debate rather than one team having an advantage because they are better at adapting to a specific paradigm of any specific judge. A fast way to lose my ballot is to treat people (judges, opponents, and spectators) within the debate space with disregard because your goals of winning don't require their preferences to be met. I'm not a lay judge, but the debate should primarily be accessible by everyone in the space in order for it to be maximally educational. If I'm on a panel, I pay attention to the paradigms of my fellow judges (and the experience level of your opponents)...so it's always safe to assume I'll vote you down for debate for exploitive, patronizing, and exclusionary behaviors and language. *Extend this line of thought to the literature you're reading and the narratives you're sharing; the people in your impact scenarios matter, they are not a chess piece in your "game of words".

Rather than seeing the debate space as "competitive" (yes, I acknowledge a judge determines a winning side--or best reasoned/articulated/defended side), I choose to see the debate space as "collaborative". Debate asks us to engage in perspective taking; the purpose of switch-side debate is so students gain perspective based on research and critical thought. Ideally, we (judges, spectators, coaches, and participants) should enter into the debate space with good faith; with the goal of everyone ending the round having learned something new, considered a different point of view, and enjoyed the experience (and with the sentiment that it was worth it/we'd do it again if we could).

I reward teams who bring topical research into the space. Fewer substantive arguments with thorough analysis of the literature will always be preferred over trying to win because your opponent doesn't have time to respond to an argument (because you chose to run many under-developed arguments). I understand and enjoy theory, kritik, performance, and fw/value debate when they are done well. I don't think it is productive or required to advocate a position you don't believe in; you may not get to choose your side, but you do get to choose your arguments. 99% of the time I'm going to vote for legitimate advocacy over an overly technocratic strategy developed specifically for the round. Internal consistency is important to me - especially when there are in-round impacts being weighed.

I generally view the debate space as both a lab/playground for testing ideas and *also* as a space for engaging in deliberative democracy - because of this, I discourage deterministically framed arguments that disempower or remove agency from others sharing the space. There's a difference between framing an argument as non-unique and framing it as *inevitable*; if your opponents do this, you'll probably be able to win the impact by making space for an alternate narrative in the round (and I may likely be willing to vote on the in-round impact of preferring your alternate narrative). For example, the inability to eliminate corruption or suffering isn't a reason to reject a plan or framework that minimizes it (this is also true for narratives of peace as the absence of violence, narratives of environmental stewardship, and so on). You'll do well to not dismiss your opponent's impacts in a way that perpetuates a narrative that excludes an alternate narrative that might be better for us to engage with. I enjoy when debaters challenge narratives that often go unquestioned as a means to empower.

I'm going to flow, you should too--it's annoying when you argue against evidence your opponent doesn't read - don't think of reading/skimming through your opponent's files as a substitute for listening/flowing (conversely, don't give your opponents large quantities of evidence you don't plan on reading).

Aside from the rules of the activity, I ask that you're open to earnestly engaging with arguments as your opponents present them; not everyone is taught how to debate the same way, and part of what makes our activity beautiful is the potential it has to evolve and change to become *more* inclusive. I generally believe all constructive speeches are fair game for new lines of argumentation (though topicality probably needs to be run directly subsequent to the interp violation), and rebuttals require debaters to both consolidate and prioritize - I believe *how* we choose to consolidate and *what* we prioritize in rebuttals to be revelatory and this will be where you may get yourself into trouble with internal consistency.

Treat the activity and everyone in the round with respect--that'll get you far.

Fine with most arguments. K's are fine, just make sure to explain them.

I dislike dropped arguments. If you intentionally drop an argument. Mention it.

I default to Stock Issues, Aff must win all Arguments to win.

Not the fastest at flowing so i prefer no spreading. that said you can still speak quickly but i have to have enough time to write it down

Any other clarifications or questions you have you can ask me before the round but I am generally pretty cool w/ whatever.

Flay judge

Don't spread.

- For any round-related correspondence, please utilize the following email address: jasondbarton15@gmail.com.

Background:

- I am an assistant debate coach at Albuquerque Academy in ABQ, New Mexico (mostly coaching CX and LD).

- I recently finished my Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of New Mexico. I specialize in German Idealism, hermeneutic phenomenology, and Lacanian psychoanalysis.

- I debated CX, LD, and PF (though mostly PF) in Dallas, TX and the surrounding areas throughout high school (2011-2014), and I debated on the NPDA/NPTE circuit with Rice University more recently (2015-2019). My partner and I finished second at nationals (NPTE) our senior years. I consider myself to be comfortable with traditional and progressive styles of debate.

- My pronouns are he/him/his.

Crucial Points:

- Please attempt to be as courteous to one another as possible.

- In terms of argumentation, I do not necessarily have a preference for which kinds of arguments you present (e.g., policy affirmatives, DAs, CPs, Ks, Theory, etc.), but I would like them to be thoroughly explained, well-warranted, and impacted out (including weighing/impact calculus) throughout the debate.

- I gravitate towards evaluating framework very highly in the round (e.g., sequencing claims pertaining to competing methodologies). It is very likely that, if you are winning the framework debate, you are ahead in the debate (according to my assessment).

Theory/Topicality:

- I approach theory and topicality by analyzing the interpretation/violation layer first and the standards/voters layer second. If the opposing team wins a "we meet," they have effectively no linked the argument in my judgment (and thus need not even address the standards/voters).

- In assessing the standards/voters layer of the theory/topicality debate, I am looking for (a) extensive comparison between the respective standards of the interpretation and the counter-interpretation with respect to the voters (i.e., internal link analysis) and (b) priority claims in regard to voters (How do the voters interact with one another? Does one ground the possibility of another?).

CPs/Ks:

- On CPs and Ks themselves, I would prefer clearly marked solvency for both positions (I think CP/K solvency is pretty important - especially the question of "how do you solve the aff?" if this is an aspect of your position).

- I would like K links to be specific to the affirmative as opposed to more generic K links ("you use the state/capitalism/etc.") - if that's not the case, I am receptive to "no link" arguments from the affirmative.

- I think framework debates on Ks can be really educational, and I value framework pretty highly when considering which impacts matter in the round. Root cause claims can function as tiebreakers between competing frameworks.

DAs:

- I like DAs with precise/lucid uniqueness stories and specific links to the affirmative.

- I enjoy arguments from the affirmative about how the DA links to the CP. I think some valuable offense can be garnered from these.

Perms:

- I believe perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy, but I'm willing to evaluate the contrary.

- Also, if the perm text doesn't make sense (e.g., "do both" when alt text says "reject aff"), I will consider this argument in relation to the viability of the permutation.

UPDATED 02/20/2024

I am a coach with more than a decade of experience in the speech/debate community, including as the coach of two NSDA national champion teams in World Schools Debate. I spend most of my tournament days in tournament administration, or running/working Tab, though I still judge on occasion. I work mostly with World Schools Debate, Congress, Public Forum, and Parliamentary competitors, as well as with Speech competitors. I am somewhere between lay and proficient as an LD judge, and I should be treated as a lay judge in Policy rounds.

As of February 2024, I have squirreled less than 8% of rounds that I've judged.

GENERAL COMMENTS

1. Brief roadmaps are welcome and appreciated. Also, please signpost! I shouldn’t leave the round wondering what your primary case arguments were, and how they correlate with those belonging to your opponents.

2. Frame and weigh arguments/impacts/evidence/etc for me and provide a clear analysis of the various items on the flow. As important as it is that I can identify that debaters' arguments, it's even more important for you to guide me through comparative weights and why your arguments/evidence/analysis is stronger and/or more important than those of your opponents.

3. I generally believe the Affirmative has the burden of proof. If AFF can’t make the case why their proposition is better than the status quo, NEG is almost certain to get my ballot. On the other hand, it isn't enough for NEG to simply say, "AFF's world isn't perfect, therefore NEG's world is better and you must negate".

4. If you do not address your opponents’ arguments, I am assuming you do not intend to refute them. Time management is important when strengthening your arguments and still leaving room to refute your opponents’. Take a few seconds to collapse so my flow is clean at the end of the round.

5. Treat me as though I have an at-best average understanding of what you're debating. I consider myself a fairly well-informed and logical person, so while I'm likely understanding the terminology and abbreviations you are rushing through, I have blind spots (like all human beings). I generally provide more weight to things that you spend time emphasizing--if you're taking the time to make sure I understand something, I'm going to assume it's pretty damn important.

6. I am not really Tech>Truth or Truth>Tech. I probably vote more consistently on the side of tech, but if you make an argument that is wildly untrue/unreasonable, I'm not going to vote for it regardless of whether your opponents call that argument out or not.

7. I'm open to a good/reasonable K, but there are very few instances where I believe a K has both been argued effectively and makes sense in the context of the round. I will never, never vote on disclosure theory, so don't bother running it.

8. Please don't ask me for my e-mail address to send me your case. I should be able to flow without reading your case, and I'm also just fundamentally opposed to adult judges/coaches having correspondence with students who are not their own.

Preferences that do not normally factor into my decision:

1. DO NOT SPREAD. If you are speaking and moving too quickly that I can’t keep up, we have a problem that could end with me missing something crucial to your case. I will stop taking notes if I cannot understand you.

2. There is a fine line between charm and smarm. Know the difference, because I certainly do. Humor, when done well and at the appropriate time, will endear me to you as a speaker. Too much humor/sass/sarcasm, and I think you've misunderstood this competition for amateur night at your local comedy club. In World Schools Debate, I am generally more willing to give latitude for sass than I am in any other event.

3. If your opponent calls for a card, you should have it relatively readily available. I don’t expect it to be at your side immediately, but when we get past 45 seconds, I’m either losing my patience or start to suspect you don’t have it.

4. PF'ers - Cross and Grand Cross should not be seen as opportunities to see who can speak the loudest or be the most assertive.

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE

In general, my expectation for WSD rounds is that you are taking your opponents at their highest ground. Motions should be reasonably interpreted, but I am not interested in an interpretation-exclusive approach to rebutting your opponents' arguments. Call out abuse when reasonable, and move on.

Compare worlds for me--to win the comparative, you need to prove to me that your world is substantively better than your opponents', and explain why.

Content: What does your case look like? Are your arguments fully fleshed-out? I expect you to state your claim, establish plenty of warrants behind that claim, and link concrete impacts. I reward solid analysis with high scores. If you can present effective practical and principle arguments to me, you can expect a high Content score.

Style: This one's pretty straightforward. I mark down speech readers, and boost solid rhetoric turns/flips. I want to know that you, as a speaker, are fully engaged with your opponents and judge(s). This is the one event where I like debaters to have more "colorful" rhetoric--and as long as what you're saying isn't flagrantly rude or disrespectful, I'll probably enjoy the sass and humor, and boost your Style score for it.

Strategy: This is where I evaluate your approach to the motion, as well as how you approach your opponents' case and arguments. One of the most important things that I look for are your understanding of arguments that require your response and arguments that require your dismissiveness. I expect you to break down the flow, but not all arguments are created equally. I recognize solid strategy scores from debaters who are able to zero in on the arguments that are likely to matter to me at the end of the round. I also expect POI's to have a purpose--they're the Chekov's gun of this event. If you're asking a POI, it should be evident at some point in the next speech why that POI was asked.

CONGRESS

In general, I highly value Congressional debaters who are equally adept at rhetoric/presentation and argumentation/technical debate skills. I don't flow a Congress round the same way I might any other debate round, but I AM tracking arguments and who is helping to structure and frame the debate.

You can be the best speaker in the round, but if you disappear during other speakers' CX, you should expect to be marked down significantly.

Unless you are the very first speaker on legislation, I expect at least one small refutation from you during your speech. The later the round goes, your refutation bar rises higher.

Late-round speakers who do not add anything substantive to the debate will not stand out for me. Even if you feel there aren't many new arguments left to be made, crystallize other arguments for me and explain why some matter more than others.

Presiding Officers - I should feel like I'm very much in YOUR chamber, not mine. PO's who truly control the room are the ones who stand out. I weigh your efficiency, procedural knowledge, and style.

Katie Baxter-Kauf (she/her pronouns)
2024-2025 Notes
St. Paul Central / Minnesota Urban Debate League
Chain emails: katebaxterkauf@gmail.com, stpaulcentralcxdebate@gmail.com

Past useful info: I debated in high school in Kansas (Shawnee Mission East, 1995-1998), and in college for Macalester (1998-2001) (all policy plus a semester of HS LD and rogue college parli tournaments). I coached at Blaine High School (2000-2002), then the Blake School (2002-2003), some freelancing for Mankato West, Shawnee Mission East, and others (2003-2007), then for Como Park briefly when I came back to work for the UDL (2007-2008) and some side helping as needed at St. Paul Central. I coached college at the University at Buffalo and the University of Rochester (2003-2007). I ran logistics for the MNUDL from 2007-2011, when I graduated from law school and became a lawyer. I have judged 5-10 middle school or high school debates a year since 2011, and judged 25 policy debates in 2022-2023, and 50+ rounds in 2023-2024. I also serve as the Vice Chair of the Minnesota Urban Debate League Advisory Board.

General notes and TLDR version: (1) don't be a jerk; (2) I don't care about tag-team cross-ex, just don't yell at each other; (3) don't steal prep; (4) debates are public and that means that everyone is welcome, I will always defend what I do, people should feel safe, and I'll answer whatever questions anyone has afterwards; (5) fundamentally do what you want and I'll follow along; and (6) debate is fun and I'm so glad you get to experience doing it, and I'm honored to get to participate with you.

Argument notes after a couple years judging/coaching policy debate after a dozen years off: Debates are fundamentally the same as the way they were when I last coached and if anything I am surprised at how little argument and structure have evolved. I have no problem keeping up with you all and I have an exceptionally good memory. I at least sort of read along with speech docs and that seems to make it so that I filter my fundamental feeling that tech comes before truth through a lens of the quality of your evidence. I find the practice of interspersing theory arguments with substantive arguments a little hard to follow at times, especially when you put the substance parts in your speech docs but not the fast theory parts. If you want me to actually vote on these arguments or use them as direction on how to evaluate other arguments, like a permutation or a CP (instead of just using them for the time tradeoff or to make sure you don't drop something) you would be well served to make sure I can understand you. I have a fairly expressive face and am fairly chatty.

If someone who knew me a long time ago is giving you advice on how to debate in front of me, I will say that I am fundamentally the same person I have been since my very first day of debate practice but that the main way I have probably changed is that I have a higher voting threshold on arguments that are either blippy theory or fundamentally stupid (and recognized by all parties as such). I am a hard sell, for example, on the concept that the cap kritik that people read when I was in high school is still cheating 25+ years later, or that dumb unexplained voters mean that teams should lose absent some compelling justification. I also think that framework and conditionality debates are, at their core, boring, though I understand both the necessity and utility. If push comes to shove, I would always rather people talk about substance.

2024-2025 Topic Notes: I am a practicing litigator, primarily doing plaintiffs' side complex class action work (mostly data breach/cybersecurity/privacy, antitrust, and consumer protection). I am not an IP lawyer. What this means for you: I understand legal concepts and especially the process of litigation exceptionally well and I will know if you describe it incorrectly (and will probably tell you). This should not affect whether I vote for your incorrect argument, and I know more than anyone that a lot of these concepts are pretty esoteric, but accuracy will certainly get you higher points.

BUT, and MOST CRITICALLY: Fundamentally, I don't care what arguments you read. I want you to do what you think you do best and have a good time doing it. I would DRAMATICALLY prefer to watch a good debate on your preferred argument than a bad one on stuff you think I'd like. I am generally very well read and aware of stuff going on in the world, but have a humanities/literature/law school and not a realist foreign policy/science/economics background. I am fine in a heg/DA/CP debate. I have read a lot more of the critical literature than you think I have. I have general proclivities and stuff I know better than other stuff or literature I've actually read (and I have a fairly low threshold for gendered/racist/hate-filled/exclusionary behavior and/or language), but it's your debate, and I will do my absolute best only to evaluate the arguments that get made in the debate round. If you have questions about specific arguments, I'm happy to answer them.

POINTS: SORRY, I KNOW MY POINTS ARE TOO LOW. Am going to try adjusting up the half point I seem to be behind at circuit tournaments for the rest of the year and see how it goes. I follow instructions from Jake Swede at UDL tournaments. PLEASE don't take this personally - I think you're all great. Edit 1/6/25: this seems to have worked? Will keep doing it.

Interp Events:

My rankings are usually based on who is able to create the most believable characters and moments. There should be multiple levels within your piece and in the portrayal of your characters ~ not everything should be intense, or fast/slow, or super loud or quiet.

Everything you do in your performance should have a purpose. If you give a character an accent, be consistent with that accent. Make sure that each movement, mannerism, or gesture makes sense within the scope of the story you are telling. Additionally, I should be able to easily differentiate between multiple characters. Facial expressions, moments, and character development are very important for the overall performance.

Speaking Events

A clear structure is important: your delivery should be cohesive, and flow logically from point to point. A natural delivery style that allows for your personality to shine is preferable to the “Platform Speaker”. Put simply: avoid speech patterns.

Extemp: The most important thing is that you answer the question! A polished speaking style is important, but I will often default to a speaker that has stronger analysis and evidence over a pretty speech with fluffy content. Do not rely on canned introductions - creativity is important when trying to engage me.

Oratory/Informative: Your attention getter, vehicle, and conclusion should be creative, but they also need to fit well with the topic. Again, I will default to stronger analysis/evidence over fluffy content.

: My Credentials :] :

I debated LD all four years in South Dakota. I have judged LD and PF now for 4 years.

: General Info for All :

For speed, on a scale of 1(slow)-10(fast) I sit at a 5. If you go faster, as long as you are understandable and clear I won't get upset.

Don't be rude in round. If I see the debate turn into an attack on other opponents, I will vote you down. That is not the purpose of debate.

SIGNPOST. This is necessary for all types of debate I judge, greatly appreciated if I see clear signposting of points and arguments.

: LD :

I am pretty traditional, but if you debate circuit/policy arguments I will still vote for you as long as you make your arguments clear - if I'm judging you at a South Dakota tournament please avoid policy arguments :)

Need to see a value/criterion clash of some sort. That is a big factor in my decision and who best links to morality.

I will vote on line by line, but for the last Affirmative speech I prefer hearing Points of Crystallization or clear Voters. Tell me exactly why you win.

: PF :

As long as you give straight forward explanations of your points and arguments, you should be good. Don't give 'fluff' information, I can tell if you are not responding to an argument or an opponent's point.

Give me main Voters during your summary and final focus (this should be self explanatory but sometimes people don't do this).

: Policy :

I know the layout and arguments, but I am not well versed in critiks or higher level tech arguments. I have a very basic understanding of when I debated it my freshman year. However, if you make arguments clear I will still vote on them.

I have been judging various events for 5 years. I always try to bury any personal knowledge or belief about topics and judge solely on what is presented in the round by the debaters.

I look for well-defined arguments that are educational and don't assume previous knowledge. I prefer hearing fewer well-defined arguments than a litany of arguments that are spoken at a rapid pace to deliver as much information as possible. I strongly prefer a debater to not use spreading as a method of debate, it sounds like jibberish to me.

I look for respect toward opponents. I like a natural flow of speech and a tone that is passionate but not shrill.

Hello! I am the Pittsburgh Central Catholic Head Speech Coach with 6 years of experience judging all speech events. If you have any questions about your ballot, my email is pjb82@pitt.edu

If you want some feedback after round, just ask!

If you're an Extemper and you just so happen to have found my paradigm and I'm judging you, this is what you should do:

Make sure you include context in your introduction - don't waste our limited time by making irrelevant connections to pop culture. Explain the context of the question (why are we talking about it today?) and any definitions, technical terms, and historical information I may need to fully understand your answer to the question.

Diversify your sources. Use reputable sources only - if I don't know what it is I'll probably look it up after round. Avoid think tanks. Warrant your claims (remind me why your evidence matters in light of the question itself, not just that particular point).

I prefer traditional LD and do not like progressive debate. I am a newer judge (just started this year). Please try to stick to the topic/resolution and be topical with your cards/contentions. Thanks!

Debate should not be a competition of essays or research papers. I will not take notes on cases that are emailed to me. I will only take notes on what I hear in the round. Please make sure you are speaking at a moderate speed. If you are going too fast, I will not be able to keep up and will not be able to award you the win for a round (especially if I don't hear or miss parts of your case!). If you are going too quickly, I may have to stop typing or flowing. I think that cases that are more developed do not need so much information crammed in that you are simply speaking fast to win the round.

Please signpost and be clear with your cases. If I have to keep jumping up and down the flow to "find" turns or arguments that you're speaking about, it will be difficult for me to keep up with the round or vote for you.

Please be kind to your opponents. Being rude discourages people from joining the activity, and I do not like that.

UPDATED 2/21/20: I do not judge as often as I may once have. At most local events, I find myself on the operations side of a tournament.

That should not terrify you – I am a career public servant, who happens to coach debate because I appreciate everything that it taught me as a student. You should assume that I approach debate rounds this way: what is the best decision I can make given the information presented to me?

It may sound old-fashioned, but I do not wish to be on any email chains. I have sadly witnessed teams answering entire disadvantages not read by their opponents simply because they were included in said distribution. Not to be outdone, I have read ballots where judges voted on evidence that nobody read. I pledge to keep the best flow I can. If I need to see a piece of evidence, and the particular league or tournament's rules allow for that, I will call for it.

If you are short on time reading this, my paradigm can be expressed in six (6) words: do your thing and be nice. If you are really short on time, we can go with four (4): old guy, still flows.

Policy:

1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. I cannot vote on what I do not have typed/written down. I try hard to listen to the text of the evidence presented;
2. Open cross-examination is acceptable, but if it is clear than one member of the team is not able to participate at the same level, speaker points will suffer;
3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I look first to any potential violation(s) of stock issues and then default to a policymaking perspective.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. I do not mind an LD round that gets on down the flow;
2. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.

Public Forum/Speech:

1. Nothing earth-shattering here. I am less speed tolerant in public forum and I will simply apply the ballot criteria to whatever speech event is at hand.

Regardless of event, we enter the debate knowing the resolution and some basic rules of the road (e.g., speech times, likely printed on the ballot). By tabula rasa I mean that the debaters establish the framework for evaluating debates. You should do what you do best and do it well. Arguments should have three parts – a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style.

I still believe that good decisions should flow like water. Great rebuttals frame debates and clash wins rounds. My ballots will provide a succinct RFD, possibly pointing out either strengths or opportunities for improvement as we progress through the speeches. 3AR/3NR oral critiques nauseate me: what I say out loud (if disclosure is permitted) will almost certainly match what I am placing on your ballot. Your coach should see comments too. You did not go to the dentist; my RFD is never going to read “oral.”

Finally, be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges. I have zero tolerance for poor behavior in debate rounds.

In Congressional Debate, I believe in clear, concise analysis. I expect clash, cited evidence, and rebuttal. I also appreciate students who immerse themselves in the debate and act as if their votes have an importance to their constituents back home. I understand that the end result is artificial, but for the moments in which you are in session, act like it matters.

I also expect that you will treat your colleagues with respect and avoid the parliamentary games which serve to prevent them from speaking. I've been around too long and can see through such tactics.

Jordan Berry - Loveless Academic Magnet Program High School

Hello!

I have been a coach and judge since 2015. Most debaters over the years categorize me as a traditional L/D judge. My chief weighing mechanism is usually framework (my undergraduate degree is in philosophy), but I can be persuaded to the contrary. I have no value hierarchy. I strive to keep personal views and ballot intervention away from my RFD. I will evaluate only those arguments brought up by the debaters.

Speed is an issue for me. This is primarily an education and communication activity. I highly doubt either Lincoln or Douglas themselves were spreading, and I've never seen spreading in any real-life situation aside from episodes of "Storage Wars." I do flow the round (though not cross), but "winning the flow" isn't the same as winning the round in some cases; this event is supposed to be persuasive and accessible, not a checklist of responses and replies. Thus, I always roll my eyes when one of my own debaters complains about "lay" judges: in crafting a case/round, they should receive as much consideration as that ex-policy debater.

Other issues for me: do be respectful. Do engage meaningfully with the resolution. Do be honest. Do have fun.

Break a leg!

Policy

I am a policy maker – an impact calc. is crucial to me. Really provide in-depth analysis for risks/scenarios/advantages. Whatever you run in the round just make sure you do it well. I like intelligent clash and not getting stuck in a time suck over less relevant arguments.

T – Please make sure to provide a quality definition and show why your interpretation is to be preferred. Do not use it was a way to wrap the entire debate up on a T argument and waste time.

DA – The more specific the link the better. I don’t really care for super generic canned disads. Show why the big bad is more likely to happen with what you read than in aff world.

K – I am open to a Kritik, but you need to really understand and explain it well. It really comes down to your explanation though if I buy it. Don’t run one in the 2NC – I find it to be unfair to aff.

CP – Like everything else if you run it well, I am a fan. I think naturally it makes more since for it to be plan inclusive, but you can set it up anyway you’d like with the right evidence.

Theory – I strongly dislike theory arguments. You can run one if it is necessary but don’t wrap the whole debate up in a theory argument.

Speed – I think I can flow just about anything, but I will say “clear” if needed or stop flowing.

Hello!

I am a third-year Speech and Debate coach who has specialized in CX and IE's. In a competitor, the most important attributes to me are kindness, sportsmanship, and professionalism (behaviorally). Please feel free to reach out with any questions that you have about my feedback.

Sincerely,

Jessica Black

Lincoln Douglas Debate - I will weight argumentation over all other factors. I like empirical evidence over theory. Next is theory and value clash. Please do not get into a definition debate. I have never decided a round because of a definition and do not weight these arguments at all. I simply dismiss these as they are a waste of time. Additionally, I would rather have the debater defend both values in the debate instead of trying to disprove their opponents.

Public Forum Debate - No definitions please. I don't care. Keep it simple and stay to the facts and argumentation. I want evidence and direct attacks. No silly side theory or loophole stuff. I'm old fashion. I want a clean professional delivery that a normal individual can understand off the street.

Policy Debate - NO SPEED AND SPREAD. You do this I stop listening. Debate the topic. I don't like K's or counterplans. I know I'm in the minority here with this, but you will not get my ballot. If both teams engage in the practice go for the other judge's ballot because I will flip a coin. Present a Plan to solve the problem on Aff and the Neg needs to disprove this and show disadvantages instead of trying to weasel around the issue.

I am a typical PF judge. No real paradigm since PF is not plan or value driven. I like to see well developed arguments and effective speaking. I will listen to any argument as long as it is reasonable.

I have been coaching and judging LD and PF debate for 10 years. When it comes to speed, I need to be able to understand what you are saying, so if you are speaking at a rate faster than you can handle and I cannot understand you, it is just as bad as not saying anything and I cannot count those arguments. I also do not appreciate being told what I MUST do in any round. Use good arguments and logic, make sure you adequately and directly address the points brought up by your opponent, and do your best to defend your own case. Use cross-ex to question, not to debate. In LD I am going to weigh your value and how you uphold it and link it through your case more than the contention level debate. Lastly, I like CIVIL debates. Know the difference between passion and unnecessary aggression.

I have been involved in competitive debate since the late 90s. I was a competitor in policy debate in the early 2000s and have been a coach since 2008. I actively coach all formats of debate as well as speech and interp. I value communication and clear, logical, persuasive argumentation above all else. If your spoken presentation isn't enough to make your arguments clear, I will not be able to consider them. I am open to any form of argument so long as it is well explained, consistent with your strategy, and persuasively presented (warranted). At the end of the day, this is a communicative activity that asks you to employ logic and persuasion - that is what I hope to see. If we are diving deep into those concepts, I think everyone will have fun and learn that is why I hope we are all here.

Stock Issues are considered first. Use Policymaker guidelines as a default after Stock Issues. K's will not be considered.

Debate paradigm:

For all formats, I focus on solid argumentation and skillful use of rhetoric. Framework is important to me. Tell me how you plan to win your argument and follow through. I do not usually favor competitors who try avoiding the topic by focusing on loosely connected tangents or technicalities. When giving voters, I do not enjoy hearing a list of individual points won. Instead, I favor big-picture summaries of what you have accomplished in the debate focused on how each individual argument supports your side of the resolution. Avoid the over-use of debate-specific terms, like which points "flow through". You should be able to tell me in lay terminology how you've won this debate. Especially be careful of claiming your opponent "dropped your case" or similar claims. If you claim this and it isn't true, this will affect my decision.

Speak clearly and with sufficient volume that I do not need to guess what you said. Courtesy towards your opponent is important to me. You should be able to argue without resorting to name-calling or caustic accusations. Communication skills matter as well. If I feel opponents are rhetorically matched, nonverbal and vocal communication skills may break the tie for me.

Most of all, I hope you all feel comfortable with me as your judge enough to enjoy the competition. Please know that if you have any concerns or questions, I will happily listen and help you in any way that I can. If you have preferred pronouns or other needs, don't hesitate to let me know. I want to treat you with courtesy, too!

Format-specific paradigms:

Lincoln Douglas:

Value and criterion debate are crucial. I will heavily consider those competitors who successfully advocate their value and criterion over their opponent’s. One can lose the flow but win the value/criterion debate and still win the round.

I only partially flow, and I only judge partially based on the flow. A dropped argument is still considered poor argumentation to me, but not all arguments carry the same weight, and just because a contention is glossed over does not mean the entire debate was lost. I will expect more rhetorically sound, evidence-based contentions to be the priority.

Some competitors try adapting strategies from other debate formats to LD, such as running kritik or spreading. I do not favor such strategies. I focus on the moral argumentation, on rhetorically sound argumentation of the assigned topic, and on clear, professional communication skills.

I have debated since 8th grade, and now I am a college forensicator at Western Kentucky University. In high school, I competed in Policy Debate, Public Form, and Congressional Debate and also Interp events during the Forensics season.

Here is my Policy Debate Paradigm:

K's

- I was always a K debater, so I have a sweet spot for them. Make sure if you read a K you describe it well and explain the world of your alt.

Topicality

- Topicality is not a heavy voter for me. I'm not a fan of using it just for a time-filler. However, when running/answering T, please structure it correctly.

Speed

- Speed is not a big problem for me though I am not a huge fan of spreading. If you spread, make sure you explain your cards well and slow down for taglines and more important points

On-case Arguments

- Aff, these are very important to keep consistant throughout the round. Offense is just as important as defense.

- For the neg finding solvency deficits is a significant voter for me.

Other Off-Case Arguments

- I'm down to hear any disads, CPs, etc. as long as you prove their relevance in the round.

*If any team says anything racist, sexist, homophobic, prejudiced, etc. it will be an automatic loss.*

I have been judging since 2009.

i prefer conversational rate of delivery. I know of no profession that spreads or talks really fast other than an auctioneer. Your delivery of information is to help the person hearing you and convince them you have the best argument so you can win the decision rendered.

i enjoy judging: LD, Impromptu, Informative, Original Oratory.

Debate is a community, and I expect debaters to be cordial and polite to one another in round.

Debate is an activity based on persuasion, logic, and clear communication. As such, I am open to all hearing all forms of arguments in a debate, but arguments promoting racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc. will not do well on my ballot. Debate in the style you prefer and with the best strategy—over-adapting to judge preferences usually ends poorly.

I am a flow judge that prefers line-by-line argumentation. But if you do not go line-by-line, signposting is essential. Use language within the cases to signpost where you are in the flow.

Arguments:

Arguments should be well-researched and supported through logical links and evidence. Arguments that have the most weight in the round are the ones that have a clear claim, warrant, impact and data. Link stories are important and should be clearly identified.

Focus on impacts. Terminal impacts are important and get most of the focus, but low scale impacts are important too. Impact calc provides justification for why your arguments are important and outweigh your opponents. If you want to prove that your side is net beneficial, engage in comparable impac calc throughout the round and especially in your voters.

Arguments do not always have to have evidence, but the highest quality arguments usually have evidence. If you have evidence, but no analytical extension it defeats the purpose. Having too many cards is better than no cards. If you fabricate evidence, it is an ethical issue and voting issue on my ballot.

If an argument is dropped explain why that should impact my ballot. I’ll flow it through.

Clash:

Provide interpretations and counter interpretations. If you do not counter the interpretation provided, it is assumed you agree.

Clash with the opponent’s case and evidence is essential. Provide clash on the framework at the top of the flow and throughout the opponent’s case. It is a great strategy to counter the interpretation of the opponent’s evidence/card and explain why it is misinterpreted or turn it to your side.

Extend and cross-apply arguments. Go line by line and explain the clash and why your side is winning. Avoid shallow rebuttals.

Speed:

I am fine with spreading as long as you are clear. If you go too fast and do not clearly tag arguments making it difficult to follow your speech, I will not put it on the flow. Speed is only effective if it is also clear (enunciate, signpost, etc.). This is a dialogic activity and a solid debate is only as good as the clarity of the arguments presented.

Try your best to have fun . Speed at your own risk

Quick Notes

My email is bradbry1@gmail.com. I am open to talking about results, feedback, questions, concerns etc.

I give out event specific paradigms before rounds.

I am fine with the use of technology in debate rounds. However, I will stop you and check if I feel you are using any tech in an inappropriate way (i.e. Looking up info in the middle of a round)

Speak clearly and fluently for the sake of myself and your peers

I can understand spreading or other forms of complex and speedy speech, but I won’t give you points based off that. If you know how and can speak clearly while doing so, feel free

I will not do the work for you in any round. Especially in important debate rounds. I won’t draw connections, fill in blanks, or preform any action that is not directly pointed out by you as the speaker. (i.e. Cross-applying arguments, linking impacts or points, etc.)

TRUTH OVER TECH!!!

Speech and Debate is meant to be an inclusive environment. I will not tolerate aggression of any form in my rounds. I will DQ anyone should they attempt to preform any action (verbal or physical) that attacks another. Just be kind, respectful, and courteous

Paradigms

-Speech Events

You will be judged and scored based off…

The content of your speech (The points, connections, examples, etc.)

The way you preform your speech (The physical actions, verbal speaking, etc.)

How well you address your topic

I do not judge based off…

My personal interest of the topic

Props. However, in the case of Informative, I will give points for a creative use of boards to emphasize speech

-Interp Events

You will be judged and scored based off…

The way you preform your acts (Verbal speaking, physical actions, etc.)

You will not be judged based off…

Which pieces you choose

-Debate Events

You will be judged and scored based off…

The content of your speech (The points, connections, examples, etc.)

Your arguments

Your examples (including citations)

The linkwork you do (I will not do any linkwork)

Your Impacts and Warranting (This is included in weighing)

How you preform in the debate and follow debate format (Clash, formatting, etc.)

Speaker points

Way Below Average – You’ve preformed aggressive actions against others

Below Average – You performed poorly or in a manner that negatively impacted your room or event

Average – You performed okay and upheld the standard in your room or event

Above Average - You performed well or in a manner that positively impacted your room or event

Way Above Average – You performed incredibly and had mad major positive impacts to your room or event

she/her

Can put me on the email chain: lauren [dot] burdt [at] gmail.com

Would prefer Tabroom's anonymized docs sharing if enabled

Background: I coached national circuit LD in Iowa and Nebraska until 2018. Have coached students to late elims of the TOC and NSDA Nats. I've mostly been in tab rooms and judging locally since then, so my threshold for speed and recognition of new arg trends has gone down since then. Debate's your game; I'm happy to be in the back of the room for whatever you prefer to do as long as we're all safe and having fun. In general, if you communicate clearly, are well-researched, show depth of understanding in the literature you are reading, and bring passion to the debate, I will enjoy whatever you have to present.

Couple specific things:

-Speed: Probably not keeping up with your top speed these days. Will yell slow and clear. If you're debating someone who asks you to slow down, I expect you to make your best efforts to ensure they can follow the debate.

-Theory/phil: Sure. This is how I debated. I enjoy framing-heavy debates that compare the applications of different ethical frameworks. Engagement > evasion; extensions of a dropped sentence fragment buried within a paragraph of analytics do not particularly excite me.

-T: Substantive topicality debates ("T as a turn to aff's method") typically fare better with me in the back of the room than "aff must read plan", but I'm down for whatever floats your boat.

-K: Sure. This is primarily what I coached. Feel like these debates have gotten more buzzwordy these days which is not a great strategy to pick up my ballot. I'm uninterested in imposing my own ideological preferences as a judge, and I'm open to experimentation with what debate can/should be. I judge a lot of clash debates.

-General: I'm not following along in the doc. I flow speeches straight down and I evaluate debates holistically. Explanation matters, judge instruction important, big picture storytelling good.

-Happy! I like it when debaters are nice to each other. The friends you make in debate will last much longer than your memory of Ws and Ls. Personality is fun, sass is fun, but I have a pretty low threshold for being frustrated with actions and behaviors that work against building community. Have fun, be smart, and I'll do my best to evaluate rounds the way you tell me to.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com- This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will most likely not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater, but don't use speed. It ruins any persuasive appeal, and the round boils down to strategic errors instead of any real substantive analysis. I will dock speaker points.

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning, not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event, so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading, but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments, otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech, which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says, and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

29-30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29/below: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28/below: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27/below: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however, analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26/below: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

I am the Assistant Director of Forensics at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I did speech in high school in Texas, and I am also a thespian -- I have a BFA in acting and I was a theatre director before moving over to Speech and Debate.

First and foremost, I am a theatre person and a speech coach by training and by trade.

Congress

Don't speed through your speeches, speed matters to me. Style matters to me as well, I am looking for structured arguments with clean rhetoric that comes in a polished package. Introduce new arguments. In questioning, I look for fully answering questions while also furthering your argument. I notice posture and gestures -- and they do matter to me. Evidence should be relevant and (for the most part) recent. Evidence is pretty important to me, and outweighs clean delivery if used properly. A clean analysis will rank you up on my ballot as well. Don't yell at each other. Overall, be respectful of one another. If I don't see respect for your fellow competitors, it can be reflected on my ballot. Don't rehash arguments. An extra speech with something I have already heard that round is likely to bump you down when I go to rank. As far as PO's go, I typically start them at 4 or 5, and they will go up or down depending on how clean the round runs. A clean PO in a room full of really good speakers will likely be ranked lower on my ballot. As far as delivery goes...as it says above, I am a speech coach. Your volume, rate, diction, etc are important. Make sure you are staying engaged and talking to the chamber, not at the chamber -- I want to be able to tell that you care about what you are speaking on.

Interp:

I am looking for honest connection to character and to text. Blocking should be motivated by the text and make sense for the character. I look for using vocal variety to add to the text and really paint a picture. I want you to connect and tell the story. I also look for an overall arc of the story, clear beat changes, and clear emotion. I also look for clean diction and an appropriate rate of speech. Additionally, the environment should be clear and the blocking should be clean. In single events, I want to see the connection to your “other” (who are you sharing this within the context of the story). In partner events, I want to see you connect to each other. If you play more than one character, I am looking for clear and clean differences between the characters. Overall, tell your story. Connect to the character, and share that with the audience.

Public Speaking:

Delivery is very important to me. Be careful of overusing gestures, make sure they have a purpose, and enhance what you say. I want to see you connected to sharing your speech, not simply reciting something you memorized. While I do tend to notice style before content, your content must be accurate and adequately supported. The content of the speech and the way it flows is important. I also look at diction and rate of delivery. In info, I do like fun interactive visuals—but they need to enhance your speech, not be there just to fill space. Overall, I want you to be excited about your speech and to have fun delivering it.

PF:

• I try to flow, but please make sure you reiterate important points as they become useful to your argument.

• Speed is okay, as long as I can understand you.

• Articulation matters to me. I would rather you speak a little slower and not get caught up in what you are saying.

• I really look for you to answer each other’s attacks on cases, not just repeat what you have already told me if it doesn't address the opposing case.

• Giving me a clear road map and sticking to it always helps.

• If a team is misrepresenting evidence, make it clear to me and tell me how they are doing so.

• Overall, I want you to tell me why you are right AND why they are wrong. Make sure you are backing up your claims with evidence and statistics.

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

I'm looking for the best legislator overall which means I am considering your holistic participation in the round including the types of speeches you have given and the questions you've asked. Avoid answering with “I’m sure you can tell me.”

I love that Congress is a unique blend with an emphasis on delivery and debate/analysis in the round.

Additionally, I value evidence based debate with credible sources. Cite a source so I can look at it if I'm interested.

Please don't re-hash arguments--Know when it's time to move on. I flow the round and will know when you re-hash arguments and evidence. It's also important to know where/when you are speaking in the round in terms of what type of speech you are giving.

Be prepared to speak on either side of a bill.

You are also role playing as a legislator--remember this as well.

For the love of all things good, stop yelling out “motion.” It’s always out of order. If your motion interrupts, then say the motion directly, “point of order.” Otherwise, you must wait to be recognized.

Presiding Officers:

I will always rank a good presiding officer; however you should know the rules (NSDA, tournament specific, and Robert’s). I keep precedence/recency as well, so I will know if you get it wrong.
STOP asking for motions. It’s always out of order. Your job is to move the chamber forward. There is NOT a motion to open the floor for debate, for example.

As a lay judge with a background as a history teacher, I prioritize credible sources, thorough research, and a well-structured debate. Make sure to use clear introductory statements, smooth transitions, and frequently connect your arguments to the resolution. If your argument is not clear to me, I won't be able to support it. Assess the significance of your impacts, explain why your evidence is superior, and justify why your argument should prevail. Avoid spreading your arguments too thin, and please refrain from wasting time during evidence calls—it leaves a negative impression. Be respectful towards your opponents, enjoy the process, and present your best work.

Lay Judge!

Longtime Speech Coach, focused on excellent delivery and professionalism.

I am a high school English teacher in Illinois and have coached speech since 2019 and debate since 2024.

Organization is really important to me. Signposts really help with your organization and can really highlight exactly what your argument is. Being clear with your cards and what dates you're pulling from are also important for that organization. Always feel welcome to give an off-time roadmap to work through that structure.

Keeping things concise is key. Be sure to identify what your warrants are and impacts. Continuously weighing impacts throughout the debate is also important.

I'm more of a speech person than a debate person, so I do not always pick up on everything if you're speaking too quickly or bulldozing over an argument. I also appreciate kind and thoughtful decorum throughout the round to your competitors and judges.

Hi--thanks for looking me up!

I'm a parent, a career English and Ethnic Studies professor, and a former member of the USC Debate Squad. My events were duo interp. and the "After Dinner Speech" (a talk with goals to entertain and instruct). This is my 4th year judging (2nd kid on the team).

Debate: I will flow your case and vote on the strength of it as a whole (not line-by-line). I like good evidence and precise word choice; overstatement, for me, is intellectually sloppy, annoying, and sometimes a critical error (looking at you, extinction-level arguments!). The best debaters will use superb sources and be vigilant about their opponents' blocks for the same. Cross is a strategic opportunity to open holes or create a path for your own case, so "repeat this" questions that offer your opponent more airtime reflect poorly on you. Tone matters, so cross can be aggressive but not demeaning or bullying. Logical links should be made often and with crystal clarity. Real-world examples that are not cliche and offer you an opportunity to "make real" your framework and showcase the depth and adeptness of your thinking are always impressive. FYI, I have voted with the majority in 85% of debate elim rounds.

For congress, I rank your speech as well as your questions and interactions.

Don't use common cases. In my field we call itplagiarism and consider it illegal. Therefore, duplicate cases will be judged with great disadvantage. (Opponents are advised to drill down and demand logical links and sophisticated explanations from different points of view because folks who copy cases often cannot provide these.)

Spreading, for me, is a flashy (and cheap) excuse for the harder intellectual work of analysis and concision that debate demands. Please don't undermine the transferable skills at the heart of this amazing program by spreading.

Please don't ask if I want your written case in advance; that follow-on to speading compromises the careful listening and oral argument abilities that debate is designed to cultivate in real time. If you ask, I'll know you haven't read my paradigm.

IEs: I believe in genre categories, so a Dec should sound like a speech and not a DI. HI should be LOL funny instead of weird/odd. Interp speeches should be cut to highlight a clear plot arc with tension, depth, and a satisfying conclusion. Sources matter and should be clearly and respectfully credited. Platform speeches should sound professional and resist drama creep.

I don't profess to be "right," but earnest feedback is a gift, and I will do my best to offer you some thoughts. I learn something from you in nearly every round I hear (thank YOU!).

Most importantly, I'm impressed that you've made the choice to participate in Speech and Debate, and I believe that your hard work here will benefit every aspect of your future. I celebrate you! Many of you are already more advanced than my freshmen and sophomores in the CSU. It's such a pleasure to listen to you and to watch you grow over the seasons! :) Let's go!

Prof. Cassel

Background/ Experience:

• I have taught communication and/or coached competitive debate and forensics since 2011.
• I judge a fair amount but mainly live in congress land.

Likes:

• I like clash, clear argumentation, and make sure to warrant and impact your claims.
• Respect each other.
• Clear speaks

Dislikes:

• I do not tolerate bigotry or racism in a debate.
• Spreading outside of policy or progressive LD. (I try to keep up, but I am not speed racer)
• One sided debate in congressional

Voting:

• The arguments need to make logical sense.
• I weigh the case on what I presented.
• I use a combination of evidence, argumentation, clash, speaking skills, etc... to determine the winner.
• I do not disclose the win/loss at the end of a round unless directed by Tab.

Congressional:

• Delivery should be extemporaneous in nature. A smooth cadence with interaction with the chamber is great.
• Be sure to maximize your allotted time.
• Evidence should be used to substantiate argumentation and not just provided to have a source.
• Decorum should simulate that of a congressional chamber, that being said it is good to remember to have fun as well.
• I use a combination of delivery, evidence, analysis, decorum, and speaks to determine both speech value and rankings.

When it comes to interpretation events, I am drawn to performances that marry the synergy between literature, fully crafted performances, and effective blocking. I'll be looking for a well-crafted and engaging message that not only captivates the audience but also demonstrates a deep appreciation for the literary nuances in your chosen material. Ensure your content is not just spoken but embodied, utilizing effective blocking to enhance the visual dimension of your performance. Your delivery remains pivotal, so articulate your words with confidence, using your voice, body language, and strategic blocking to create a cohesive and immersive presentation. Pay attention to pacing and timing for a seamless and dynamic flow. Tell me a story, take me on a journey, and make me feel something!

***TOC Note 1: No PDFs or cards in the body; Word docs only. Also, I will aggressively dock speaks for teams that don't have their timer go off and exceed their speech time.

***TOC Note 2: If you are a graduating senior and would not like to hear a decision and/or feedback, please feel free to tell me.

Coach at Bellaire High School (TX)
Conflicted with: Heights High School, Bellaire High School, Archbishop Mitty SM, Cypress Ranch KH, Woodlands SP

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me.

If I'm judging you in PF: bellairedocs.pf@gmail.com

If I'm judging you in LD: bellairedocs.ld@gmail.com

If I'm judging you in Policy: bellairedocs.policy@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, spent 10 years coaching LD, Policy, and WS at Heights High School, am currently a teacher at Bellaire High School, and coach a variety of speech and debate formats: my program competes through the Texas Forensic Association and the Houston Urban Debate League.

Pref Shortcuts

• Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2
• Kritik (identity): 2
• Kritik (pomo): 3
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

• Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm
• Tech > Truth
• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
• It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad.
• I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• There is no flow clarification time in debate. If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them.Please don't send cards in the body of emails; Word docs only. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

• I spent much of my career coaching policy debate, so I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs.
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
• Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters do not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or teams who are genuinely unaware of the wiki.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

• I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
• I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of clash debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I don't disclose speaks.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

In Public Address: I value your originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of ideas of personal importance. Cite your sources, explain their importance, and tell me why it matters.

In Interp: It is crucial that you tell a story in a meaningful and impactful manner. Characterization, gestures and facial expressions, and, vocal variation will all add to the overall decision.

In Debate, DO NOT SPREAD. I'm not a fan and would like to flow your case. Speeding through your case with me will not help you. I won't evaluate K, T, or Theory positions. Make the debate simple for me to evaluate and you will be rewarded for that!

Overall speaking skills or/and argumentation are critical to winning! But remember the most important thing is that you learn!

Co-Director of Speech & Debate @ Pembroke Hill

Still helping KU in my free time

Please add me to the email chain: a.rae.chase@gmail.com

I love debate and I will do my absolute best to make a decision that makes sense and give a helpful RFD.

Topicality

Competing interpretations are easier to evaluate than reasonability. You need to explain to me how we determine what is reasonable if you are going for reasonability.

Having said that if your intep is so obscure that there isn't a logical CI to it, perhaps it is not a good interpretation.

T debates this year (water topic) have gotten too impact heavy for their own good. I've judged a number of rounds with long overviews about how hard it is to be negative that never get to explaining what affirmatives would be topical under their interp or why the aff interp links to a limits DA and that's hard for me because I think much more about the latter when I think about topicality.

T-USFG/FW

Affirmatives should be about the topic. I will be fairly sympathetic to topicality arguments if I do not know what the aff means re: the topic after the 1AC.

I think teams are meming a bit on both sides of this debate. Phrases like "third and fourth level testing" and "rev v rev debates are better" are kind of meaningless absent robust explanation. Fairness is an impact that I will vote on. Like any other impact, it needs to be explained and compared to the other team's impact. I have also voted on arguments about ethics, education, and pedagogy. I will try my best to decide who wins an impact and which impact matters more based on the debate that happens.

I do not think the neg has to win a TVA to win topicality; it can be helpful if it happens to make a lot of sense but a forced TVA is generally a waste of time.

If the aff is going for an impact turn about debate, it would be helpful to have a CI that solves that impact.

DA’s

I would love to see you go for a disad and case in the 2NR. I do not find it persuasive when an affirmative team's only answer to a DA is impact framing. Impact framing can be important but it is one of a number of arguments that should be made.

I am aware the DA's aren't all great lately. I don't think that's a reason to give up on them. It just means you need a CP or really good case arguments.

K's

I really enjoy an old-fashioned k vs the aff debate. I think there are lots of interesting nuances available for the neg and the aff in this type of debate. Here are some specific thoughts that might be helpful when constructing your strategy:

1. Links of omission are not links. Links of “commission” will take a lot of explaining.

2. Debating the case matters unless there is a compelling framework argument for why I should not evaluate the case.

3. If you are reading a critique that pulls from a variety of literature bases, make sure I understand how they all tie to together. I am persuaded by aff arguments about how it's very difficult to answer the foundation of multiple bodies of critical literature because they often have different ontological, epistemological, psychoanalytic, etc assumptions. Also, how does one alt solve all of that??

4. Aff v. K: I have noticed affirmative teams saying "it's bad to die twice" on k's and I have no idea what that means. Aff framework arguments tend to be a statement that is said in the 2AC and repeated in the 1AR and 2AR - if you want fw to influence how I vote, you need to do more than this. Explain how it implicates how I assess the link and/or alternative solvency.

5. When ontology is relevant - I feel like these debates have devolved into lists of things (both sides do this) and that's tough because what if the things on the list don't resonate?

CP's

Generic counterplans are necessary and good. I think specific counterplans are even better. Counterplans that read evidence from the 1AC or an aff author - excellent! I don't have patience for overly convoluted counterplans supported by barely highlighted ev.

I do not subscribe to (often camp-driven) groupthink about which cp's "definitely solve" which aff's. I strongly disagree with this approach to debate and will think through the arguments on both sides of the debate because that is what debate is about.

Solvency deficits are a thing and will be accounted for and weighed along with the risk of a DA, the size of the DA impact, the size of the solvency deficit, and other relevant factors. If you are fiating through solvency deficits you should come prepared with a theoretical justification for that.

Other notes!

Some people think it is auto-true that politics disads and certain cp's are terrible for debate. I don't agree with that. I think there are benefits/drawbacks to most arguments. This matters for framework debates. A plan-less aff saying "their model results in politics DA's which is obviously the worst" will not persuade absent a warrant for that claim.

Love a good case debate. It's super under-utilized. I think it's really impressive when a 2N knows more about the aff evidence than the aff does.

Please don't be nasty to each other; don't be surprised if I interrupt you if you are.

I don't flow the 1AC and 1NC because I am reading your evidence. I have to do this because if I don't I won't get to read the evidence before decision time in a close debate.

If the debate is happening later than 9PM you might consider slowing down and avoiding especially complicated arguments.

If you make a frivolous or convoluted ethics challenge in a debate that I judge I will ask you to move on and be annoyed for the rest of the round. Legitimate ethics challenges exist and should/will be taken seriously but ethics challenges are not something we should play fast and loose with.

For debating online:

-If you think clarity could even possibly be an issue, slow down a ton. More than ever clarity and quality are more important than quantity.

-If my camera is off, I am not there, I am not flowing your speech, I probably can't even hear you. If you give the 1AR and I'm not there, there is not a whole lot I can do for you.

Hey everyone!

My name is Aditya Chordiya. I competed in Congressional Debate for 4 years and I graduated from James Logan High School in 2023. I currently am the CPO of Ascend Speech & Debate and an Assistant Coach at James Logan High School.

As a judge, I very much value strong argumentation and round interaction. Any speech after the first cycle should be referencing other speakers in the round and you should be utilizing refutation. While I judge primarily off of argumentation, please make sure that your speaking is both understandable and engaging. Take risks and make sure that your personality stands out. In cross ex, please make sure that you remain respectful and don't yell. I look forward to a great round!

Who am I:

I am the head speech & debate coach at Idaho Falls HS. I've been a head coach for 11 years, and also competed in high school and college.

Here's the best way to earn my ballot for any type of debate:

1) Win the flow. If you drop an issue in a speech, do not bring it back up. In PF, dropped arguments are technically ok (you gotta summarize after all). Just make sure to communicate to me on why it is good/bad/unimportant that an argument was dropped.

2) Impact out what you win on the flow. I don't care if your opponent clean concedes an argument that you extend through every speech if you don't tell me why I should care.

3) Weigh your impacts! This is a great way to win the ballot with me.

3) Clash with your opponent. Just because you put 5 attacks on an argument doesn't mean it has been dealt with if your attacks have no direct clash with the argument. If you are making an outweigh argument, tell me and I can evaluate it as such!

4) Courtesy. If you are not kind, courteous, and ethical to your opponent, you will receive lower speaker points. I believe that debaters should be able to win on the flow and do so in a kind and professional manner. If the round is extremely close, I often use courtesy and ethics as a tiebreaker.

5) Speed: I think that it's easier to have a cleaner debate when it is regular conversational speed, but I understand when you have to pick it up a bit. Not a fan of spreading.

6) Comms: The more I coach and teach, the more I find myself being persuaded by stronger and more polished speakers. Don't forget about good speaking techniques!

***Note- I don't pay much attention to CX. Bring the major issues back up in speeches.

CONGRESS:

Good congress involves speaking extemporaneously, using evidence and analysis, and having excellent speaking skills. I will rank you higher if you are kind, yet strong in your quesitoning answers. Good congress people should be present throughout the round the round through both speeches and questions. I recognize that preset recency can be difficult, so make sure you are both asking questions, and raising your placard to speak often!

LD DEBATE:

Value/Value Criterions

I think these are necessary in LD debate. I am a more traditional LD debate, but i'm open to progressive ideas (or CPs). Make sure to use your V/CR throughout the round. These are usually a large weighing mechanism for me, so make sure I know why I should prefer your V/CR and how you use that to win the round.

K's/Theory

I don't prefer Ks, but recognize the need for theory at times. I prefer traditional LD debate, with a focus on values and value criterions.

Plan's/Counterplans

I'm much more accepting of CPs than Ks in LD. I understand when a CP is necessary to run as the neg.

POLICY DEBATE:

I tend to be a more traditional-style policy judge, as in I judge following traditional rules. However, I'm still very open to arguments. I don't love Ks, mostly because I think debating the heart of the topic is important. I love a good T shell when the aff isn't topical (you won't find me penalizing you for T...unless you run a million as a time suck. Then I might not like it). Line-by-line and sign posting are key. I would say I'm about a 5 out of 10 on a speed scale for policy. If you go too quickly, you will notice me flowing less, so be aware.

PF DEBATE:

I love good public forum debate! I think good PF is a balance between amazing argumentation (line-by-line, direct clash, etc.) and killer speaking skills. I think good teamwork with your partner is very important. Treat your partner like a person who deserves respect. Both partners should be involved in Grand Cross. I prefer crystalization over line-by-line in the summary, but I won't punish you for a line-by-line refutation summary. Weighing is crucial in PF. Tell me WHY I should prefer your arguments and impacts so that I don't have to intervene with my own thoughts during deliberation. Debaters that don't tell the judge exactly what to vote on andwhy are just inviting the judge to choose whatever they want, leading to intervention. I belive that PF should be responding to case attacks in "rebuttal" speech (second 4 min speeches). By not doing this, you drop lots of attacks and create an unfair burden on the first speaking team.

Calling for evidence during in-person rounds

From the judge---

I will only call for evidence that is contended throughout the round, with that being said if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to call for it and what is wrong with it so I don't have to throw my own judgement in.

From your opponent---

I will not time you to give evidence to your opponents, but I will time you if you start reading the evidence and analyzing it. I believe that should be done in prep. If you are taking too long to find/give evidence to your opponents, I will start your prep time. So be quick!

Have an excellent round!! Ask me any questions about my paradigm before the round starts!

DEBATE EVENTS:

I am a practicing attorney who occasionally moonlights as a debate judge. In real life, in a real courtroom, I will only win a trial if I win the hearts and minds of the jury---presenting artfully crafted arguments that accentuate my personal ethos, while balancing appropriate appeals to logic and passion. If I tried to "spew" or "spread" my arguments to a jury, I would lose the case. If I tried it in front of a judge, I would get kicked out of the courtroom! I would lose all my cases and my clients with them.

The same goes for nearly every other professional communicator. No teacher would teach that way. No news broadcaster would report that way. As far as I can tell, the only job opportunity available to a "progressively" trained debater is to deliver the annoying legal disclaimers at the end of tv & radio commercials.

That said, here is how to get my vote:

(1) Speak at a normal, conversational rate;

(2) Look me in the eye;

(3) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how the Affirmative or Negative case effects real people;

(4) Make me laugh;

(5) Make me cry;

(6) Make me care;

(7) Help me understand what the resolution means;

(8) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(9) Help me understand why your opponent is wrong; and,

(10) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

I realize that this rhetorical model is profoundly outdated (it is in fact about 2,500 years old). Nevertheless, in the spirit of learning something useful (rather than simply winning another piece of shiny plastic today for speed-reading), please give these ideas a try!

SPEECH EVENTS:

Many Debaters [and coaches] consider speech events to be "throw-away" events---something to do when debaters are not in a "real" debate round. Nothing could be farther from the truth! Speech events teach students about the power of pathos---of making human connections. They provide a wonderful balance to the logos-heavy debate events. To capture my vote [or the vote of most ordinary human beings], a student must be prepared to do the following:

(1) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how your topic effects real people;

(2) Make me laugh;

(3) Make me cry;

(4) Make me care;

(5) Help me understand what you mean;

(6) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(7) Help me understand why any competing viewpoint is wrong [or "misinformed"]; and,

(8) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

Don't be intimidated by all of this this [if you happen to be a hard-core, card-flipping, impact-calculus trained debater]. Instead, embrace the opportunity to learn a new [and equally real] way of communicating in a way that focuses on building human connections [rather than squabbling over obscure, marginally-relevant minutia].

she/her/hers

tl;dr - be nice, signpost, pls no kritiks. :')

30 speaks for puns im bored

Judging preferences - Summary

UPDATE: please ask me how many rounds I've judged...If it's more than 5 back-to-back rounds, please ignore the rest of this document and just treat me like a lay judge... (If I ever judge 15 back-to-back double-flighted debate rounds again I may lose it.) Also if i look angry im just locked in im so sorry lol

Always signpost. pls. always. signpost clearly. Always. Literally I can’t judge you properly if you’re not signposting.

Your number 1 job is to debate the topic. I want to hear about the topic. I like arguments about the topic, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE than arguments about the rules and how your opponent is messing up the debate because their arguments "don't hold according to CHSSA or NSDA rules..." I've found that in past years, everyone says that their opponent's case "don't hold." Keep the debate educational, I know enough about the rules by now.

My favorite kind of debate is a slightly fast, intellectual Public Forum debate. If I can't understand you due to speed or lack of pronunciation, your contention will not make it onto my flow. Or, I simply won't care enough to write it down. Far-reaching analyses of improperly used evidence may just result in my perplexion and the audience's confusion. However, evidence-based conclusions that show a deep understanding of the topic are always appreciated. I do NOT like Kritik arguments in high school debate. I'm slightly ok with them in LD bc of status quo and whatnot. Do NOT run them unless you have NO OTHER OPTION.

Congress Preferences:

Be memorable and have good arguments. I used to serve CA-07 in the US House of Representatives. My best friend still works in CA-51. I like it when Congress speeches reflect an understanding of how the federal government works.

Big LD prefs:

I want a value and a value criterion please. Idc if there’s policies in the case itself, but I typically weigh the debate on the values provided bc LD is a values debate, after all. I like theory in LD more than in PF or parli, and will entertain the idea more. I'm more truth over theory unless the theory is rlly good. please don't waste my time and your opponent's time with time suck args.

In-Depth Prefs:

Please - Always signpost.

Speed is whatever. I can handle spreading, but if your competitor asks you to go slower and you ignore them, I will be very annoyed. Furthermore, if you do spread - there better be signposting and pauses/changes in speed to emphasize that you are changing gears/moving onto what part of the road map you’re on. The purpose of the debate is to educate - not bulldoze. If you need to spread to win, I won't vote for you. IMO, three strong arguments are better than 6 weak ones. If you want to spread to spread, become a policy debater.

Flow Style is typically on paper bc I’m old school like that, so if you're speaking so fast/spreading without pauses in a way that I can't shorthand write it and I miss a contention ... you're going too fast.

Plans are fun! I love a good plan! Call me Senator Elizabeth Warren the way I love a good plan. (Emphasis on a good plan.) Just remember that plans aren’t legal in all debate events.

Evidence is the most critical component to me. To me, the best defense in debate is a strong defense. Well constructed arguments should have citations and explain to me why a case should win. However, evidence isn't everything. If you are concerned about recency or methodology, make it ONE point. Don't turn the debate into a squabble over those things because I stop listening. Evidence is concrete and empirically explains the case.

Theory is a stepping stone in debate. It's fun to listen to if it's thoughtful and enhances your case. However, if you're just throwing around debate jargon and my paper starts to look like a million arrows, then the theory point isn't worth it. Because I did LD for a while, I can follow inherency/solvency/topicality/harms. I think they have great potential to either make a great case phenomenal... or to give me a minor headache for the afternoon.

Attitude is key. Be kind or lose, it's just a tournament. Your opponent may be new and trying this out for the first time - don't be the person who ruins public speaking for someone. It’s just not that serious. Don't be a dingus. A dingus is too fast, mean, demeaning, rude, etc. Keep it pleasant, no chair-throwing. :)

Kritiks in HS Debate imo usually waste the hour - not always, and they rarely convince me. As in, out of the hundreds of rounds I've watched - there's only been one time I've voted for it. And that was a practice round. If you want your Kritik to win, ground it in evidence - but for the most part, I don't care for a Kritik. I don't recommend running one unless this is one of the worst debate topics ever generated. Please don't run them. I am slightly more ok with them in LD debate, but mainly because I know the debate has been trending that way for a while and some topics are dependent on them now. So... I'll listen in LD.... but I can't guarantee I'll like it.

Kritiks in College Debate are fine, but I still don't like them very much. They just bore me.

Email for chains: Leamulanc@gmail.com

About me:

Assistant Coach at Los Osos High School
Former Head Coach of Redlands High School
Premier Distinction and 5 Diamond competitor
Donuts D. Roberts Coach
CHSSA Board Member
CBSR VP of Speech
Informative kid yrs ago and other stuff
Frequently hungry and/or sleepy in round

Congress Paradigm for 2023 TOC:

Delivery: delivery will be a factor in my decision, but only a moderate one. Ideally, speakers adapt to their audience, have poise and confidence, and consider word choice carefully. Two notes I write for congressional speakers often are: 1) Stop yelling at me (please adjust your tone to be appropriate for this environment, and 2) please use a tone appropriate for the topic of debate.

Evidence usage: evidence weighs strongly in my decisions. I'm not only interested in the quality of the evidence, but I'm interested in how you use and analyze it. More is not always better.

Analysis: analysis may be the largest factor in my decisions for rankings in Congress. I really like to see debaters thinking critically, weighing arguments well, and finding nuanced ways to discuss legislation. Speakers who simply expand on arguments already made are going to struggle to do well on my ballot.

Decorum: be respectful, be kind, and follow the rules. I assume you will do this, but if you don't, that will not sit well with me.

I am not a lay judge. I participated in speech and debate when I was in high school. I qualified for nationals in both NSDA and CFL for Lincoln Douglas debate. Flow judge. I also participated in extemporaneous speech as a double entry at the national tournament. I have done congress (which were done on Friday nights before main tournaments on Saturday), impromptu, policy, and an abandoned category called Group Discussion.

In dramatic events I like to see a wide range of emotions and voices. I also like to see times close to perfect and great audience engagement. Your characters must be clear and unique and I need to see the scene you are conveying to the audience.

Do not shake my hand after a round.

UPDATED FOR RIDGE DEBATES 2024 (POLICY DEBATE SECTION)

Please add me on the email chain: antoninaclementi@gmail.com AND ridgenjdebate@gmail.com

Y'all should really just use speechdrop tbh. Your speechdrop/email chain should be set up BEFORE the round.

If you are super aggressive in round - I am not going to disclose.

I err Tech over Truth

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers

Hi! I competed for four years in high school at Teurlings Catholic High School (Class of 2021). I've done oratorical declamation, student congress, Lincoln Douglas debate, impromptu, and extemp. I am currently continuing forensics (NFA - LD, extemp, impromptu, ndt ceda) at Western Kentucky University. I also currently coach for Ridge high school in NJ. I did online competition the entirety of my senior year and feel extremely comfortable with the online platform.

• If you feel the need to quiz me on the topic, don't. That's rude.

Policy:

- Same as LD, feel free to ask questions not covered in the LD paradigm.

- I think 4-6 is a pretty good number of off. I like having a good amount of case engagement still. Obv, if your a one off team stick to that but I think 4-6 is a good max for me.

- Running multiple CPs is fine
- Full disclosure: I have not judged on the 24-25 policy topic and I am not familiar with it at all so keep that in mind. My first rounds judging on the topic will be ridge debates. Further, in the spirit of full transparency I am not super familiar with IP jargon so keep it to a minimum or at least like send analytics in a doc so I can look up a word I do not know so I fully understand the impact of what your saying.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Pref Shortcut:

1- Policy (LARP), traditional (do not default to traditional- I find it boring but I can evaluate it), stock Ks

2- T, theory, more dense/complex Ks

5/6 - tricks, phil

Framework (Value/Value Criterion):

With frameworks, I expect weighing as to why either your framework supersedes your opponents and/or how you achieve both frameworks. Have clear definitions of what your framework is and please be familiar with what you are running.

Counterplans:

I like a good counterplan. Make sure your counter plan is extremely fleshed out and has a strong net benefit. Needs to have all components. Also, if you run a counterplan I need to hear the words net benefit from you at least once. Plank kicks are fine. My favorite counterplan is condo.

Theory Shells:

Not my favorite style of debate but, I can tolerate them. Please do not run frivolous theory. You should disclose. With that said I DESPISE round report theory or something like must be open text I think cites and bare minimum disclosure solves.

I view theory as A priori - if you go for theory I am kicking the rest of your flow and only evaluating through the lens of theory.

I think…

New affs good

Condo good

PICs good

Consult CPs bad

Vague alts bad

TW good

Delay CPs are fine

but hey maybe you can prove me wrong

RVIs:

I strongly dislike RVIs - they are ridiculous

Topicality:

I like topicality and think some negatives have a place to run T. However, you need proven abuse to get me to vote on topicality. I would say I have a mid threshold for T and I am open to a full collapse but give a through LBL. Also, I am fine if you go for T in your first speech and kick it if your opponent has decent responses.

K's:

Make sure your K's are creative and have a strong foundation, logic, and structure. If you run a K (especially a K directly on the topic) I need to know the role of the ballot and why my voting for you actually creates any type of change. Also, in any K round I need a clear and spelled out Alt. Something I have realized judging is I need to know what your K is - Is it cap? sett col? security? etc - You can not run a security and a cap K combined on the same sheet in front of me. Basically, I need to know what your K is and it needs to be one thing. TBH I am not super familiar with lots of the academic jargon involved in K lit break it down for me and keep it simple. I am familiar with Wilderson, Paur, Derrida, Ahmed, Kappadia, Lacan. Stay away from super techy academic jargon. Unless you are hitting a critical aff I really do not like psychoanalysis Ks.

Cap K:

Do not read Mao, Stalin, Castro were good people automatic speak tank, DO NOT RUN ANYTHING ABOUT CUBA BEING GOOD. With that said I like cap Ks and vote on them frequently

DA/Policy Affs:

Follow a strict and clear structure. I really enjoy politics DAs but your uniqueness needs to be recent (from the last week) and follow a clear linking format. Terminal impacts are really important here but, I need to see linking so make that really clear. I enjoy most terminal impacts if they are linked well.

Note on Politics DAs

LOVE THEM

K Affs

I think they are really cool just be sure to be prepared to defend yourself on T and let me understand what my ballot does! I usually do not vote on T - FW. Super happy to K affs that make SENSE are organized and do not have technical jargon that even the debater running it does not understand. Know you’re lit and read it proudly and your creativity will be rewarded.

Tricks

• Just thinking about trix makes me physically nauseas
• I am super open to trix bads theory
• Just have a substantive debate. Please.

Phil

• Views on phil summed up: I do not LOVE phil - esp since its old white men but i am not like morally opposed ig i am just not going to be super happy - but debate is about running what makes you happy so ig its fine
• some phil is cool. I like pragmatism and that’s kinda it tbh.
• I am super open to Kant bad/any old white philospher bad theory so idk be prepared for that ig

Spreading:

I consider speed good in rounds, I think it advances the round. However I have three rules if you spread in front of me. First, your opponent must confirms they are okay with said spreading. Two, If you spread in any capacity I and your opponent will most definitely need a copy of your case and all blocks to be read sent to us. PLEASE SEND ANALYTICS. ESPECIALLY THEORY SHELLS IN THE DOCS. Three, don't spread if you are not an experienced and a "good" spreader, if you are spreading (and expect high speaks) I hope you look at spreading as a skill that needs through practice.

Signpost:

I am a flow judge and you should be signposting. Keep your evidence organized and clear, and make sure your extensions are valid and pointed out. GIVE ME AN ORDER EVERY SINGLE TIME AS DETAILED AS POSSIBLE.

CX:

I expect good CX questions - good CX will help you in speaks. Bonus points if you ask a question in CX and bring it up in a rebuttal later or use a CX question to hurt your opponents' framework.

Impacts:

These are pivotal to your case and blocks, have strong impacts and clear links! Big fan of terminal impacts! I like weighing done in rounds, definitely needed in your voters.

Speaks:

I use to think my speaks could not go below a 26.5. I was wrong. Take that as you will. Speaks are a reward. I'll disclose speaks, if you ask.

Flex prep:

If you use flex prep your bad at flowing

Post Rounding:

If you post round me I will stop disclosing for the rest of the tournament and drop your speaks. DO NOT DO IT. It's rude. Post rounding is different then asking questions for the sake of learning. Post rounding is you asking something snippy and when I give you my answer you roll your eyes - yes I have had this happen.

Public Forum:

Same as above

• Yeah I know the rules of PF and know you can't run CPs in them.
• I know things about debate DO NOT CX me pre round about if I know enough about PF to have the "pleasure" of judging you.
• I have done PF, coached PF, taught PF to students abroad

Parli:

• Same as LD
• Do not forgot what the debate is about! Remember to at least sprinkle in key words of the topic
• I like numbering of args and clear signposting

TLDR:

Do whatever, have fun, make sense and make my job is easy and write the ballot for me in the last 30 seconds to minute of the NR and 2AR. Debates not that deep - if you don't agree with my decision that's fine but handle your loss with grace and class - trust me it benefits you in the long run. It is statistically impossible that every judge who votes you down is a "Screw" ????

Good luck and have fun! If you have any questions/comments/y iconcerns please feel free to email me (antoninaclementi@gmail.com).

Spread only if the speed you use also allows for enough enunciation that I can understand. I can keep up, but only if I can comprehend.

I believe in traditional debate. In LD, everything is about the V/VC construct and should be applied to it. I don't really care about definition debate unless it is absolutely vital. Observations don't really matter to me unless both sides agree to them.

In PF, I try to take the position of a typical citizen judge and base "my knowledge" only on what you tell me in the round, not what I already know. Civility is still important in cross-examination, so it is important to remember that with me.

I am least familiar with policy, so I base everything on my flow and which side has the most arguments standing by the end of the debate. Also, I know it may be unusual, but I do care if the plan actually makes sense because I can't vote for it if it doesn't.

I don't listen to parenthetical documentation as a source. What does that mean anyway???

In Congress, can you take the evidence presented, analyze the situation under discussion, and use effective delivery to convince me you've made an important advancement in the day?

Congress:

I rank mediocre extemp speeches above good pre-written speeches. Your mother, coach, or teammate could've written that speech and you simply reading it is just not impressive.

If you waste everyone's time by asking a "friendly question" I will be ranking you in my bottom half.

Each speech should further the debate in some way. Add to pre-existing arguments or make new ones. Respond to others in the chamber. Don't just argue the same exact thing as said before.

Sources MUST be cited. If you are clearly referencing something, but not giving author and year, I will assume you used ChatGPT and rank you at the bottom.

PF:

Do your own evidence weighing. I will not call for a card unless you tell me to call for a card. A reason for you to tell me to call for a card is because of poor evidence ethics, NOT to weigh it or evaluate it versus yours. You should do that in round. If evidence says conflicting things, you should be doing the proper weighing and indicts. Otherwise I will count the entire thing a wash.

You should collapse in some way, preferably in summary. If you are going for everything on the flow in the final focus, you are undercovering something. Either you are not extending something properly or you are not weighing comparatively. It is much better for education and debate in general to engage in clash qualitatively. Debate evidence. Debate warrants. Actually collapse and interact instead of just half extending a bunch of blippy responses. Messy debates are so prevalent in PF and most of the time it is created because everyone tries to go for everything.

Everything you extend in FF should be carried through every speech. If it is not in summary, I will not flow it through. This includes defense (I do not believe defense is sticky). Other than frontlines, no new arguments and evidence should be introduce in summary/FF. A proper extension includes all aspects of the argument. This includes claim, warrant, and impact (hint: "extend my contention one" is not enough). Most extensions I witness are just little blips. I value quality over quantity. This is why you should collapse.

Weighing is a must. There is virtually a zero percent chance I vote for you if you do not weigh (unless the other team also doesn't weigh). Weighing should be comparative to your opponents impact. I will award you higher speaks if you even meta-weigh (such as why our weighing mechanism of magnitude outweighs their weighing mechanism of irreversibility). Properly weighing like this means you must attribute time to it, not just the fleeting few seconds at the end (AKA collapse).

Turns must be implicated. Most debaters think that a turn automatically means you get your opponents offense. A lot of turns are just disadvantages to the pro/con and most times this disadvantage does not negate the offense from the other team. For instance, let's say Team A argues in case that the resolution will create more jobs and Team B reads a "turn" that it would increase cost of goods and services. Team B has just introduced a disadvantage to Team A's argument, but has not negated their offense or even somehow stolen their offense for themselves (unless other arguments were presented in conjunction with this). In this case, both teams have offense on this side of the flow- Team A in jobs and Team B in costs. So the turn itself should be implicated and weighed in the round to be evaluated. If you read a turn that says it actually decreases jobs, again, impact it out and implicate it. You also probably need to do some evidence analysis or warrant comparisons.

One of my biggest pet peeves in debate is when one team claims their opponent did not respond to something and then I'll look down on my flow and see a bunch of responses. If they actually didn't respond, call them out on it, but please keep a good flow so you can call it out accurately.

I presume keeping the status squo (con). If everything is a wash or muddled to the point where it is nearly impossible to evaluate, that will be my vote. This rarely happens though.

Speed- on a 1-10 I would say around a 6 for me. So no spreading. If you go fast through numbers or quick analytics I will probably miss some of it. Go slower for taglines as well.

Speaker points- I don't care about eye contact. I don't care if you sway, twirl your hair, or even sit while speaking. I'd say there are three factors I consider when giving speaks. 1st is how well you deliver. Can I understand it? Do you mumble? Is it clear? Etc. 2nd is your ability to navigate me around the flow. Are you signposting? Do you bounce me around the flow? etc. 3rd is are you making strategic choices in round? Are you actually weighing comparatively? Are you collapsing? Are you actually engaging in evidence and clash or do you just give a thousand blippy responses and create a messy debate? etc

I don't flow cross and view it as non-binding inside of itself. It can be binding but it needs to be brought up in speech. I'm usually writing ballot comments or evaluating a flow during cross but will still pay attention. If you get a key concession or something, you need to bring it up in speech.

K's and theory are becoming more and more of a prevalent thing in PF. I am generally not a fan. I don't understand what we want Public Forum to become with this. I think we are straying away from what Public Forum is supposed to be, which is an accessible form of debate for the public. I understand that debate is a game and will try to evaluate the flow as such, but I am a more of a traditionalist when it comes to argumentation being run in PF and prefer it to just stay on topic.

Head Coach @ Jordan HS

Wake Forest University – 2022

Jack C Hays High School – 2019

Add me to the email chain: jordandebate@googlegroups.com

General

I have been told that my paradigm is too short and non-specific. In lieu of adding a bunch of words that may or may not help you, here is a list of people that I regularly talk about debate with and/or tend to think about debate similarly: Holden Bukowsky (former teammate), Dylan Jones, Roberto Fernandez, Bryce Piotrowski, Eric Schwerdtfeger
i am an educator first. that means that my first concern in every debate is that all students are able to access the space. doing things that make the round inaccessible like spreading when your opponent has asked you not to will result in low speaker points at a minimum. racism, transphobia, etc are obviously non-starters

speed is good, pls slow down on analytics. i do not flow off the doc and will not vote on things that are not on my flow. i'll clear you twice and then give up. please get off the doc in the back half of the debate - i am much more interested in your analysis than in hearing the same docced responses that i've heard ten times in the tournament. major kudos to people who have paper flows and are doing line by line work from the flow

For online debate: you should always be recording locally in case of a tech issue

please do not send me a google doc - if your case is on google docs, download it as a PDF and send it as a PDF. Word docs > anything else

CX:

K/K affs: yes - you should err on the side of more alt/method explanation than less


Framework:

I view fw as a debate about models of debate - I agree a lot with Roberto Fernandez's paradigm on this

I tend to lean aff on fw debates for the sole reason that I think most neg framework debaters are terminally unable to get off of the doc and contextualize offense to the aff. If you can do that, I will be much more likely to vote neg. The issue that I find with k teams is that they rely too much on the top level arguments and neglect the line by line, so please be cognizant of both on the affirmative - and a smart negative team will exploit this. impact turns have their place but i am becoming increasingly less persuaded by them the more i judge. For the neg - the further from the resolution the aff is, the more persuaded i am by fw. your framework shell must interact with the aff in some meaningful way to be persuasive. the overarching theme here is interaction with the aff

To me, framework is a less persuasive option against k affs. Use your coaches, talk to your friends in the community, and learn how to engage in the specifics of k affs instead of only relying on framework to get the W.

DA/CP/Other policy arguments: I tend not to judge policy v policy debates but I like them. I was coached by traditional policy debaters, so I think things like delay counterplans are fun and am happy to vote on them. Please don't make me read evidence at the end of the round - you should be able to explain to me what your evidence says, what your opponents evidence says, and why yours is better.

Topicality/Theory:

I dont like friv theory (ex water bottle theory). absent a response, ill vote on it, but i have a very low threshold for answers.
I will vote on disclosure theory. disclosure is good.
all theory shells should have a clear in round abuse story


LD specific:
Tricks:
no thanks
LD Framework/phil:
Explain - If you understand it well enough to explain it to me I will understand it well enough to evaluate it fairly.

PF:

if your evidence does not have a tag at all, or it is functionally nothing (ie “concludes”, “explains”, etc), I will not flow it. use good evidence ethics practices and don't paraphrase

Congress:

I am a debate judge, and I flow Congress. However, your delivery is also important. I want to be persuaded by your speech. To borrow from Calen Calber, "introduce new arguments. In questioning, I look for fully answering questions while also furthering your argument. I notice posture and gestures -- and they do matter to me. A clean analysis will rank you up on my ballot as well. Don't yell at each other. Overall, be respectful of one another. Don't rehash arguments. An extra speech with something I have already heard that round is likely to bump you down when I go to rank." CX matters a lot to me - you should use it efficiently and strategically without getting heated with other people in the room. I strongly dislike people being unprepared for Congress (ie. having to take in house recesses because people are not prepared to speak) and breaking cycle and it will be reflected on my ballot.

PO's typically start at a 5 and go up or down depending on: 1) how well the round runs and 2) how good everyone else in the room is. Again, from Calen Cabler, "A clean PO in a room full of really good speakers will likely be ranked lower on my ballot."

Maria Cook (she/her)

I would like to be on the email chain please: mmariacook@gmail.com

I debated policy in high school for four years, ending with the water topic.

General Thoughts– I try to be as tab as possible. However, I think everyone inevitably comes in with some preconceived notions about debate. Please don’t feel like you have to adapt to my preferences--you should do whatever you do best. But if what you do best happens to be judge adaptation, here are some of my thoughts:

Framework – Please try to engage each other's interpretations and arguments instead of just extending your own. Look to my comments on topicality if you're interested in how I try to evaluate standards-based debate.

Case Debate– I think the case debate is really under-utilized -- case-specific strategies that integrate intelligent on-case arguments into the 1NC can be really compelling.

DA/CPs– The more specific the better, but I’ll vote on anything.

Critiques– I did mostly critical debate, but please don't assume that I'm familiar with your literature base -- I'll evaluate your arguments as if I'm hearing the literature for the first time. I think critiques are most persuasive when they interact explicitly with the 1AC/2AC, so I appreciate specific 2NC link analysis (doesn’t necessarily need to be carded) that points to arguments being made in the 1AC/2AC, and I like 2NC attempts to gain in roads to the case by suggesting the alternative is a necessary precondition to case solvency. I like critical affirmatives so long as you explain the significance of voting affirmative.

Topicality– My threshold for T is the same as any other type of argument, but like all other positions, there are central issues that the 2NR needs to resolve in order for me to vote on T. If neither team articulates a framework within which I can vote, then I’ll default to competing interpretations. Assuming I’m voting in a competing interpretations framework, I think of standards as external impacts to a vote for a given team’s interpretation. That means comparative impact calculus has a huge place in a 2NR that’s going for T. Explain to me what debate looks like if I vote for your interpretation and why that vision should be preferred to one that would allow for cases like the affirmative.

Theory – Please engage the other team's arguments -- don't just read blocks and talk past one another. If you expect to win on theory (independently), you should probably give me some kind of substantive reason why a given violation merits rejection of the team, and not just the argument.

Nontraditional Debate– As long as I’m provided with a standard for evaluation that I feel both teams can reasonably be expected to meet, you can do whatever you'd like.

In Round Decorum– Don’t be mean. Try to have fun.

Speed– As long as you’re clear, I’m fine with speed.

Speaker Points– 28.5 is average. I'll add points for things like clarity and efficiency, and I'll subtract points for particularly messy debating.

If you have any specific questions, please ask! Feel free to email me after round with questions :)

Chris Coovert,
Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA
Coached LD: 27 years
Coached CX: 17: years

Coached PF: 21 years

Competed in LD: 4 years

Competed in NPDA: 2 years


LD Paradigm: I have been competing in, judging and coaching Lincoln Douglas debate for over twenty years. I have seen a lot of changes, some good, some not so good. This is what you should know.

I will evaluate the round based on the framework provided by the debaters. The affirmative needs to establish a framework (usually a value and criterion) and then show why, based on the framework, the resolution is true. The negative should either show why the resolution is not true under that framework or provide a competing framework which negates. My stock paradigm is what most people now call truth testing: the aff's burden is to prove the resolution true and the negatives is to prove it false. I will default to this absent another paradigm being established in the round. If both debaters agree that I should evaluate as a policymaker, I am able to do that and will. If you both put me in some other mode, that is reasonable as well. If there is an argument, however, between truth testing and another way of looking at the round the higher burden of proof will be on the debater attempting the shift away from truth testing.

As far as specific arguments go.

1. I find topicality arguments generally do not apply in Lincoln Douglas debate. If the affirmative is not dealing with the resolution, then they are not meeting their burden to prove the resolution true. This is the issue, not artificial education or abuse standards. I have voted on T in the past, but I think there are more logical ways to approach these arguments if the aff is affirming the entire resolution. In a round where the affirmative runs a plan, T becomes more relevant.
2. I find the vast majority of theory arguments to be very poorly run bastardizations of policy theory that do not really apply to LD. I especially hate AFC, and must/must not run plans, or arguments of this nature.
3. I have a strong, strong, bias against debaters using theory shells as their main offensive weapon in rounds when the other debater is running stock, predictable cases. I am open to theory arguments against abusive positions, but I want you to debate the resolution, not how we should debate.
4. You need to keep sight of the big picture. Impact individual arguments back to framework.

5. I am not going to vote on disclosure theory. I am more likely for an RVI against the person who ran disclosure. There is no obligation to disclose.

Finally, I am a flow judge. I will vote on the arguments. That said, I prefer to see debaters keep speeds reasonable, especially in the constructives. You don’t have to be conversational, but I want to be able to make out individual words and get what you are saying. It is especially important to slow down a little bit when reading lists of framework or theory arguments that are not followed by cards. I will tell you if you are unclear. Please adjust your speed/clarity accordingly. I will not keep repeating myself and will eventually just stop flowing.

Public Forum Paradigm

I want to see clear arguments with warrants to back them up. I am ultimately going to vote on the arguments in the round not speaking ability. That said, speaking persuasively will never hurt you and might make your arguments seems stronger. Please do not lie about evidence or take it out of context. I know enough about most topics that I will know if you are misrepresenting evidence or simply making stuff up.

I have been a judge in some capacity (coach, hired) since 1998. I've seen many trends come and go. I used to be a traditionalist when it came to interp and blocking, but understand how the events have evolved and adapted my judging to suit what the community has deemed appropriate. However, here are some event specific elements of my paradigm.

Extemp - I believe that fundamentally, an extemp speech must be founded on answering the question that is posed. I think the unified analysis is the best way to support your thesis, but am open to other organizational methods. Source citations should include the name of the source and the date for me to give them full weight. I know what's going on the in the world. Do not lie or embellish with me. It will not go well. I would rather have someone give their best try with a hard topic than to have someone make things up or misrepresent the facts of the matter. Especially with having access to the internet, there is no excuse for making things up in Extemp.

Informative - I have been around Informative speaking for a lot longer than it has been a TFA event. This event is one where you can do a speech about anything, but that doesn't mean you should do a speech about anything. It should be something where you are informing us about a topic with relevance to you (the speaker) and which you can "sell" to us as interesting and relevant to us. The quality of visual aides matter. Sloppy VAs speak volumes about the speech. Neat and clean VAs speak well and set a good impression. This should not be Infosuasion (meaning that it is a persuasive in tone, but using VAs). The best informatives have balance in them (pros and cons) and a lot of information that we wouldn't otherwise know but for this speech. Source citations should include the name of the source and the date for me to give them full weight.

Oratory - I think the best oratories are ones where they are relevant to everyone in the audience, as well as the speaker. Oratories that are overly-focused on the speaker tend to be exclusive and I think feed into the perception of this event as "bore-atory" I like advocacy focused on Problem - Cause - Solution or Problem - Cause - Impact or something similar. Source citations should include the name of the source and the date for me to give them full weight. Personal examples are ok, but should not be the main part of the support for your speech. Research is important for good persuasion for a Logos person (that'd be me).

DI/HI - I lump these together because I view good interp from the same lens. I think that the best interpers make you forget that they're a high school student performing at a speech and debate contest. If it is serious, I want to feel like you set me in that scene and that you are your character(s). If it is funny, I want to see the scene play out with the humor being an integral part of the cutting and your performance. I think blocking is a compliment to the performance. It should not distract from it. The choice of literature matters. DIs should present a good exploration of the dramatic curve - in otherwords, don't stay at one level the whole time. Have some development from start to climax to conclusion. HIs should similarly utilize the dramatic curve to build to the climactic humorous scene or event. Audience appropriateness is also an element in my judging for these events. Both in the performance choices and in the literature selection.

POI - Notice I didn't lump POI with the other individual interps. While much of the same is true of the performance elements as those events, I fundamentally believe that POI must have a thematic argument that the program explores. It is not DI with a few poems thrown in. It is fundamentally different from the other interp events. The intro must establish what this argumentative framework is for me to really appreciate the thematic choice. I also believe that the best POIs are inclusive of the audience in terms of interest and relevance - similar to my thoughts on an OO. Book work should be complimentary and not distracting from the performance.

Duo/Duet - In addition to my thoughts on DI/HI, I think how the performers work together is essential to a great partnered interp event.

Impromptu - The speech must be based on the topic drawn. Please do not shoe-horn in a canned speech into whatever quote you drew. Use your knowledge. Distill a message from the quote/topic, take a position on the message, and back it up with examples. I think variety in example areas and mastery of what you're talking about are important. I think the best impromptu speakers used 1:00-1:30 of their prep time to leave 5:30-6:00 for the speech.

Prose - See my DI/HI and POI commentary.

For all Debate events - While I have a lot of specific preferences for IEs, I generally have more universal preferences for debate events. First, in regards to speed, I can handle some faster-than-conversational pacing, but understand this: If I can't understand what you are saying because you have chosen to deliver at too rapid a pace, you are losing those arguments and probably losing speaker points (where applicable). I abhor the practice of spreading - so don't do it in my rounds. Quality trumps quantity with me every time. While I believe drops can weigh in the round, you need to tell me why they should weigh in the round. This includes being clear on their relevance to the debate as a whole. Also, please don't try weird progressive tactics. I won't pick up a debater because they constructed some fanciful construct that means only they can win the debate. I vote on the argumentation and who does the best job persuading me to their side (that is the essence of debate IMHO).

Lastly, for all events - do not shout in my face. Vocal projection is good, but not when it is over-done. And especially when it is in a small room or one with acoustics that amplify sounds. I have ranked competitors down for shouting in my face. It shows a lack of audience awareness and sensitivity. Intensity can be demonstrated with more than volume.

Congress

I appreciate competitors who are knowledgeable enough to speak extemporaneously while addressing information and speakers who have already participated. Students should participate actively in the chamber's motions and show leadership even when not presiding. I also appreciate students who understand the role of various speeches in the course of the debate. Questions should lead to potential arguments.

LD

I tend to be fairly progressive and will listen to any arguments you run. I am fine with condo and collapsing. Identifying the winning framing is important and should be used to justify winning your offense on the flow. I don't mind LARPING or any other strategy you may make use of, provided you do it well and understand the arguments you are running. I am fine with speed and will want to be on the email chain. I prefer philosophical debates but don't mind whatever you want to throw at me.

Policy - see above

I am a tab judge and am open to hearing your positions. I will not advocate on the flow. I am open to collapse strats and prefer non-generic arguments that have a real link. I wish we would stop arguing end of world impacts but will vote on them

Hello,

I have judged Speech and Debate for 1 year now. This is my first year as a Coach and I look forward to watching you compete!

While judging Lincoln-Douglas I keep personal views and opinions separate from judging, so I will judge purely off your framework. While I understand the personal benefits to spreading, I do not find speaking extremely fast to be in the spirit of true debate. As long as you speak clearly and it is comprehendible, I am fine with your choice of speed throughout the round. I will flow the round to ensure I understand each contention and how it relates to your value/value criterion. Please remain respectful and have a great time debating!

All the best!

Organized, thoughtful analysis

Structured argument/story that is clearly communicated

Engage with audience throughout room appropriately

Confidence with own material

I have been coaching Speech and Debate for over ten years. I have coached and judged World Schools Debate at Nationals. As a judge, I consider myself a blank slate, meaning that I try to empty any previous knowledge of a subject or my own personal experiences/opinions at the beginning of a round of debate. I am persuaded by analytical thinking and logical evidence presented in a clear and concise manner.

Preferences:

• Please avoid arguing over sources unless it is fundamental to your argument. The only reason to ask for a card is if you plan to weigh evidence.
• While I do enjoy a good clash in cross, I encourage you to be passive-aggressive rather than aggressive.
• Try to keep your speeches before asking questions short. I prefer short, competent questions and answers over long speech-making.
• Please avoid yelling and interrupting.
• Traditionally, students should stand during cross and sit during grand cross.
• Only offer an off-road map if you are confident in your ability to follow it.
• I appreciate respectful behavior and discourage low blows and exploitation of other competitors' mistakes.
• If you choose to spread, make sure you are proficient at it.
• I will not disclose at the end of a round.

Speaking:

Clarity and Speed are my two biggest concerns. Speak clearly. I am Ok with speed as long as I can follow. If you are gasping for breath, you are speaking too fast.

Argument:

Basic style - Claim, Warrant, Impact. Make sure to evaluate impacts on both sides of the debate. A comparative debate with clash between arguments makes it easy for me to determine who won the round.

Etiquette:

Respect your opponent.

they/them

curryspice22@gmail.com

I would like to be on the email chain, but I will not be looking at your documents unless I NEED to.

- 4 years HS policy in Sioux Falls + 1 year college policy at UMKC

- Worked with both DKC and MNUDL

- Assistant coach for Sioux Falls Roosevelt

I have been away from the activity for about 5 years. When I was a debater, I spent most of my time reading Ks on each side.

At the end of the day, I just want to see a good debate. I don't care what arguments you read. This activity is meant to be fun and inclusive, which means I want you to feel comfortable exploring what matters to you.

As long as you are clear and loud enough, any speed is okay. I value high-quality arguments over a large quantity.

As a science teacher, I function in a world based upon data and logic. My paradigm is based upon that experience and personal value system. Arguments establish validity through the proper use of data versus grandiose claims of support based upon claims with small value. Provided below is a list of how I evaluate arguments:

1. Is your position logical? Does it take into account as much evidence as possible? Does it ignore or dismiss the counter-argument? Absolutes, by my opinion, signify weak positions.
2. Does the the data support the argument? Is it significant enough to value when considering the position, or is it anecdotal?
3. How does your argument relate to the bigger picture? The small stories lead to the sum of the larger story? Where does the process lead?
4. How does your argument affect others? Are the sacrifices being presented enough to support your position? Have you considered the long term outcomes of your position? Does it favor those with power, wealth, and privilege versus the average person? Does it further marginalize those who have significantly less privilege? Does it widen the gaps?
5. From a stance of morality and ethical behavior, does your argument abandon those values? Is it the old "to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs" argument?
6. Is your position what is popular or what is right? Popularity is easy to follow, but is it what is best for all? Are you willing to make sacrifices to your position to strengthen its argument? Are you willing to reconsider the evidence presented as a counter to yours or do you dismiss it?

E-mail for email chains and/or questions: Travis.Dahle@k12.sd.us

tl/dr - I prefer old school argumentation but won't intervene - I'm also old and slower on flowing 5/10 - evidence sharing needs to be quicker.

Be kind, we're all idiots.

Overarching attitude in Speech & Debate

Be kind, be friendly and show grace to your opponents, win or lose. Our time on this ice rock is short, embrace the joy of the time we have here and respect your opponent, their coaches and the judges spending their precious time with you.

My Role as a judge

To quote one of the most famous ballot ever from Scott Harris "This ballot represents my opinion on who made an argument in the debate that was more persuasive to me." What is more persuasive changes each round - but I neither endorse nor reject anyones arguments - you were either more persuasive that round or you weren't.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

I have very little national circuit experience in LD as I primarily judge public forum and policy debate (see more on that below). In LD I am more of a traditional judge as in I like a discussion of the resolution from the standpoint of a value and value-criterion and contention debate. That being said, I've voted for K's, theory, etc, but I have a low threshold for them. So if you are competing against a traditional case, winning my ballot with a K or theory will become a lot harder - not impossible, but harder.

I'm about a 5/10 on speed. I'm old now and prefer to actually hear the evidence of the debate rather than read the evidence on an e-mail chain...

Public Forum Paradigm

Public Forum should NOT be a shorter version of Policy Debate. With that said, in some areas Policy Debate has ceased to exist. We can argue one way or the other as to why that is the case (I have my theories) but the fact is, some areas only have PF or LD. Just like LD, I'm more of a traditional judge and will probably be persuaded more easily on those types of arguments.

****EVIDENCE SHARING****

This should absolutely NOT TAKE SO FREAKING LONG!!!!! Either have your evidence ready to be shared or get set up on an email chain.

Big Questions Debate - I don't judge BQ a ton, however, I'd look at my paradigm much like the PF and LD paradigms below.

tl/dr - Slow down, enunciate, use evidence and weight the debate at the end - do it all respectfully to your opponent

Extemp Paradigm

I am a mix of content and delivery when it comes to judging. When it comes to sources, don't make stuff up. With the internet available now, if I suspect you are making things up, I will probably check it when you are speaking. You don't have to make stuff up - unlike the olden days where you hoped to have a file on the Togo questions Washington put out each year - you can literally google your info and bring it up instantly.

Also - ANSWER THE QUESTION - don't waffle - pick a stance and tell me why you choose that way. Pretty simple.

Don't overly fidget or dance around - but don't be a robot either.

Have fun!!!!

Policy Paradigm

In essence, I am a tabula rosa judge, meaning that I will pretty much listen to anything and will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round. That doesn't mean I don't have things I prefer or things I think are bad arguments (which I will go over) - but for the most part, I will listen to anything in the round. However, unless you tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, I will default to a Policy Making paradigm. I've coached multiple teams to nationals from 2002 to 2019, but Policy has died in SD, so I don't do it much anymore.

Speed: I've gotten old here and have grown weary with blazing speed - put me down as a 5/10 on speed. I'd rather have the ability to hear the evidence instead of having to read through everything on an e-mail chain. If you go too fast I'll let you know - you won't automatically lose, you'll just annoy me a little - unless you ignore me, which if I'm on a 3-judge panel and I'm the outlier - I totally get.

Tag-Team CX - It's okay, but I'm not a huge fan of this. One thing I like about policy is that you should know what you are talking about. I don't mind the occasional help, but if you keep answering every question, it makes your partner look like a tool. And even if they are, you probably don't want to show that they are in front of judges.

Arguments I like: I have always felt that the more you know about what a judge likes and dosn't like is essential to winning debate rounds, so to make it easier on you, these are the type of arguments that I prefer to be seen run.

Case Debate - this is a lost art in the debate community. Why as a negative are you granting them their harms and their solvency? If you can have some solid arguments against their case and point out the serious flaws in them, that will help you weight your DA's, K's and CP's over them.

Economic DA's - I have an economic background and like Econ DA's as long as they are run correctly. Generic spending DA's are usually not run correctly.

There are other DA's, but those usually vary by each year, but as long as you have a solid link to the case, you should be good to go.

Arguments I'm not wild about: Again, the more you know, the better off you will be. Once you read this list does it mean to absolutely not run these arguments - no. What it means is that you better run them better than most teams who run the crappy versions of them. I'll vote for these arguments (and have lots of times) - I'm just not wild about them.

Politics DA's - I've changed a lot on these and used to hate them but realize the strategic advantage of them. That being said, not my biggest fan, but have voted for a lot of them over the years

K's Read at blazing speed - I don't mind some K's, but most of the authors that debaters cite go so beyond the realm of what is possible to discuss in a debate round that they end up bastardizing the entire theory they are supposedly trying to use. Also, if I haven't researched and read the material, how can I evaluate it if you are reading it at a blazingly fast speed. I don't mind K's, but I'd like to understand them, so please, assume I haven't read the theory - because I probably haven't.

Performance - this is just my inexperience with performance. I've probably only judged it a couple of times, so if you do performance, I may not understand how to evaluate it and might default to the policy framework - so you need to make sure to explain to me the role of the ballot and my role in the debate. I have voted for Performance affs and discourse affs - again, more inexperience than anything makes me put this in the category of things I'm not wild about.

As always, I'm open to questions before the round if you have any other specifics. All in all, I like good debates - if you can argue well and clash with each other, I really don't care what is argued - as long as it is argued well!

Quality is better than quantity- make your ideas concise and organized, and say the most important ideas before diving into more minute things if time allows. Given that, avoid speaking quickly in order to pack in as many words as you can- good ideas impress me more than amount of ideas. Be respectful no matter your opponent’s background,experience level, or argumentation style. I’d like voters- most of all have fun and be proud of the work you do!

Debate Paradigm:

I am about as traditional as traditional can be. I typically won't disclose, please don't ask about it.

I am not a fan of:

-the k debate

-plans/counterplans in debates other than CX

-not standing when you are speaking or during CX

-disclosing before the debate starts

-talking fast unnecessarily

-being a part of email chains, I shouldn't have to read your evidence, I should be able to hear it and understand within the confines of your speech

-the only tricks I like is the cereal

I prefer:

-a slower more methodical debate

-actual discussion on the topic/resolution

-standing up when speaking

-understanding what the debater is saying

Judge Paradigm: Steven Davis

• Retired teacher of 40 years, with 15 years offering assistance at Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, Kansas
• I am judging for Cary Academy, North Carolina during this National Tournament
• “Yes” – old enough to be your grandparent (and then some maybe).
• I have re-developed -- for me -- a genuine enjoyment of judging in the last 4-5 years, and I strive to be as fair as possible.
• I hope that my love for all things speech and debate has been evident throughout these so many decades of involvement with these activities.

[Over the past several years, I have judge 20+ Public Forum Debates, including numerous debates at the National Tournament two years ago. Because of some health reasons, I was unable to judge any debates this past year.]

I tend to enjoy Public Forum as an activity … although I lack the experiences with national circuit nuisances as they have evolved over the past decade. That said … it is wise to consider me a very stylistic conservative judge. Now, what does that mean?

1. I consider debate to have two primary objectives: resolve the resolution and emphasize communication with your audience/judge.

2. CLASH:I evaluate the debate and place a premium on clash and resolution of arguments introduced. I anticipate that the debate will strive to narrow and focus on final reasons for voting for or against the resolution in the final rebuttals. In the absence of a clear story by the two sides, I will probably just toss a coin. In other words, you do the work, I will strive to make my decision on the relevance of arguments and resolution thereof.

3. COMMUNICATION:I live by a simple adage, "Speed Kills!" In other words, slow down and communicate clearly with your audience/judge. If I can't follow you, I can't flow you, and if I can't flow you, I will probably make a decision at the end of the round that neither debater nor debate team will value. [If I think you are too fast, or unclear, I will give you some kind of verbal cue . . . if you adjust, great, if you don't, don't expect very good speaker points.]

4. If you use some form of SpeechDrop, etc., please include me in the chain. Here is email if you need it: davisste@usd437.net. I do prefer full speech docs for constructives that might be prepared ahead of the start of the debate. I do believe that these documents help all of us keep in tune to what is being argued as the respective sides are presented in the debate. Additionally, please note that if either team raises questions regarding specific evidence, I anticipate that the evidence will have been shared with me in advance of that discussion. Then, if there are challenges made, I expect them to be resolved within the debate (speech time and/or Crossfire time) . . . all this while I have access to the evidence. Given modern age technology (!!!!!), I expect to be able to resolve issues AND I will then not call for evidence after the round, I will have had access to it during the challenge/discussion thereof.

5. And speaking about electronic speeches, briefs, etc. If you use them, I expect that you will do more than just read to me from a computer screen. I applaud most of the new age technologies, but I still expect that you will be the speaker and will communicate accordingly. If all you will do is read to me, then you might as well just let me read the speech on my computer and work from there. AND I DON'T WANT THAT!

6. CROSS FIRE: Ivalue this time and strive to take notes during your Crossfire periods. And if you make a valid point in Crossfire, then I expect that the argument will be presented in the following appropriate speech.

7. THE EVOLUTION OF THE DEBATE:I view the debate as like a teepee on its side . . . I expect arguments to be initiated in open constructive speeches, AND then expect the debate to narrow as it progresses. To me, by the end, there is virtually no way a team can still be defending all arguments initiated . . . so choices are necessary and weighed appropriately.

To me, and we may not all agree, there are 4 constructive speeches . . . at that point in time I anticipate that Summary speeches will create focus on the key issues that either Pro or Con believes will ultimately be the heart of their respective positions. AND then, I anticipate that the FINAL Focus will just be that. Each team will present in a clear manner the actual issue or issues they want the debate to hinge upon. It is these Final Focus speeches that lay out the framework for me to resolve the debate and render a decision.

8. TOPIC BIAS:Let's be honest, it is hard to not have some bias towards an issue or topic. All I can strive to do is put my bias in the back of my mind and allow you to "sell" me your competing views.

9. MAYBE THE BOTTOM LINE:If you talk policy debate fast, I will easily get lost and not be able to flow your arguments. Speed is your choice, but it will be a risky decision on your part. Also, make observations and contentions clear! Evidence needs source and date without fail. Clash - extend - make your final focus clear as to what you want me to vote on.

10. FINALLY... Most likely, not all will agree with a specific end of debate decision at the conclusion of the round, but that is the nature of this special “game” called DEBATE! Strive to enjoy yourself!

Good luck! The best to you in your future debate endeavors! I truly hope you enjoy yourself during this year’s National Tournament!

Debate success doesn't matter! Have fun and do what you love! Be a good person!

Hello! My name is Anna Dean (she/her). I will default to (they/them) if I don't know you.

Bentonville West High School '21 (AR) | Harvard '25

I currently debate at Harvard. In High School, I did: Policy (Bentonville West DR FOREVER.), Extemp, World Schools, a little bit of Congress/ LD.

If you are racist/sexist/homophobic/etc I will vote you down, end of story. Your rhetoric and how you treat your opponents matter.

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain: annadean13@gmail.com

Time yourself.

Do what you do & do it well.

Be kind- to your opponents and partner!!

Speed is fine (in CX/LD) (slow down a bit online & emphasize clarity)

Truth over Tech

If you read 40 cards in the block = fascism

I love a good cross-ex :)

Win an impact.

Number your args... please.

You have not turned the case just because you read an impact to your DA or K that is the same as the advantage impact.

Don't clip cards.

If you're unclear I won't yell "clear" I just won't flow well...

Updated 2023: DO NOT GO FOR THEORY. Don't read tricks. I don't buy the bs. Win your arguments without tricking your opponents.

I do not like disclosure. I won't vote for it. You should be able to win without knowing exactly what your opponents are going to say(can't believe I have to even write this)

Policy:

KvK:

I like them if they're well done. I ran Fem, Fem Killjoy<3, Queer, Set Col, Cap in high school. In college, I've done Afropess, SetCol, and Fem stuff. I evaluate method v. method.

*I study Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. I have knowledge about gender/ feminism/ race critical theory and loveeeeee these arguments!

Plans:

Yes! I love a soft left AFF. My ideal round is a soft left aff and 3-6 off.

T:

I love T. Go for it. I think it's underutilized. I like procedural fairness impacts (when it's clearly an impact). If you want to win my ballot, paint a picture of what your vision of the topic is and what happens in debates on it, which matters much more to me than conceded generic blips and buzzwords.

Framework:

I lean more neg (60/40). IMPACTS.

DAs:

Yes, but they can get boring and overdone. I would rather read 5, solid, well-highlighted UQ cards than 10 poopy cards that say "it'll pass but it's cloooooseeee!" without ever highlighting anything beyond that sentence. Uniqueness controls the direction of uniqueness and the link controls the direction of the link.

CPs:

I tend to think condo bad (55/45). Some teams try to get away with murder. Yes, I will vote on 'condo bad'. I lean neg when the CP is based in the literature and there's a reasonable solvency advocate. I lean aff when the CP meets neither of those conditions.

Ks:

Focus on arg development & application rather than reading backfiles.

If your strategy involves going for some version of "all debate is bad, this activity is meaningless and only produces bad people" please consider who your audience is. Of course, you can make arguments about flaws in specific debate policies & practices, but you should also recognize that the "debate is irredeemable" position is a tough sell to someone who has dedicated 8+ years of her life to it and tries to make it better.

Examples are incredibly helpful in these debates, especially when making structural claims about the world.

LD:

I am policy debater at heart. I will flow every word you say. Speed is a weapon in debate.

I don't love theory/meta-theory/tricks. I find a lot of Philo debates have tricks. Please just win your arguments and do not trick your opponents. It is extremely rare I vote on it.

I am good for more policy-oriented theory arguments like condo good/bad, PICs good/bad, process CPs good/bad, etc.

See above for more specifics.

PF:

Send your docs and create an email chain from the get-go! Every other debate style has managed to learn this. Stop asking for evd without taking prep, just send everything and be fair.

I'm not flowing off the doc and probably won't look at it unless I have to.

Act as if I don't know the topic

I'm good for speed/ more policy like args BUT I do think that PF is changing in a negative way, if you want to do policy why are you in PF...

Congress:

Speak well. You are role-playing a policymaker... act like it.

Be prepared to speak on both sides of the bill.

I value evidence and credible sources.

DO NOT re-hash args.

Extemp:

I love good intros and transitions! I love to laugh a lil in an extemp round!

Organization is key!

I value evidence and credible sources.

I stay very up to date on current events... I will know what you're talking about... take that as you wish:)

Best of luck to you! If you have questions feel free to ask me before a round or email me!

Hello young debater looking at this paradigm moments before speaking to me, as the kids say, IRL. I look forward to seeing your absolute BEST round.

I am a veteran coach (I coach in a time BEFORE computers!), and tend to weigh argumentation and presentation skills equally in round. I am slightly hard of hearing so speaking at a comfortable level is preferable.

I would prefer to keep an accurate/organized flow and would ask for your help in providing roadmaps/signposting and remembering that as a judge, I do not have all of the evidence in front of me. Keep me in the round by communicating your order and arguments clearly.

Thank you for reading this. Do your best.

Weigh

I begged you

but

you didn't

and you

lost.

-Rupi Kaur

I was a former LDer and congressional debater, and now I’m the assistant coach at Loveland High School. Reading this paradigm will greatly increase the chance that I give you the win (especially if your opponent doesn’t read it). I will get upset if you ask me for my paradigm (because there’s a lot), but I’m more than happy to clarify specific stuff. I’m a lay with most speech events, so sorry in advance. I have general debate paradigms and specific event paradigms.

General debate:

1. Talking fast is a proven method to avoid clash. If I don’t understand you, I’m not going to flow. If both teams spread, the team that spreads the least gets the most speaks (and will likely win).

2. DO NOT SPEAK OVER TIME. The longer you speak over time, the more annoyed I’ll get.

3. A small puppy dies when you don’t signpost, weigh, or have voters. In addition, if you reframe or clip cards, the dreams of hundreds of small children perish. Luckily, if you meta-weigh (probability > magnitude), a tiny kitten gets adopted into a loving home.

4. Tech > Truth. I have the right to choose the side that persuades me the most. In addition, debaters must meet the burden of proof, clash, and persuasion for me to give them a win.

5. Please inform everyone in the round if you have a trigger. Also, please be kind to each other. The debate community needs to be a safe place for everyone.

6. I don’t disclose after the round. If you ask me, the other person will get a default win. Congrats—you played yourself!

7. Friv theory; no. It’s annoying when debaters complain too much. Ks need to have solvency and topicality.

8. Please time yourself; however, I am the official timekeeper. Do not argue with me on time; I’ll whip out a case and start debating you. Jk, you’ll just get a default loss.

9. If you have an anime reference in your speech, I’ll give you extra speaks and my respect.

10. At the end of the day, the debate should be fun, educational, and respectful. You are incredibly talented, and NSDA intended for you to show off that talent to the world.

Individual event paradigms:

LD:

1. The framework is everything in LD. It needs to have a clear thesis and connect to all of the contentions (or I can’t weigh it). I expect strong VVC clashes throughout the round. Otherwise, you turn LD into PF, for one.

2. Broad values like morality and justice remind me of hangnails. I dislike hangnails, and I will dislike your case and probably give you the loss (values like these tell me nothing about your moral blueprint for the round).

3. The impact analysis should all revolve around the framework rather than a cost-benefit analysis method like PF or CX.

4. I dislike counter-plans in LD. If you want to run them, policy debate would love to have you.

5. I judge less on evidence and more on phil and theory for LD.

PF

1. PF is card-heavy. Create an email chain with your opponents before the round. I have the right to ask for cards (remember, if they’re clipped, the dreams of hundreds of children will perish thanks to you).

2. The rebuttal speech needs to cover the flow and include an impact analysis. You have four minutes; use them!

3. 1st speakers that collapse (focus on a few arguments, and weigh) in their summary speech will steal my heart, and force me to give them very high speaks. You should also have comparative world weighing in the summary speech (crystallization speech is another good speech for that).

4. The crystallization speech needs clear voters and an extended summary speech. My RFD is mostly dependent on the voters alone. If you don’t have clear voters (or none at all), not only will you lose the round, but small puppies will die (refer back to general debate paradigms).

5. If GCX turns into a chaotic mess like four raccoons fighting over trash, I have every right to stop it. In addition, if your cx turns into a rebuttal speech, I’ll end it.

Emma Baldwin and Aiden Hurst are the best (and my favorite) Pfers in Colorado, so do what they do, and you’ll win this round and any round.

Policy

1. My first general rule applies, especially to CX. I'm less likely to vote for teams that avoid clash.

2. I don’t want people flashing me in public, and I don’t want teams flashing cases to each other.

3. I judge on stock issues. If neg is able to win on any stock issue, they win unless they run a counter plan. Then, the round is just a comparative analysis of ads and disads.

4. Topicality is the most important aspect of stock issues for me. If I see an off-topic set col, I’ll drag your desk outside the room, as Senor Chang did to Annie Edison in Community.

5. Be kind to your opponents in the round, or face the wrath of a default loss (this is more of an issue in policy debate than in any event)!

Congress

1. My brother was the greatest congressional debater of all time, so I may be slightly harsh with my scores (I have high expectations).

2. Congress is all about persuasion and substantive argumentation. If you spread, you are failing in every aspect.

3. PO must follow basic parli pro and make the session fun for everyone.

4. Just like any debate event, I expect arguments to be responded to. Each speech is expected to respond to arguments from previous speeches. Even if someone gives the greatest constructive in the world during the last speech of a bill, I’ll give them a low score (they need to respond to previous arguments).

5. To get a high ranking in the chamber, you must engage (speeches and questions influence the chamber).

Speech/Debate Experience - Director of Debate at Liberty Sr. HS in Liberty, MO. Debated policy debate in high school and have been coaching now for 7 years. I can follow above average speed (it's your responsibility to signpost/be clear) but I acknowledge this is a communication activity and see more value in quality of argumentation as opposed to quantity of arguments. I will be flowing but don’t expect me to do the work for you in extensions or weighing. Your speeches are the priority when determining what to evaluate.

In order to weigh something on the flow, you need to include warrants with your claims. You can tell me to vote on something but if I don't have a clear (and well extended) reason to accompany it, I will look elsewhere for a claim that does have a warrant included. A complete argument should include claim, warrant, impact. Extend warrants with authors - sure, they dropped Smith '22, but why does Smith '22 matter to the round? is a question you should be answering on every extension. Each side should identify and impact calculate the offense in the round as early as they are able. Do not expect me to do the work for you or to be as well versed on the topic as you, it is better to assume I do not know a term than to jump straight in and leave the judge behind.

I typically lean more towards traditional debate in that it presents topic specific education and clash. However, kritikal arguments are fine so long as the thesis of the argument is clear and the clash is evident. Case debate is my preferred style of argumentation and if the K can provide a good link story into the affirmative world. Alternatives of do nothing in general are boring. That's not to say that they can't win a round (Solvency takeouts alone function in a similar manner) but I always wonder how much more creative the alt debate could be beyond "stay in the squo".

Prep Time: If someone is not speaking, someone is running prep time. Per the event rules there are speeches, cross-ex and prep. Especially now that high school prep is 8 minutes instead of the original 5... please don't attempt to steal prep. It is your responsibility to exchange evidence efficiently (if online, establish an email chain before the round if you think you'll need it). I will not stop prep if you "say stop prep, I want to request evidence from my opponent's". Take care of that during cross-ex or email speeches before you speak. There are time constraints in debate for a reason, abide by them, don't try to bend around them. Additionally "flex prep" is not real.

Prep and email chains- I realize that the wifi is sometimes out of your control. I'm okay with stopping prep when the email has been sent but that is also under the understanding that you also stop prepping. If you're partner is preflowing the upcoming speech doc, or you are still working then prep should still be running as by definition -- you are preparing. The other team, the same. You should be refreshing your email and that's it.

OPEN CROSS - This will lower your speaker points automatically. The event is designed to demonstrate the expertise, skill and speaking quality of each speaker. Since speaker points are given to each debater and not a team as a whole, open cross weakens individual speaking points.

Speech and Interp overall:

I judge speech and interp based on the rules and based on the round--comparing the performances in the round. I think author's intent is important for interp as well as a story line. I think communication skills, organization, rhetoric, analysis, and evidence are all important in speech events.

Extemp:

Citations: Month, year, and source name are sufficient. Simple is better than made up.

Evidence should be relevant. 5-7 sources is a good benchmark, but I am not docking points for fewer citations if your analysis is solid.

Policy Debate (CX):
I am a stock issues and policy maker judge. I want to see there is a need for your policy and that it will solve the inherent problem.

I want DAs to have a clear link chain. Otherwise, I’m not buying it. Impact calculus is vital. Topicality is fine but should not consume most of your arguments unless there is a CLEAR topicality violation. CPs are fine but you must prove to me your way is better and if it is easy for Aff to perm, then it flows Aff. I am not a fan of Ks so know I will expect you to understand your own arguments, be able to analyze in your own words and explain it to an Aff who is not understanding. I am not much for games and want to actually see debate and clash.

HOWEVER, I will judge the round based on what happens IN round and not what I think should have been done. You are the debaters. I am not reliving my glory days of being a HS debater in this round. I am the judge, not a debater in the round. I will vote on all arguments that are well-developed and provide clash.

Speed: Be clear and articulate. If I can’t understand your evidence, I will not flow it.

Lincoln-Douglas:
LD is a value debate—not policy lite. I do not want to see plans, counterplans, or Ks in an LD round.

Clash matters. I want to see a strong engagement between values and criteria. Framework wins rounds. Define it clearly. Explain it well and let me see the pragmatic impacts of what you argue.

I can write a lot. I have been flowing since I was 15. I write nearly the entire sermon every week in church. So I can write fast. But that does not mean that speed is necessary in LD. If I cannot understand you, then I will not flow it.

Public Forum:

This is about argumentation and persuasion. Evidence is important but there is not enough time to dump but not provide analysis. Rhetoric is important.

Hello debaters! I am your friendly, neighborhood judge here to give you a few tips about me. I am a parent volunteer and I have been judging for more than two years. I look for solid logical arguments and the ability to refute poor logic. You've worked hard to be here so please make sure I can understand you. Don't speak so quickly that your words disappear. Don't be too quiet, but please don't shout at me either. One last note, please DO NOT talk over each other. Be respectful of each other.

Amy Depew

Hello Debaters,

I am Veena Devarakonda, a parent judge and am happy to meet you all. I truly care about what you have to say. My job is to give you all the points you deserve! So, please help me do that.

I am a flay judge leaning lay so please speak slowly and have clearly outlined arguments. Iwill attempt to flow but if you speak too fast, I may not be able to keep up. It's your job to make sure my flow is organized through your speeches. Winning arguments are the ones that are enforced, brought up, and defended throughout the round. Any arguments brought up last minute will not win you the round. I value presentation as well, but as long as your speech is understandable, that is good. Additionally, I need to be added to the email chain to see the cases and rebuttal from both teams, download only, no links please. Add both emails below (presh76@gmail.com, emeralddebatedox@gmail.com). Additionally, make sure you send all of your case (INCLUDING EVIDENCE) and your rebuttal docs as well (INCLUDING EVIDENCE) - I will not be able to adequately judge the round without them.

Please be courteous to your teammates and opponents. If I see any condescending behavior you will automatically be downed. If you lose one round, you always have room to grow in the future and improve. Most importantly, have fun and all the best!

I am a relatively new parent judge who prefers traditional debate. Please go slow in the round and do not assume that I understand esoteric arguments. I like when debaters emphasize their voters and consistently tie their framework to their arguments. Remember to give me voters for the round during your last rebuttal speech. Keep debate jargon limited and do not be overly aggressive to your opponents during cross.

Quick prefs:

I will NOT evaluate progressive debate or spreading.

tech > truth (to an extent - do not abuse this)

I am still listening even if I am not flowing.

for the most fair round, outline how I should be voting and evaluating arguments (limit judge intervention)

*Create a way to share evidence before the round has started (I prefer using an email chain - cindyapril@gmail.com)

Interp: I am a pretty open minded judge when it comes to judging interp overall but there are a few things I look for in performances. Creativity and honesty will always be the most rewarded in my book because it is why we do what we do at the end of the day. Showcasing your own interpretation, but staying true to the core of the story is important to me. Character development and emotional shifts are super important especially over a digital platform to keeping us engaged with the story and showing us the meaning behind the words. Have fun with the choices you make as long as they are PURPOSEFUL, doing something that distracts rather than enhances makes us lose connection between what is happening in the story.

Congress: I am looking for fluid speeches that connect to previous arguments. I think it is important to have clash, refute and/or enhance your fellow representative's arguments.

Coaching & Competitor History:

(2020-Present): Director of Debate & Speech, Melissa High School

(2019-2020): Assistant Director of Forensics & Head PF Coach, Delbarton School

(2019-2020): Policy Debate Coach, Princeton High School

(2017-2019): Policy Debate Coach, Melissa High School

(2017-2019): Graduate Parliamentary Debate Coach, University of North Texas

(2015-2017): Policy Debate Coach & PF Coach, Southlake High School

(2014-2016): Policy Debate Coach, Prosper High School

(2014-2015): Policy, LD, & PF Coach, Crandall High School

(2013-2014/15ish): Policy Debate competitor, University of North Texas

(2009-2013): Policy Debate competitor, Lampasas

Overview: I view the debate though an offense/defense paradigm. I think that this is the best way for me to grapple with the debate. Throughout my paradigm, I've tried to limit my regurgitation of knowledge or information about debate to you, and instead tell you how I view debate based on specific questions with the specific events. I think that there are some things that I will not change based on the nature of whatever event I'm judging. Theoretical disquisitions and procedural issues are ones in which I evaluate the same. Please see the theory section. If there's a question I do not have within here, please ask me. Finally, the questions that I am answering below are 1.) questions in which people have asked me before that I can remember and 2.) attempting to answer them as best as possible.

Reasons to Strike Me:

3NR's: After nationals in 2019, I have this to say. If you're going to be rude because you lost the debate, and attempt to get me to generate some sort of concession about why I messed up, I think that you're looking for the wrong judge. I make mistakes, but if I wanted to waste my time with some sort of asinine 3NR, I would have stayed home to waste my time doing nothing. If I feel it's going poorly, the 3NR, I'll shut my laptop and tell you the same thing I told the team at nationals in 2019. You should be ashamed of yourselves and your coach should be even more ashamed due to their inability to make you understand that that's not a healthy practice.

Clipping Cards: This is defined as "intentionally or unintentionally skipping over the parts of the evidence that is highlighted, bolded, and underlined." As Louie Petit says, do not be a Lance Armstrong (Petit, 2013).

Ideological Issues: Being racist, sexist, or a biggot is a great way to strike me.

Coaching: if I have coached you in the past 4 years, I will strike you. If I forget to, it is your obligation to strike me.

Cards: If you are paraphrasing and not cutting cards in PF, strike me.

Cards (PF): I'm so tired of people "calling for evidence" and it taking a majority of the round, while in the interim stealing prep. You should either 1.) send the case before you read or 2.) immediately after you're done before cross-fire or prep starts. I will start calling for prep when you call for evidence at a certain point, and if you do not like this, strike me please.

Dumb Theory Arguments: There's a national trend going on in LD indicating that we or judges should vote on frivolous argument (e.g. shoe theory, laptop theory, and so on). These are just absurdly, un-strategic, asinine arguments. Strike me please.

Email: Brendendimmig1995@gmail.com

***Policy Debate Paradigm

General Things

What does extrapolation mean for you? For me, I think that the 2AR and the 2NR get extrapolation based on previous claims made within the debate. I think that, if this is based off of evidence, and your evidence has some sort of glaring issue that prevents you from generating access to said extrapolation, then I probably won't vote for you.

What do we have to do to flag evidence? Just say look at the evidence or make some sort of evidence contestation that necessitates that I look at your evidence. It just takes a couple seconds.

Extending is important: I think that, if you do not extend the aff or example within the 1AR, I may have a hard time giving the 2AR credit. Even if it is just a shadow extension, I think that that is better than nothing.

Is evidence comparison important? Yeah. I would say that that's probably a good way for me to reevaluate why I should prefer a particular argument over another. I think that engaging in some sort of substantive level (i.e. the warrants, author, and so on) make for good case debate (for example).

Email me: I think that this will help in case I have to go back and re-read a piece of evidence. I try not to waste people's time, thus, I do not want to have to ask if you can send me a specific piece of evidence. If you're looking to get documents from a previous debate, please see the above email.

Do you prefer a specific kind of aff? no. Read a method, soft left, or big stick aff. It's up to you. I grew up going for the big stick aff and coached that the first 2-3 years out of high school, while also coaching big stick 1AC's in PF at Delbarton. I coached pre dominantly soft left aff's at Melissa and Princeton. I coach a kid now in LD reading a historical geneology that discusses why debate is bad. I think that you should do whatever you want. I've judged some great [Coppell DR and Wylie QR] teams going for the method. I've judged some great teams [Greenhill & Jesuit] going for Soft left affs. I've judged some great teams like Highland Park and Jesuit go for some big stick affs. I think that you should be able to read what you want.

Are you okay with speed? Yes. The fastest team I ever saw was the Georgetown team that won nationals twice. Unless you're going faster, I may need you to slow down. If I cannot hear you, I will say clear.

Speaker Points: I generally do not give below a 28.5. I do not know what else to say here.

Procedural Issues

Does Competing Interpretations come before reasonability or vise versa? I think that it depends on the arguments made within the debate. Absent this sort of debate, I will default to competing interpretations within the grande scheme of this or other competitive venues of debate.

What's the biggest thing people do poorly (in your opinion) on T or any procedural issue? I think that impacting your disads or standards is important to me. For example, on the ground disad, make sure that you're indicating 1.) HOW you're losing the argument (i.e. the link) and 2.) WHAT those arguments generally look like or what they specifically are and 3.) WHY those arguments are important for either topic education and/or competitive equity.

What's generated more ballots for you on T: The limits disad or Ground disad? I think that, while not having any sort of verifiable data via my ballots, I couldn't tell you. However, I have a gut feeling that it is the ground disad. I think that people, whenever making a limits claim, are not contextualizing why a particular limit based on the interpretation or rule set in debate is a better thing or idea.

Is Framework inherently argumentatively racist? I think that it depends on the debate.

Can we impact turn competitive equity and/or topic education? Absolutely.

Does or can a theoretical argument (e.g. Condo, or some other theory argument) come before T? Sure. I've seen these debates, but I've never judged them.

Do I get broad level extrapolation for my interp? No. What do I mean by this? Well, if you just say in the 2NC "conditionality is bad", but then precede in the 2NR or 1NR to clarify this statement by saying "conditionality is bad BECAUSE they can only get dispositional counterplans or advocacies", I am not likely to give you that level of extrapolation. I think that that is too late for me.

Have you ever rejected a Framework claim to a K aff (i.e. you did not vote on framework)? Yes.

Have you voted on a framework claim against a K aff? Yes.

What are things not to do or recommend not to do on Framework? I think that you should attempt to separate the procedural issues from the aff itself. I understand that making state good or bad claims and having research burdens on Framework may come as a result of some sort of argument made on framework. however, if you can separate those two things instead of them bleeding over on the same flow, I would appreciate that. If not, that's not an issue.

If I do not have either a predictability, ground, and/or limits claims within the 2NR for T, are you likely to vote for me? probably not.

Case:

Impact turning the aff? Great. I love these debates.

Can I just go for defense, or what some people call the stock issues? No. The only time I have voted on defense was in 2015. The Role of the Ballot was quite literally to vote on defense or what I believe was solvency within that debate.

Disad:

Can we win the disad absent case in the 2NR? Maybe, but I hope that you either are making claims that 1.) the disad turns the case and/or (depending on the disad) 2.) That you're making disad solves the aff's offense in some manner.

Can we win a link turn absent a uniqueness contestation made? Probably not. Right, if you do not prove why a problem is high now and are concluding that you substantially reduce that problem, absent the first sort of argument, I presume that the problem is not likely happening now (i.e. the uniqueness argument of the disad is true).

Do you prefer to hear disads? Read what you want.

Biggest issue on the disad? Same issue on an advantage; there needs to be a good explanation of the internal link or impact module that describes how we get to the impact.

Absent a disad, can we still win the counterplan? Sure, but you'll need to make either 1.) why the counterplan is just inherently mutually exclusive or 2.) Win some sort of internal net benefit to the counterplan.

What if the disad links to the plan AND counterplan? Making link differential arguments here and explaining why (whichever side's) level of "linking" (so to speak) is not enough to trigger the disad. I also then think that this is a question of the evidence, and how good or bad the evidence is. I think that this also a question of spin, so making sure that you spin the argument is important here (for me at least).

Thoughts on the Politics Disad? Fantastic.

Counterplan

Is conditionality fine? yes.

Are two conditional counterplans fine? I mean sure, i don't care.

What about 3? Look, I'm not the arbiter that determines the number of conditional counterplans or unconditional counterplans that you get to read. I think that at a certain time, there needs to be a limit set within the debate. If the affirmative proves why their limit on the certain number is good or better, then I am more likely to vote for them. I think that this ALSO means having a NON-blanket statement interpretation. Just saying that conditionality is bad is probably not a good interpretation for the debate. I think that there's a whole slew of disads and turns that the interp is going to generate. I think that parametrasizing your interp (i.e. the negative teams gets 1 conditional counterplan and a dispositional counterplan) is probably a better interpretation.

Would you vote on internal net benefits? I would yes. If you have a specific question here that I can better answer, please let me know.

What kind of counterplan do you prefer? I like PICS's. They're really cool. Read a counterplan; i don't know what else to say. Debate is cool. Counterplans are fine.

What are some dumb counterplans? Delay is probably dumb, but I've voted on it (yeah, make fun of me. It's fair). I think that consult counterplans on the wrong topic are dumb, but I've still voted for them on the topic in which they do not make sense argumentatively to be read on.

When's the last time you voted on condo? Plano West Finals, 2020. Before that, I think that it was in 2015. People do not read conditionality in front of me a lot.

What about sufficiency framing? Yeah I guess presumption would err in your direction even if there is not a net benefit or internal net benefit. I'll err this manner if the permutation cannot solve, or if the permutation is not made, or if the permutation argument is not sufficiently explained.

What's a poor permutation? One that is not explained. I also think that good permutations are one's that are thought out and take the part of the counterplan that resolves the disad and combines it with the plan. I think that teams that are strategic with these better forms of permutations are more likely to win.

Issues on permutation debates? If you're going to make assertions that the other team's permutation is either severance or intrinsic, I need some sort of warrant or violation explaining why the other side's permutation is intrinsic or severance. Absent this theorietical or structural argument in your theory argument, I'm willing to note vote on it even if you told me all day why severance or intrinsic permutations are bad. Also, if you want to impact turn severance, go ahead. Finally, explaining to me what the world of the permutation looks like and why it avoids the internal or external net benefit is going to be important to me.

Kritiks/Kritikal Aff's:

Preferred strategy against a K aff? I don't have one. It depends on the aff.

Method vs. Method debate? Well yeah, I think that these are great debates to be had.

Do you have a preferred literature base of critical scholarship that you would like to see debated? No. I read a lot of gender studies scholarship, but I do not think that this should deter you from reading the arguments that you want to read within the debate. If you're looking to up someone based on the prerequisite knowledge of things like black feminism, islamic feminism, intersectional feminism, womanism, and various other derivatives, I guess I'm that person, but I would hesitate from deeming myself that person.

Is framework against a K aff fine? yeah, absolutely.

What's the biggest issue with the K or K Aff's? Explaining the alt and how it resolves the offense within the specific debate. I think that more tangible alternatives have a better time of operationalizing an explanation for this question. That's not to say that you can NOT read reject alts. I'm just letting you know based on things that I have been judging on the national and local circuits. I think that, like my friend Chris O'Brien, I start with the alternative, look there, and then go up.

Link argument issues? I think that you are better off with doing a couple things in front of me. First, I think that going for just one link (most likley the conceded link) within the 2NR is going to be helpful. I think that good K teams are doing this because it increases the time that they can spend on other things within the debate. Second, putting the evidence or having evidence in the context of the aff is going to get you much farther. I think that these generic state bad links are fine, but just be understanding that if the evidence after reading it is in the context of the status quo and not some new proposal, I think that I am likely to err aff on this question if said arguments are made. I think that kritikal affs to better win framework we/meet arguments should have a kritik that is in the direction (at the minimum) or at least about the topic in some sort of way. Debate bad affs for instance are nice, but if they have nothing to do with immigration, arms sales, or water, then I am more likely to vote on the argument.

Impact issues? I think that whenever judging a K vs. a Soft Left aff or a K vs. K aff, make sure that you are doing sequencing work if both teams have some sort of root cause argument. I think that this level of explanation is going to warrant higher speaker points while also generating a better ballot erred in your direction.

Would you be willing to vote on a K absent us winning the alt? I think that, like my friend Chris O'Brien, I start with the alternative, look there, and then go up. If you do not have some sort of tangible alt, then I am likley to not vote for you i if the other side then makes arguments about why these things are happening in the status quo and/or the offense is just a non-unique disad at this point.

***PF Paradigm

Calling for evidence: please see the strike section above.

Is defense sticky? No. Absolutely not.

Do you have a preference of offense (i.e. scalar offense, or threshold offense)? No? I don't care. If you're reading your scalar offense, I'm not entirely sure why you're reading these uniqueness arguments above your scalar offense. Right, in policy this is just linear (or that is the synonymous term). I think that you are waisting your time for this.

Can I read multiple ethical positions within the pro and con cases? Sure, why not. If LD gets pre and post fiat, I don't understand why you can't read structural violence arguments and util arguments, and then collapse to one within the final focus.

If I don't frontline arguments within the rebuttal, are they dropped? Yeah. The way that I view the rebuttal is that is it similar or analogous to the 2AC in policy debate. Absent some sort of answer to the rebuttal's arguments that they are making probably means that you do not get to respond to them within the summary speech.

Can I shadow extend arguments in the summary and extrapolate in the final focus? Sure. I think that that is a smart move.

Can I read disclosure theory or paraphrasing theory? I'll answer both of these separately. First, I think that paraphrasing theory is inherently not something that I think that is substantive to vote on. Go look up in the theory section of my policy debate paradigm and int he overview. I think that theory here is treated the same in policy. In other words, I think that you need to win some sort of predictability, ground (or predictable ground), and/or limits (or predictable limits) claim for me to vote on your theory argument. If I do not know why paraphrasing destroys or erode one of those standards, I'm not voting voting for you.You can have as many bright line standards, contextual definition standards because you've read some sort of great (not really great) piece of evidence by some camp staffer who published an article, or whatever. That will not get you far enough in my book. Second, sure, read disclosure theory. Again, I think that the above arguments related to this applies here as well (the criticism about offensive vs. defensive standards).

What's your threshold for a warrant or an explanation to an argument within the final focus? Pretty high. Absent a warrant for an argument mean that I am going to discount that argument. It's pretty simple; I evaluate arguments in a vaccum, and just because you explained it in the summary does not mean that you necessarily get to just shadow extend arguments with the same or full weight.

What if we did not highlight our cards? I'm noticing that more and more teams are not highlighting their cards. I'm not sure if you're doing this on purpose, but I think that I will look to the analysis of the card's tag within the final focus, and adjudicate my decision from there. This is not on you. This is on the PF community to establish a set of card norms. In other words, I will hold you to your analysis, not what is on the evidence.

Can I take prep before cross or the opponent's speech? Sure.

Do you prefer Util or Structural Violence Framing? I think that these impact framing debates and risks analysis disquisitions are fun to have. No, it's not abusive for a team to read an alternative util calculus. I think that I am more adverse to giving higher speaker points to the team that goes outside the boundaries, and pushes them, by reading some sort of alternative ethical framework or calculus.

What does collapsing mean for you? I think, collapsing for me, means that you're going for less arguments but in a manner in which you extrapolate and interact those arguments in a manner that does more for you. Whenever I hear this answer, I see some sort of upside down triangle, whereby there's 2 levels (i.e. the aff case and the negative case). Going for all the arguments that you made within rebuttal within the final focus on the opponents case, while also going for all of your contentions, seems like a strategy or easy way to lose.

Why did you say that you recommend I have uniqueness for my warrants? Yeah, you have 3 different warrants (i.e. impact modules or scenarios) about why something is bad. Just asserting that X, Y, and Z will happen does not make a lot of sense absent some sort of uniqueness argument made that postulates that that issue is not happening now.

If I win a pre-req does that mean that I win the debate? Maybe? I think that it depends on the debate. I think that I would need some more context to this question, but you may be giving away some strategy to your opponents by adding context.

Can I read definitions or observations? Sure. Be my guest.

Can I read a kritik? I mean, there's a small amount of time to get through the K within the debate. If you think that you can do it, be my guest. If you don't have certain things, and are just certain you won the debate because you only read a link argument, don't be surprised when I tell you that you lose. I think that a better strategy you be just to read the link and the impact as a case turn, and then contextualize how the aff specifically increases. I think you should see some of the link sections within the kritik section in the policy section of my paradigm.

Does the new 3 minute (or relatively new) summary change how you judge? Not really. It's like going from high school policy debate to college police debate insofar as the time is concerned (i.e. everything increases by a minute). it doesn't change strategy, or largely I should say.

Speaker Point notes: I find that there is this assimilated, similar way of speaking in PF. It sounds great, but you repeating your claims over and over, and getting to the point 10 or 15 seconds in will not necessitate me giving you higher speaker points in PF. I traditionally give higher speaker points to teams that are warranting their arguments, have good word economy, and are efficient.

3NR's: I've noticed that PF has become way worse about 3NR's than even policy debate. While this hasn't happened to me in PF, or really in any event absent the 1 time at nationals, I do want to say this. You berating a parent judge is just absurd. You berating a coach who evaluates the debate differently is not going to help you win the debate back. Tack a breath, because we're all in this together. If you're doing a 3NR because someone said something egregious, I'll be there with your coach and tab to explain the situation. Absent some sort of issue like this, just don't do it in front of me. Why? The next time I see you I'm just going to think back to the unsavory moment of you berating a judge for no reason. If you want to make judges better, have a conversation with them. Ask questions. If you want judges to get better and stick around, talk to them. Also, the other person on the panel who may or may not have voted for you will also remember. Lastly, Yes, parent judges or inexperienced judges or traditional judges are people that you may not like, or would even conclude are not the ideal situation that any competitor would like. I'm probably in the same boat as you, but that doesn't justify asinine discourse.

Evidence indicts: I think that this is great, and becoming even more popular. I think that if you just assert that their evidence errs in your favor, have a compelling reason and a piece of evidence. This is really simple.

Concessions not warranted isn't a ballot: If you go for all the concessions in the final focus, but you have not warranted a SINGLE one of those arguments, I think that I am less likely to vote for you. In fact, I probably won't. Please make sure that you are explaining your arguments.

Presumption: I think that this errs a bit differently than the way that it does compared to traditional PF judges or people that have been brought up into the PF community. If there is an absence of offense from both sides in the debate, I will err aff because I presume that voting aff does something different and changes things nominally better. If you're a coach reading this and think that I need to start erring on the negative insofar as presumption is concerned, that's fine. Please explain it to me.

Can you read arguments attacking the other side's case in the 2nd speech or for the 2nd team during the constructive speech? Absolutely. I see no reason why. This is the equivalent to reading everything within the 1NC in policy debate.

Can I read theory? Sure. I think that you should reference my theory section above.

Can I go fast? I don't care. Go as fast as you want. If I cannot hear you, then I will say clear.

Can I impact turn in PF? Sure. If you. want to read dedev, give it your best. I think that, if you don't have the proper structural components, I'm probably less willing to vote for you.

***LD Paradigm

Should I pref you because I am a Phil Debater? Probably not. I'm trying to get better at having a deeper understanding of phil, but this is not my strong suit. I'm learning more in the process and doing my due diligence to better understand different philosophy and philosophers arguments.

Will you vote on framework? Sure. I think that if you decide to go for framework, please make a mental note of several things. First, if you just want to weigh your framework above the opponent's, that is fine. I think that I need some sort of good reason about why your framework is better than your opponents. Second, I think that if you want to prove some sort of pre-condition argument or pre-req, then that is fine. Just make sure that you do this. However, if you are making these sorts of link turn arguments, and you are also impact turning their framework, just note that I am likely to not vote for you because you have functionally double turned yourself. Right, you are making an argument that your criterion better gets to their value, but that value is bad, well, that means that your framework leads to a bad thing. Just be mindful of this.

Can I go for a link turn on framework and an impact turn on the opposing value? Probably not because you have double turned yourself.

Is reading post fiat and pre fiat arguments in the 1AC Fine? For sure. I don't care or see a reason why you cannot. if the opposing team make theoretical dispositions to why you can't, then that is a different debate to be had.

Can I LARP in LD? For sure.

Can I read spikes and under-views? For sure. I think that these sort of blippy arguments or analytics made within the 1AC and the 1NC that then you extrapolate on latter within the debate, that is fine. However, be mindful that if you do not give me enough pen time to flow it and I miss it, that is not on me. That means that you should slow down.

Theory? In general? Cool. If you end up reading theory, that is fine. I want to make this as specific for LD as possible. I think that there is a difference of what offense looks like on Theory than it does for say in policy debate. If you go for a time skew argument or a bright line argument, that is not offensive. That is an internal link into some sort of offensive standard, which there's universally 3 (predictable, ground, and/or limits, or some sort of derivative [i.e. predictable ground and predictable limits---depending on who you talk to]). Moreover, if you are going to be reading a lot of frivolous theory, I think that’s you need to be discussing these arguments in one of those veins.

TLDR Version: I did CEDA/NDT policy debate in college. Do whatever you want.

Hello:

My name is Ben Dodds. I have been involved with speech and debate for 18 years. I did policy debate for four years in high school and two years of CEDA/NDT in college. When I transferred from Gonzaga to Oregon, the policy team was cut and I started doing Parli on the NPTE/NPDA circuit.

I coached the University of Oregon team for six seasons after I finished debating. I judged CEDA/NDT and NPTE/NPDA debates at that time.

As far as a judging paradigm is concerned, I think that this is your activity now, not mine. If you can convince me an argument is valid in any format I will listen. I have enjoyed deep and complex debates about process counterplans and politics DAs and performance Kritiks of all stripes. There have been excellent debates on everything in between. You can't go pro in debate, it ends, I want you to use the time you have here to make arguments you like.

The unifying trait of arguments that I enjoy is that YOU enjoy them. If you are passionate about an argument, know why it should matter to me and can tell me that, I am game for it.

I don't have a "default" mode for evaluating or weighing arguments. If arguments are not compared, I will just compare them myself in whatever mood I am in at that moment. This cannot go well for you. Debate is subjective, no matter how much we might tell ourselves it isn't, it is and always will be. If you create the weighing mechanism and debate about what is important, I'll use that. Without comparison, my decision will probably feel arbitrary to you and me. Debate is about processing, comparing, and contrasting ideas. If you don't compare and contrast, you are not debating.

I have one specific request. I have never been in a debate where one person (or team) made all good arguments and the other person (or team) made NO good arguments. I appreciate debates and debaters that take an honest approach to their opponent's argument quality as well as their own. I want to hear an honest assessment of which arguments you think are good and bad, should be weighed or not, and matter most at the end of the round. If you show me a rebuttalist that thinks every argument they made is perfect and everything the other team said is worthless, I'll show you a bad rebuttal. I want to hear you tell me "this is their BEST argument, we STILL win because..."

I would appreciate as many specific questions as you have before a debate. I will answer them all.

I have judged all events, but when it comes to debate most of my experience stems from LD and Congress. I value clash and enjoy watching strategies unfold. Framework is important and so is strong evidence. If you ask me in person what do I like in a debate, I say show me the best you can do and impress me. I don’t mind spreading (especially in CX where it is expected) or traditional and/or progressive debate as long your arguments are sound and adapt to your opponents’ points. Be respectful, professional, and have fun.

I am a speech AND debate coach for Milton Academy. I am an experienced PF judge who values the key principles of PF. I have been judging PF since 2011, and I debated in 2007 - 2011. Again, Policy/LD /jargon have no home in PF. I understand some jargon is useful, but not all. Be clear, be concise. Do not use framework just for the sake of having framework, don't just state a weighing mechanism and assume that puts it on the flow, do not give me a super lengthy off time road map, that sort of thing. Add me on email chains: lindsay_donovan@milton.edu

I vote primarily on comprehensive analysis, on well-supported AND well-reasoned, "real-world" links, which are the logic building blocks to your impact (no matter how large or larger in scope they may be than your opponents). I do not like source wars, or taking long periods of time to call for evidence or look at evidence, especially out of prep time. If your only strategy is to call into question the validity of evidence, you will not earn my vote. I will primarily vote on the flow, but I think persuasion is the crux of debate and can make flow better... and can stick out more to me than just an extended tag on the flow.

Substance > jargon

Clarity > speed

Argument and evidence distinctions > "our cards are better read them"

Analysis > impacts

Quality > quantity of evidence

Theory/K/what have you: If Theory or K is fair, understandable, and well reasoned I can follow it. But in general I find most theory debates unfair in nature, most people just use it as a tactic to win and have no heart in it for the sake of smart argumentation. Notably I will not vote for Disclosure theory. It is a norm, not a rule :)

Pet Peeves:

• Tech > Truth (If you are saying something blatantly not true or distorting/mis-paraphrasing your opponent's evidence I will mark you down).
• Nuclear war impacts, unclear warranting or no warranting only evidence.
• Overly aggressive/rude tactics. Don't be rude. There is a difference between being assertive and rude. I tend to vote for more calm, collected, and cordial teams.
• "Collapsing" feels like a fancy way to say dropping all your points.... I don't like it. Why bring up points in the first place so easily to discard? Run a 1 contention case then... Never concede anything!
• Also - I hate Solvency (it is a Policy concept, and PF does not have the burden of proving/disproving solvency as a voting issue unless the resolution SPECIFICALLY calls for it.) This means, do not ask how they "solve for" whatever point or that I should downvote teams who cannot completely solve issues.

Spreading and Flow: I can flow SOMEWHAT faster than conversational CONVERSATIONAL speed. Public Forum is NOT Policy or LD debate. If you spread OR EVEN GO A STEP OR TWO TOO FAST I do. not. flow. If you can't adapt to a paradigm, then why are we even using them? I do not believe that PFers should spread AT ALL, even for a “flow” judge. If you cannot speak well and argue well, then you are not competing in this event at your best ability.

Don't be malicious please! It should go without saying, do not say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist etc. or you can expect to get 0 speaker points and a loss. I am an educator first, so I will err on the side of letting the debate continue if someone used certain language that becomes an issue, and correct ignorance afterwards. I will intervene when I feel the safety of the participants becomes an issue (or if you ask me to! Always ask your judge to stop a round if you feel unsafe).

National Semifinalist in Congress in 2011, have been judging Congress & PF since. Experienced Congressional parliamentarian.

General

The purpose of high school debate is to learn how to analyze & weigh information and determine the best course of action, together - and in the real world, you'll be doing this with a wide variety of people from all across the spectrum of humanity. Therefore, your arguments should always be given as if presented to a layperson with zero prior background knowledge or experience. Give background, carefully explain, illustrate your warrants & impacts clearly, and explicitly tie them into your stance on the topic; ensure that any layperson listening could easily follow you to your argument's conclusion.

My job is to enter each round as a layperson, with a completely clean slate & mind, and judge who made the strongest arguments; it's not my place to bring my prior knowledge or experience into play, let alone be the arbiter of truth and correctness - it's how well you argue against the other side. If one side makes arguments that are weak, shaky, or flawed, it's up to the other side to point that out - and if they don't, those arguments may very well carry. That being said: if you make arguments that clearly don't pass the sniff test (i.e., points that to any reasonable outside observer seem to be logically sketchy, misrepresentative, or unfounded), those will count against you - so bring the evidence, cite your sources (tell me who they are, establish their credibility, and tell me why I should believe them), and back up your claims.

Finally: If you make any claim of the form "if X does/doesn't happen, then Y will/will not happen", clearly explain why & how. Never take for granted that Thing 1 happening will necessarily lead to Thing 2 happening - clearly establish that link for me and your audience, telling me why it's either certain or at least likely that this chain of events will occur.

Congress

We as a student Congress debate important issues that tangibly affect a lot of people, and you may not always be one of them. If you're truly passionate about a topic and your stance on it, speak like it. If not, that's okay: argue for the sake of ensuring that this body chooses the best course of action, and deliver your arguments clearly for that end.

(Note: this is not political theater. Your speeches aren't performance art pieces. Don't fake passion and enthusiasm or grandstand on every issue. Actual politics has enough of that already, and has become such a sh*tshow due in no small part to unauthentic, insincere people who inflame passions for votes. Don't act - when you actually care, it shows, and when you don't, it's obvious to all.)

Quality over quantity: doesn't matter how many speeches you give if you make solid, knockout arguments. For me, length doesn't matter either. No, judges can't specifically award NSDA points to a speech under 60 seconds - but who cares. Having good debate is what actually matters, and if you deliver a solid point that makes a difference in the debate, doesn't matter how many seconds it takes to deliver it - in fact, in the real world, the more concise the better.

Your goal as a Congress house is to pass legislation, to actually take action and do things and create solutions to these problems, not to just say no and point out the flaws in everything that comes across your desk (again, see our current political discourse). Use the amendment process: if a piece of legislation has flaws that can be changed, change them! If you vote against hearing or passing a given amendment, and then proceed to speak in negation of the legislation (or have earlier in the round) based on the flaw that amendment specifically addresses, you'd better give a darn good reason why you've shot down a solution to your problem.

Public Forum

Convince me. As far as I'm concerned, each team has four speeches and three cross-ex periods in which to convince me that you're right and the other side is wrong - I'm listening to all of them, and I don't particularly care what pieces of information and argument are supposed to be given when. And during cross-ex, keep it civil - we're all on the same team, trying to figure out the best course of action for the common good. Ask questions, allow your opponents to answer fully, and treat them with respect.

Put me on the Email Chain- debate.taylor@gmail.com

About me: Four years of HS Policy three years of collegiate NFA LD. Tech>Truth. I will not vote on a argument that does not have a claim warrant or an impact, even if it was conceded. Teams should not be afraid to call out arguments that just do not make sense in front of me. If you are confused, and the other teams explanation of the argument does not make sense then I am confused as too.

Please Don't: Answer arguments even though they are not made. If the aff concedes an entire CP just extend the CP and move on please do not read your 10 pre-written blocks attempting to pre-empt the new 1AR arguments that I am not going to flow. --- Use all Your speech time because you feel like you have to. --- Read an incoherent 1NC with three process counterplans, two one card ks etc. Never seen that lead to a good debate. --- Read cards that have two lines highlighted.

Speed: Slow down on tags, authors, and theory blocks. I am generally okay with speed, since every judge is different I will say clear twice before I stop flowing.

Evidence: I might be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis. That being said my reading of the evidence will have not have any weight on my decision unless both teams make it a point of contention. It is not my job as a judge to vote against a team for reading bad evidence it is your job to tell me their evidence is bad and why that's important.

AFF: Plan less affs are fine. I enjoy ones that relate to the topic in some way but if they don't that is cool too. Fairness could be an impact but I am usually persuaded by the impact turns.

Disadvantages: The more specific to the aff the better. I am good with politics disadvantages, fiat does not resolve the link ever. Saying "Uniqueness overwhelms the link because of how many cards the neg read" is not an argument. I am okay with hearing rider/horse trading disadvantage. You should always be doing specific impact comparison with the aff, disad turns the case arguments are convincing.

Counter-plans: Any counter-plan is fine, but if you read a delay, consult or any other counter-plan that might be "cheating", be prepared to defend the theoretical objections against it. You need a net-benefit to the counter-plan internal, a disad, or a case turn there must be some net benefit. Judge kick- 2NR Needs to tell me other wise I default to no judge kick.

Topicality: Topicality is fine. I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. The most important thing in these debates are the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts.

Theory: Fine go for it if you want. Only theory I have a bias for is, conditionality, it's good in most cases.

Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am less familiar with the literature than you. In these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff, examples are good for me. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou. I believe that long overviews that explain the kritik are okay, and for me important. Kicking the alternative is fine. I have gone for cap a lot.

LD:I do not know what tricks are. Please read an impact to T-FW. Extend the 1AC impacts and how you solve them. Please do not read disclosure.

Please don’t spread.

I pay close attention to detail.

For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and am currently the PF coach.

General

In nearly all debates, I am persuaded by the arguments articulated by the debaters above all else. I try to avoid being dogmatic.

When left to my own devices, I will assess the arguments* in the debate to determine if the plan/resolution/advocacy would be comparatively advantageous.

*Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. Debate is an oral activity; I will not vote for an argument I cannot follow, make sense of, or otherwise understand. You may not "clear" your opponents.

Cross-ex is binding. Relevant stuff must make its way into a speech.

Every word of flex prep must be timed, including the questions themselves. I am generally not a fan of clarifying questions.

Evidence