Agbefe, Mawuli If we're talking about paradigm I view debate as a game. It's an educational game but a game still. I think most rules are debateable. I think speech times are consistent and not a breakable rule, ad-hominem attacks are not acceptable. Even if your're not friends with your debate partner treat them respect and please no bickering with them. I'd prefer if people do an e-mail stream instead of flashing or other methods of sharing evidence. KRITIKS 

I'll listen to your criticsim. Few things. I think there needs to be a coherent link story with the affirmative, words or scholarship the affirtmative said in cross-x. Your K will not be a viable strategy in front of me without a link story. It's a very tough hill to win a K in front of me without an Alternative. Debaters have done it before but it's been less than 5 times. 

Explain and analyze what the alternative does. Who does it

How does a world compare post alternative to pre-alternative?

NEgative Framework Should interpt various words in the resolution Have clear brightline about why your view of debate is best for education

Address proper forums for critical arguments people make

Have voting issues that explain why your vision of debate is desirable. I prioritize role of the ballot issues.

PERFORMANCE/POEMS/ Interpretive I'll entertain it I guess, I'm probaly not the most recceptive though. Explain how you want me to

fairly evaluate these concerns. Also consider what type of ground you're leaving your opponent without making them go for reprehensible args like: Patriarchy Good or racism good.

Counterplans Need to have a solvecny advocate A text Literature

Can be topical in my mind Net benefit or D/A to prefer CP to aff

Needs to be some breathing room between Counterplan and plan. PICS are fine however I don't think it's legit to jack someone elses aff and making a minute difference there isn't lit for. 

Legitimate Competition A reason the permutation can't work besides theory arguments. 

TheoryDON'T JUST READ THEORY BLOCKS AGAINST Each other. Respond in a line by line fashion to opponents theory args. Dropped arguments are conceded arguments obviously. In a close debate don't assume because you have a blippy quick theory argument it's neccessarily going to win you a debate in front of me if you didn't invest much time in it. 

Rebuttals

1. Engage with opponents evidence and arguments. 2. Make contextual differences. 3. Humor is fine but don't try to be funny if you're not. 

4. Clarity is preferred over speed. Not telling you to go slow but if I can't coherently understand what you're saying we have a problem. Like if you're unclear or slurr a bunch of words while you're spreading. 5. HAVE FUN! Getting trophies and winning tournaments is cool but I'm more concerned what kind of person you're in the process of becoming. Winning isn't everything. 

TopicalityDon't trivalize T. Burden is on the affirmative to prove they are topical. I'll listen to reasonablity or competing Interpretations framework. I don't believe in one more than other and can be persuaded either way. Standards by which to evaluate and voting issues are nice things to have in addition to an Interpretation. Arguments I like on T that I find have been lost to the wayside. 

Reasons to prefer source of dictionary, information about changing language norms and meaning, the usage of the word in soceity currently. 

Grammar analysis pertaining to the resolution.Framers Intent/ Resolution planning arguments 

Voting issues you think someone who thinks debate is an educational game would like to hear. DisadvantagesLink Story that is specific to AFFIRMATIVE. Impacts that would make a worse world than aff. Author qualifications matter to me, Sources of your evidence matter to me. How well you're able to explain your claims matter to me. Evidentiary comparison to your opponents authors are saying. 

General stylistics things Some kind of labelling for arguments like numbers or letters before the tags is preferrable. If you have questions feel free to e-mail me. silvermdc1@gmail.com

Archie, Raja I graduated from Evanston Township High School in 2016 where I debated for 4yrs in Policy and 1yr in Congress. I started judging Novice policy in 2015. 

Honestly in round anything goes, I will vote on anything. To get me to vote for you I will need you to break down your arguments like I'm a parent, not someone who's a philosophy major with 5yrs of debate experience. I ask that only because it's very easy to rattle off cards and cite authors but actually understanding your arguments actually shows you aren't just good at reading you're an excellent critical thinker as well (which is literally the main focus of debate).

Read whichever arguments you're comfortable and confident with but one way to really get my attention is a really solid Fem K, an amazing theory shell, or Nietzsche. Please don't feel pressured to read those if you're being judged by me though, if you aren't comfortable with those arguments that is fine, do you. But a little insight especially for Novices, something that will make you stand out as a first year is if you don't read the same Cap K, or Spending Da, etc. that every other novice team is reading.

As far as speaking goes, I'm good at flowing I've been trained to flow spreading since my novice year but when you spread BE CLEAR. You can be reading at 350 words a minute but it doesn't matter if you aren't clear. For Novices I will yell out "Clear", Varsity I will just stop flowing and pick back up when you start speaking clearly.Clash is important it is what keeps the judges from falling asleep, remember that. I like seeing some fierceness and sass in CX, I'm not one of those judges who will give you a 25 and call you "rude", I embrace it because in all honesty it makes debate interesting...Most importantly HAVE FUN!!!

Berry, RobbCurrent Affiliation: NorthsideDebate Experience: 11th year as head coach, NorthsideHow many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): 10(updated\edited for cities)mechanics

1. don’t make any presumptions on my judging based on what my teams read. we read plenty of crap i hate, on both sides, on both the left and the right.

2. i'd like to be on the email chain, but i won't be reading along with the speech doc. if you want the card to matter, make sure you’re clear and organized enough that it’s on my flow the way you want it. i don’t generally take prep for flashing/emailing; in panel rounds i’m happy to defer to less lenient judges. tag team cx is up to the four of you; just know that overreliance on or talking over your partner in that regard will not help your speaks.

3. fine with national-circuit speed when you’re reading cards, though clarity and organization are more critical the more quickly you go. you do need to cue me when you’re moving between cards or from the overview to the line-by-line. when you’re making analytics or reading your t/theory/fw blocks, you need to go slower. i say this knowing every other judge says the same, and yet for some reason it’s still necessary to say this.

4. good strategy is appreciated. buckshot strategies of more than four off are not. it probably means either your neg strat is bad, one of your flows has awful/absent links, or you’re hoping i do some work for you on a flow. or perhaps a combination thereof.

5. idiotic cheap shot “arguments” that your novices/JV think are cool have a pretty high bar in front of me, and when i say “high bar” i mean “one or two decent cross-ex questions means i’ll ignore them.”

6. ways to improve your speaks: have a coherent strategy, whether aff or neg; have causal scenarios that make sense as opposed to being distinct ideas from different contexts clumsily Frankenstein-ed back together; provide comparative impact and link work rather than ignoring what your opponent is in front on; don't be a tool in cx (better yet, at all); stick to the 2AC order (particularly in the block); structure your last rebuttals in such a way that i don't have to intervene a ton.

specifics7. politics disads are not my favorite, but i’m happy to vote on them when the internal links

actually make sense. i am comfortable assigning, if not zero risk, then close-enough-to-zero-risk-that-we-should-go-ahead-with-the-aff on a disad.

8. at this point of the year, T needs to be about in-round abuse rather than potential abuse.9. competitive counterplans are great. agent counterplans with a solvency advocate, PICs,

true process counterplans – all fantastic. CPs that rely on contrived competition are a tougher fight but i get their necessity, and i’m still not likely to vote on “consult bad” theory unless it’s bungled.

10. i’m almost always going to default to RANT rather than dropping a team on a cheap theory violation. i’ve got more tolerance to outright drop a team on well-developed theory args on status questions as opposed to type questions.

11. i am a bad judge for kritiks like death good (in that i prefer to have a game that doesn’t immediately spot the neg a link if the aff has impacts) and state bad (in that i prefer to have a stasis point that doesn’t immediately spot the neg a link if the aff is topical). you’re better off with cap/neolib, security, pan, spanos, etc. i have a hard time with high theory kritiks in this sense: winning by confusing the other team (and potentially your judge) with obscure, likely misappropriated slivers of knowledge as opposed to because you’re a better clash debater is not a practice i’d like to reward, given that my role is teacher first and debate person second. so: go ahead and read nordin and baudrillard so that people will think you’re cool, but realize a) i might not follow you, b) i’m not substituting my knowledge of the theory for the gaps created by your cards, and c) you’re less likely to feel cool when you win with a 28.2.

12. i will not vote for “status quo or competitive policy option” fw against a k. the neg gets ‘em. i’m more looking to fw to resolve what kind of impacts i should be prioritizing and the degree to which the epistemological concerns of the k should function as offense.

13. non-traditional affirmatives (whatever that means now) have generally done well in front of me, although that’s largely a result of negative teams not being terribly strategic. i’m in a weird position in that i probably agree with your critique of societal ills and probably agree that they need to be aired, but i default strongly to disagreeing that entirely delimiting the affirmative team is good for fairness or the educational value of the game. my default sympathy towards the neg on fw is usually dependent on how untethered the aff is to the core ground of the resolution, as opposed to a particular method of defending it. tech can overcome these defaults to a degree.

Bindra, AmitConflicts:Over the last three years, I have judged for Whitney Young High School, and Glenbrook North High School.

How many rounds have you judged in 2016-17: About 5 rounds this year (one tournament – JV States).  How comfortable are you with debate? Very. I debated in high school for 4 years, and debated in college for 2.5 years.I debated the China topic in college in 2005-2006. I am very familiar with the current political climate, and U.S. policy related to China.   DISADVANTAGES: I am very comfortable with all types of disadvantages. I think it is hard for the AFF to win that there is absolutely zero risk of a disadvantage, but I think the AFF is able to substantially mitigate the risk of a disadvantage. In my opinion, debaters do not read enough evidence on disadvantages, especially to support the argument that the “disadvantage turns the case.” TOPICALITY and THEORY: I am very unlikely to vote on most theory arguments, but I think teams should still make these arguments because they are strategic. I treat Topicality the same way I treat a CP + Disadvantage debate: which team offers a better version or form of debate. Both teams have some interpretation of debate, and some net benefit to their interpretation. I evaluate “reasonability” arguments through the lens of competing interpretations, as I think reasonability is really just a defense of flexible AFF ground.  COUNTER PLANS:  I am a big fan of Counterplans, and I am unlikely to be persuaded by any CP theory argument.

KRITQUES: My understanding of some of the critical arguments is a little shallow, but I am more than willing to vote on any Kritque. I think too often the framework debate is not well done by either side, and the AFF too often fails to articulate what should occur in a world in which the AFF wins framework.   CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES: My understanding of some of the critical arguments is a little shallow, but I am more than willing to vote on any critical AFF. Again, I think the framework debates usually are not well done. In evenly matched rounds, I probably vote AFF more often than NEG on framework or topicality. Describe any stylistics items you would like to share. I will do my best to adapt to the debaters in the round, even if the arguments articulated are not in my area of specialty. I don’t want to limit any strategic options for either side. If the round is not very competitive, I reward teams with extra speaker points for not wasting time (though, make sure you do enough to win the round).

Bishop, Alex      

Current Affiliation: None Conflicts (Please list any past associations you’ve had with a school/organization in the last 3 years--i.e coaching, debating and/or attending): None Debate Experience: 4 Years of high school policy debate How many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): 15

Comfortable jargon and speed? Quite comfortable. However, I am a “Stock Issues” judge, meaning that I hold to the antiquated idea that policy debate should focus on debating policy. I will judge the affirmative case on 1) Harms (is something wrong with the status quo?), 2) Inherency (are the Harms already being solved by something else?), and 3) Solvency (will the plan actually correct the Harms?). I'm fine with speed as long as you're saying words which can be understood. When you are simply “humming” you have stopped debating and are instead contributing to the decline of our event. I'll understand most of your jargon, but not all. And the better you explain your arguments the more persuasive they'll be.

I am familiar with many aspects of the U.S. - China relationship, but am only familiar with some of the most common cases. I will not know your plan by heart, so you'd better explain it to me.

DISADVANTAGES: You don't get points just for mentioning nukes. A good DA should 1) link to the case, and 2) make sense. It's hard for the negative to win if they don't give me at least 1 reason not to give the plan a try (i.e. at least one DA), although that could be as simple as “wasting money is bad”.

TOPICALITY and THEORY: Most teams run topical cases, ergo most T attacks are a waste of time. However, I am plenty willing to vote on T if you can tell me how the affirmative has genuinely abused your ground and limited the educational value of the round.

COUNTER PLANS: Counter plans cannot be topical. Beyond that...tell me why your policy is better than theirs. Which one has more significant impacts and better solvency?

KRITQUES: I am not a huge fan of Kritiques, but they do have their place.

The premise of a K is that the effect a couple teenagers arguing in a room will have on the outside world is so important that we have to stop our activity (i.e. learning how to debate policies). This is a difficult argument to prove, so I would generally rather that we just stick to the topic. If you want to argue about values, that's great, but you should be competing in Lincoln-Douglas.

CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES: I am not very familiar with Critical Affirmatives, but I will say that I expect the Aff to present a topical policy plan and debate its merits. Again, if you want to debate philosophy, that's wonderful, but you should join Lincoln-Douglas.

Describe any stylistics items: The more clearly you signpost your arguments, the more sense they'll make and the more convincing they'll be. Although I'll tolerate some tag-team cross-ex, I would much prefer that you ask and answer your own questions. A debate team is composed of two partners, not a superhero and his/her sidekick.

Daill, LauraCurrent Affiliation: UCSN Soccer Academy High SchoolDebate Experience: Judged/Coached the past two yearsHow many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): Approx.12 rounds How comfortable are you with debate? Mildly comfortable. This is my second year coaching/judging; previously, I had never participated in or witnessed debate. Most of my time last year was spent exclusively with novice/JV.I am an English and History teacher, so many of the terms are familiar, but I would not label myself an expert. DISADVANTAGES: None that I’m aware of at this time. TOPICALITY and THEORY: In my experience, I tend to not be swayed purely by topicality, though I do treat it as a valid argument (depending on the given case).

COUNTER PLANS:  No preference

KRITQUES:  Hyper-theoretical K’s that diverge from the topic usually do not sway me, though there’s not one specific topic/theory that I “don’t like.”   CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES: I’m not sure what a critical affirmative is…

Describe any stylistics items you would like to share. As a still relatively inexperienced coach/judge, I don’t get into the technicalities of the debate. Instead, I prefer for that AFF and NEG to try and sell me on their story. The strength of this competition is its ability to hone our students’ speaking and listening skills, and I want to see that displayed in their rebuttal. I don’t expect to be aware of the evidence prior to the round, so appreciate it when teams signpost. I allow tag-teams as long as there is not a maverick in the round. Teams must include flashing in their prep time, though I allow a few extra organizational minutes prior to the round so that teams can share evidence without taking away prep time.

Estrada, JasmineCurrent Affiliation: Phoenix Military AcademyDebate Experience: Debating for four years from 2010-2014 and has judged after that.How many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): More than 12How comfortable are you with debate?Speed and jargon is fine, just make sure you are CLEAR. Don’t sacrifice quality just too out spread your opponent. I am fairly comfortable with this year’s topic.

DISADVANTAGES: Yes politics DAs are so much fun. Make sure your evidence is updated if you plan on taking this route though. I don’t want to hear any “Obama losing PC evidence”. An affirmative can argue that there is no risk of the DA if they have sufficient evidence to prove it.  If it’s a generic DA  (Which most of them are) I expect everyone to have answers too it so analytics alone will not win you this debate. If you are reading this now I recommend you go on NYT now and cut a card on politics that was updated this morning.

TOPICALITY and THEORY: Jurisdiction. If this is unanswered by the Affirmative then you have to give me a fairly good enough reason why T is not a voter. I usually do not vote for T, unless the affirmative is clearly untopical and abusive in the round, however if the Affirmative does a horrible job at answering this argument (and I mean REALLY bad) then I won’t have a choice but to answer it. Other than that don’t run a bunch of Ts because you want too. They are boring.

COUNTER PLANS:  MAKE SURE YOU ANSWER PERM. Please prove too me that your counterplan and net benefit are at least 1 percent better than the plan. Don’t give me a generic counterplan and just say it solves 100 percent of the case and expect me to believe you. I will ask for evidence after the round if you say stuff like that because most of the time you are lying.

KRITQUES:   I love Ks. However, make sure you know what you’re talking about when you run them. I have fairly amount of experience with these so if you are talking jumbo then I will know. Make sure they make sense and as much as I love them, I will not vote on them if they are not run properly. Affirmative: Make sure you atleast address the alternative. And be careful with your perms. If you say perm DO BOTH and it is a capitalism K then explain to me how you can use a capitalist system and not cause any of the impacts at the same time.

CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES:  I have no problem with critical affirmatives I think they are fun. For the affirmative team: make sure you are prepared to explain to me in detail if you have any “education” and our movement will spread arguments. If you are not prepared for this question and your solvency claims that is what you do, then I will take a wild guess too say that you are not prepared. For the negative: Most of the time they are not topical. So I will fairly listen to your T arguments even if I think they are boring but pay close attention to your jurisdiction claims (if you run them) and specifically Fairness. Why are you losing ground and why is this abusive in the round at the

moment for the affirmative too run this plan. One more thing: “my AFF is on the wiki” is not a sufficient enough argument to prove that you are topical.Describe any stylistics items you would like to share.  I will love you if you do line-by-line. If I do not flow something because you were all over the place that is not my fault. This is for your best interest so make sure you are clear and organized. If it’s a messy round and it’s too late to do line by line then just signpost and I will gladly quickly flow your arguments.Warranting: I ask for evidence sometimes after the round so don’t try to lie to me. Tag team: Whatever the teams want.Flashing: Do not take more than 2 minutes for flashing. Also when you say “stop prep” everyone take your hands off of your evidence/laptop or I will restart the time. SIGN POST!!!!!!

Flores, OliviaCurrent Affiliation: UCSN Soccer AcademyDebate Experience: Coach and Founder of UCSN Soccer DebateHow many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): 90 How comfortable are you with debate? I understand the debating that I see most commonly in the Red Conference. For the last three years, I’ve judged and coached a lot of novice teams on the very basic components of debate. Admittedly, I have not had the experience of delving in deeply to more advanced argumentative strategies. Although I’ve judged other conferences and varsity rounds often, I feel that my understanding of debate averages a second year high school debater.  I have a working understanding of most of the cases previewed in the Red/White conference at the novice and varsity level. I am familiar with most of the common acronyms.

DISADVANTAGES:  The affirmative needs to respond adequately and completely to any DA. Politics DA’s are fine. My preference is that DA’s are not heavily stacked in the second negative speech. However, this has never been a voting issue for me.

TOPICALITY and THEORY: T’s should be responded to thoroughly throughout the round. T’s have only been a voting issue for me when they’ve been dropped. I place the most importance on T’s when there is a critical aff being run.

COUNTER PLANS:  I feel comfortable with most CP’s and the Aff’s ability to successfully perm. I’m fairly persuaded by perms. Aside from these basic concepts and preferences, I know little more about CP’s.

KRITQUES:  My knowledge of K’s is limited. I can judge them based on how the teams describe them and utilize the framework throughout the debate. However, I feel I still have a bit to learn about the proper implement of K’s.  CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES:   I’m most interested in the arguments made and the Neg’s ability to respond. As long as Aff is able to argue back against T’s, I feel critical aff’s have an equal chance of performing well in the round. Describe any stylistics items you would like to share.  -I like signposting and line-by-line-Flashing is fine and I will not use prep time for it unless the team is using more than a minute to flash.-My ultimate preference is that teams are kind and formal with each other.

Fowler, WesCurrent Affiliation: Lane Tech

Debate Experience:  I debated at duPont Manual H.S. [Louisville, KY) (1987-91) and Augustana College (1991-94). I have been coaching and judging in the Chicago Debate League since 1999.

How many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate):  75

How comfortable are you with debate in general (i.e. jargon, speed)? I am open to any type of argument and style as long as you make compelling justifications for why I should vote for your team. I WILL NOT do the work for you. Make sure that you are extending your impacts at the end of the round and providing some type of comparative impact calculus that frames my ballot. Speed is fine, as long as the card tag lines are clear.  Do NOT SKIP ("CARD CLIPPING") the important parts of text while you read it. If you stop reading a card before getting to the tag implications, I won't count it in the round. [Example: If the tag line says "Nukes lead to extinction" and you only read the first sentence of the text: "Certain scientists discussed nuclear power today." . That is not completely read.]

ROADMAPS- Give good ones- Tell me the order of the arguments of your speech. Roadmaps are used to help people put their flows in order. Don't just say something like, "I'm just gonna do a general overview of everything." That's not a roadmap. Give the order: "Topicality, DA, then Solvency...".

Overviews are appreciated . Let me know what is most important in the round.

I am familiar with the topic. I have researched and written evidence for this year’s topic.

 

DISADVANTAGES:  I appreciate creativity over predictability . I get tired of weighing Nuclear War and a Politics DA. Please remember to extend all 3 parts of a DA throughout the Neg block and 2NR. I'm not kidding.

TOPICALITY and THEORY:  T is a voting issue, not a time skew. I think jurisdiction is the strongest argument for Topicality. Abuse and potential abuse arguments tend to cancel each other out on both sides.

COUNTER PLANS:  I like CPs with structure: [A: Not Topical; B. Competitive; C: Net benefits ] If you go for the CP in the 2NR you must win it to win the round. This means extending all parts of it and explaining the Net Benefit.

KRITIKS are fine with me. Explain it as though I am hearing it for the first time. Don't skip certain parts of it because it may be a popular K. Feel free to go crazy, as long as the LINK is explained. [ESPECIALLY IDENTITY POLITIX K's] I have seen too many rounds where a K is shoved into a debater's hands right before a round, and the debater knows nothing about the K. Evidence isn't the only thing you need to win the round. You need to be able to explain the arguments and implications.

Too much reliance on framework at the expense of the rest of the observations in the round isn’t good.  Don’t put all of your eggs in one basket.  I know framework has pre-fiat implications, but the other arguments should be discussed as well.

 

CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES:  K Affs are fine as long as there is a clear link to the resolution. How does it relate to diplomatic / economic engagement with China> I don’t want to hear a K aff that is presented without a link to the resolution. (It makes it seem like the args are just recycled from previous years, You should do the work to update it for the resolution.

Describe any stylistics items you would like to share.  

I do not count prep time for flashing your speech to the other team. I have been known to use prep time if I see partners discussing strategies while flashing. I can become impatient and start prep time if someone's computer glitches take too long.

PRE-ROUND PET PEEVES:  I really object to disclosing Neg strategies before the round.  I also don't like Aff disclosing their advantages before the round.   There are no debate rules requiring these disclosures.    [True story:  I was in a round where the Neg team gave Aff a set of flash cards and said "These are the words you can't say in the round."]

END OF ROUND- I don't talk a lot at the end of the round. I write everything on the ballot. I also don't like to read cards at the end of the round. Don't ask me to unless you believe they are being misinterpreted. I have a problem with Huffington Post cites. I may need to see the quals of the author. I also will not argue with anyone about my decision.

Gobberdiel, DavidJudge wiki: https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Gobberdiel%2C+DavidI debated for Valley High School in West Des Moines, Iowa from 2003-2007. While attending the University of Chicago and for a time after graduation, I coached Oak Park & River Forest High School in Illinois from 2007-2013. I coached Dowling Catholic High School in the 2013-2014 season. Since 2014, I have not been affiliated with any program.I love debate. I have been deep in the trenches as both a debater and as a coach. I have also enjoyed some recent time away from debate which has allowed me to reflect on the activity from the perspective of an outsider.

It is easy to get lost in the minutiae of debate (and I have read many judge philosophies which try to resolve every possible nuance of a round). This can be helpful but also distracting. Debate is a game of complexities and there are many ways to play this game. Ultimately, I believe that debate can--though I would not go so far as to that is it should or must--mean something different to everyone involved and there is plenty of space for all. Debate can be self-righteous and defensive of its habits. It can be a platform for profoundly meaningful pedagogical inquiry. Debate can sometimes be rightly seen as an elite or exclusive activity, but one which paradoxically opens many paths to discovery and empowerment.

So what am I here to do? Judges reward some for their technical mastery and others for their creative provocations. I believe both have merit. Some judges consider the rules of the game immutable while others argue that debate is or should be a creature of the particular moment. Insofar as I can approach the round without bias, I do not wish nor do I intend to write the round for you before it is allowed to happen. I am here to try, to the best of my ability, to find coherence in the context that the debaters provide. I will leave it to the debaters to articulate and defend that context.

That said, I am very comfortable with arguments and positions from across the universe of policy debate. I am comfortable with all speeds and styles. I like humor. I do not like to make assumptions. There is probably a better way than mockery to make an argument. I very much hope that everyone can enjoy the round and learn something along the way.

I am happy to answer any questions before or after the round.

Harduvel, JoyceKenwood Academy coachDebated for four years on the national circuit for UC Lab

I do my best to be a blank slate when judging. I am open to any argument as long as it is debated well. That being said, here are my views on various issues that may come up.

Performance Affs: These are fine with me but I think that framework is an uphill battle for affs that do not affirm the resolution or do not have a stable advocacy statement. I believe in switch-side debate and so you will have to explain either why it is bad or why your position is not neg ground.

Topicality and Theory: I see topicality and theory as gateway issues and enjoy these debates so long as they include clash, comparative analysis, and impacts just like any other part of the debate. I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. If you are going to go for topicality or theory, it needs to get ample time in your speeches or I will not have enough to vote on.

Kritiks: The K was probably my favorite argument to go for as a debater but that does not mean that I am predisposed to voting for the K or that I am not equally comfortable judging policy arguments. I prefer when debaters are specific on the link and alternative debates, and when they go for arguments like the K turns case or is a DA to case instead of vague impacts. I also believe that the K should have a stable alternative.

Counterplans: I particularly like aff-specific counterplans. Generic counterplans are fine but I am sympathetic to aff theory arguments against PICs, consult CPs, and process CPs. On the permutation debate, I tend to lean neg and assume a risk of a link to the net benefit (unless I am told otherwise, of course).

Disadvantages: Nothing really noteworthy to add here. I like DA debates particularly when they are structured, well-impacted, clash-heavy, and explained in detail.

Dropped Arguments: I will presume that any drop arguments are true if you make that claim. However, I will not vote for undeveloped arguments even if they are dropped. For example, if the neg drops "conditionality is a voter--kills fairness and education," you will need to expand on that significantly in later speeches for me to vote on it.

Speaker Points: I reward line-by-line, comparative impact calculus, clash, creative argumentation, explanation of warrants, and smart analytics. I will deduct speaker points for offensive language, rudeness, being purposefully evasive in cross-ex, excessive interruptions of your partner, and ethical violations. Clipping cards or refusing to provide the other team with access to your cards are serious violations, and I will deduct speaker points accordingly whether the other team points these issues out or not. 

Decisions: I would really rather decide the debate without reading evidence unless it is one of the few instances when reading evidence seems actually necessary (for example, comparing two definitions on T). In your final speeches, you should be explaining the big picture, isolating the key question(s) of the debate, and impacting your arguments. That makes my decision easier, makes me happier, and also makes me more likely to defer to your framing of the debate. I will provide as much feedback as I can given the restraints of tournament rules about the debate as a whole, the individual speeches, and specific arguments that came up (or should have). I always welcome questions!

Hausman, AdamAffiliation: Northside College PrepDebate Experience: 5th year/topic coachingHow many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): 15 Comfort with debate in general and this year: Fine with both jargon and speed, long as you are clear (really clear, slow down 10% if you need to) Have worked on files/been active all year, know most of the common args on the topic (K and policy) and familiar with debate lingo

 DISADVANTAGES: Love ‘em, with the exception of Politics.  Fine, I’ll listen to politics, but the internal link stories are usually ridiculous. I don't think you can get away with simply saying "turns case" and moving on - you need to explain the sequencing that makes this true or I'm not going to give that to youI have a mental block that prevents me from understanding intrinsicness.  I don't know why, but I never remember how to evaluate it.

TOPICALITY: I'm probably not the right choice to go hard on T in front of - I tend to miss parts of these debates because debaters always forget to slow down and be organized for me.

I'll usually look to competing interpretations first.   I think the aff gets good weight from Reasonability arguments Case list please Not going to vote on predictability at Cities

THEORY:I actually like theory in a sickening way, but I'll generally only pull the trigger on it if it makes sense/gets completely mishandled.  I think some CPs are more abusive than others, so if you can make this clear (and naturally, spend 5min on it in the 2AR) I'll pull the trigger on specific violations - or naturally if they mishandle/drop it              COUNTER PLANS: 

 Like: Agent CPs, basic process CPs, and for some bizarre reason I love PICs.  I think the aff gets a pretty high threshold for abuse on them, but I also think a lot of them are hilarious and when creative, really smart moves.

Don't Like: Intricate process CPs, ridiculous multiplank CPs - you don't want to confuse my flow with a dozen planks, it won't end well

I think perm fights are interesting debates, but again, make sure you're slowing down for me on how the perm solves the CP, provides a better alternate world, etc.  If you're going for multiple perms, make sure to differentiate them on the flow for me, or I'm gonna miss which args should be going where and bad things will happen

I'll like you more if your net benefit isn't politics I'll like you more if you specifically contextualize your solvency (with warranted evidence) clearly for

me in the 2AR/2NR - especially for super-generic things like ConsultKRITQUES: 

I'm a pretty big fan of Neolib (I think class is the root cause to everything but hey, that's just me) and Security-type stuff, but wi I can now in my fifth season have the displeasure to say I've also voted on Baudrillard. I'm not going to try and pretend I'm a tabula rasa, because I think the whole judge community intervenes in ways both overtly and covertly.  I will, however, vote for an argument that annoys me if you win it 

In the real world, I think antiblackness/fem/queer theory are things that are absolutely true and important.  In debate world, please do something besides a link of omission/using the aff as a scapegoat for a system they don't actively perpetuate (make it about their mechanism or advantages at least).  That said, if they are busy trying to save us from econ collapse, I'll probably buy that they reify the ontological norms that perpetuate antiblackness/violence against identity groups or whichever link you are going for. I'll go for narratives/out of the box performance stuff, it’s just much more persuasive if you know your stuff

I look to the framework debate hard when making a decision - if you are clearly ahead on framework (and specifically comparing framework standards), that will tilt me significantly in your direction, policy or K

I think a K should probably have an alt but can buy it contextualized as a disad or case turn to their method or epistemology too

I would love to hear your link contextualized to the aff specifically - this 100% increases the likelihood I buy your K and that you aren't just badly reading something an older varsity gave you because "it'd be so funny bruh"

CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES:  I'm not really the guy you want (mostly because I'm not great at evaluating these specific types of debates in a high-level and thus, fair way) but if you can give me a compelling reason to prefer your framework and discourse (or if a neg team mishandles it) I’ll vote your way, sure. I do believe economic arguments are root causes of many of these identity affs and I’ll give them a lot of leeway, so be warned (moreso than probably the community norm, I'll actually vote on Neolib is root cause etc - look at our last election)

I think I mentioned before I like framework, right? Go for it if you're neg, but if you're aff, win me on education - I'm a teacher, I'll vote on students who provide good education (and win that they do) every time

If you're going high theory, be able to impress me with your knowledge of said high theory.  If you are explaining Bataille like someone who read his (terrible) books, I'll be less annoyed and more likely to buy your line of crap.

Stylistics items you would like to share.  A more condensed strategy with depth is a better play for me - the more flows you throw at me, the more you force me to rely on flowing skills (HINT: they aren't outstanding)

I will absolutely dock you for being annoying/over-the-top mean in cross-X.  Don't go for the GOTCHA moment, it usually backfires. Let your partner answer a question too, no need to interrupt.

Speaking of cross-X, I looooove when someone exposes bad pieces of evidence in cross-X.  I won't vote on it, but I won't pretend like it doesn't affect my thinking about a particular argument either.

I’m an actual educator, meaning I value education highly in the round.  I also lean truth over tech (haven’t been in the game long enough to lose my adherence to logic, and I'm not enough of a debate-head to be able to appreciate all your tech skills anyway)

I'll be patient with prep, until I become annoyed, which will then result in a warning, followed by prep being taken for extensive emailing delays if it becomes a consistent issue.

I value clarity over quantity – I like actually hearing arguments over blasting through them at warp speed.

Signposting is always good for a non-HS debater like me I much prefer teams that extend specific warrants over tagline extension – know your evidence!

Hopf, Mike

Current Affiliation: None.Debate Experience:I debated for four years for Wheaton North H.S. from 1983-1987. I attended debate camp at American University, Samford University, and spent two summers at Dartmouth College. In the years 1987-1995, I judged almost every weekend on the North Shore High School Circuit judging teams including New Trier, Glenbrook North, Glenbrook South, Oak Park, Evanston, HF, Maine East, etc. I did work as an assistant coach sporadically during this time for Wheaton North, Glenbrook South, and Evanston High Schools. I judged the Glenbrook Round Robin twice, the Jesuit Round Robin in New Orleans, and many national tournaments. I judged quite a few elimination rounds, including Finals at the Illinois State Debate Tournament on several occasions. I judged again extensively from 2001-2007 on this same local policy circuit. From 2007-2016, I judged 4-5 tournaments a year for SLUDL (the Saint Louis Urban Debate League). I also judged college Parliamentary and Lincoln Douglas rounds for McKendree College near Saint Louis. This was a competitive national circuit including the McKendree and Webster tournaments which would attract schools from 20-25 states. How many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): Around 10.

How comfortable are you with debate? I am very comfortable with speed, although I would say everyone has their limitations. I am mostly comfortable with jargon.I feel comfortable judging most rounds. I can piece together acronyms I might not be familiar with. DISADVANTAGES: I prefer specific links. I don’t love Politics, but I have voted on it plenty of times. I like disads that consider military strategy, economics, rights, the environment, etc. TOPICALITY and THEORY: I used to love Topicality and Theory, but I view 95% of it as ‘whiney, time waster’ argumentation at this stage. If a team really isn’t topical, go ahead and argue topicality, and I will vote on it. If you are Aff, argue reasonability, and I may give you T even if the other team’s interpretation is ‘the best interpretation’. COUNTER PLANS: My debate philosophy is simple: The Affirmative posits a topical plan, and the Negative provides reasons to reject the plan. This can come in the form of a counterplan. Affirmatives can permute, thus proving the counterplan fails to provide a reason to reject the plan. A ‘Plan Inclusive Counterplan’ sounds oxymoronic on face, but usually involves actually ‘including the plan’ but in some altered or abbreviated form as to constitute a ‘reason to reject’ the plan. Debaters may debate what the ‘core’ or the ‘essence’ of the plan is, and whether it is included in a PIC. I have voted for plenty of agent counterplans, but affs may certainly contest fiat power. I am a little different, because I don’t consider permutations as merely ‘tests of competition’. Affs don’t have to advocate them, but they may, just as a negative may choose to advocate a conditional counterplan or not.

KRITQUES: I have heard and voted on many kritiks, but I have not had the luxury of being in debate camp discussions of K theory. I stick with my ‘reason to reject’ standard on all negative positions. I also feel that a K should ‘link’ or have a ‘specific link’ to the Aff. If there is no reason to believe that the Aff is using language that has some sort of ‘sexist’, or ‘classist’, or ‘capitalist’ underpinnings, then I won’t be afraid to say ‘well, this case just doesn’t bite the K’. If you can show that there is such flawed preliminary logic or bias, I will vote for the K. If you can show me that I should reject the Aff for some deontological consideration, I will buy it. CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES: I think I have only heard one of two of these. Ditto what I said about Ks. Describe any stylistics items you would like to share. - When I was in high school, we really did make 10, 15, or 20 arguments against a disad. And then the

2NC really would stand up and say ‘on their subpoint 1 ‘no link’ , I argue 1, 2, 3’, ‘group their 2 and 3, I will argue 1, 2, 3, 4, etc….’ I encourage debaters and their coaches to maintain and expect a high standard of organization in a debate.

- There should be a roadmap given before all speeches except for 1AC. Unless something has seriously changed, this is the common practice on the best debate circuits including the NDT.

- The 2NC and 1NR should be seen as ‘one speech’, with the 2NC taking most of the arguments, and the 1NR taking the other remaining arguments that the 2NC did NOT cover. The 1NR should NEVER take prep time! You have the whole 2NC and 2NC cross ex to prepare your speech. If you take prep time, you are giving the 1AR time to write responses to the 2NC. It’s terrible strategy.

- Think about how many arguments survive into the last two speeches. Affs shouldn’t be relying on a single disad takeout.

- I don’t care about tag team debate, but I encourage debaters only to answer a question for their partners if their partners really don’t know the answer, and only when it’s important to do so.

- I have heard some really talented speakers in Chicago Urban Debate. Immerse yourselves in the research, always use evidence, and your performance will get better and better.

- So much time is spent on the debate team. I hope all participants use their time wisely and give it their all whatever their level of experience is.

Infante, ChadHey, debate is about argumentation and about human interaction, so make sure there is clash and be nice while you’re debating. Do what you like best, if you want to have a T throw down, go ahead, if you want to have a K, DA, CP throw down go ahead; do what makes you happy, just be nice to your partner and the other team.

Johnson, Nicholas Current Affiliation: WestinghouseDebate Experience: 4 years high school (policy, LD, congress), 3 years college (NPDA parli), Coaching CDL Policy (5 years)How many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): at least 30 Philosophy: I am tabula rasa. Unlike many judges who say that, I interpret that near literally – for the purpose of the round, I am a blank slate: I don't know much of anything, and you can't take advantage of most of my knowledge.

Knowledge you can access:-Debate: You may assume I am an expert on the process and terminology of doing policy debate. That's everything from the parts of a disad to conditionality and perm theory. -History: You may assume I have a general knowledge of major historical events, persons, and trends. Things like Truman approved the use of two nuclear devices against Japan in WW2, or JFK and Khrushev were the leaders responsible for the Cuban Missile Crisis and its resolution, or 9/11 was the date of a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda against the World Trade Center using planes. If you need me to know details, less major events, or want to advocate an alternative theory of history from that commonly accepted, you'll need evidence.-Current Events: You may assume I look at google news at least once per week and retain at least some idea of what's going on in the world. Unlike Gary Johnson, you may assume I know what (and at least vaguely where) Aleppo is.-Topic Knowledge: You may assume I know somewhat specific things about China, like Xi Jinping is the leader, and which countries have disputes with China in the South China Sea.

Any other knowledge cannot be assumed, and any arguments you wish to make based on other knowledge need to be explained in full, as if I have no knowledge of the subject.

IMPORTANT: That means, for the purpose of the round, I don't know what your technical or philosophical concepts are or what the labels you use to refer to them mean. I will have no idea what Wilderson means by antiblackness, I won't know what Deleuze's body without organs is, and I will have no clue what IR realism or neoliberalism are (and etc...). You want to make arguments around these concepts, you need to explain your terms and build your arguments from the ground up. I will not do your work for you.

When faced with such jargon that demands outside knowledge to interpret, I will do one of two things: I will either interpret it in a naïve and literal fashion, or failing that, I will simply ignore all mentions of all such words as something unknowable. The only way to avoid such a fate is to explain your terms and make the arguments necessary to justify the concepts behind those terms.

Role of the Ballot:My blank slate-ness extends to the role of the ballot. A good debater will explain to me how and why I'm voting. I will default to policy maker if no role of the ballot is articulated, but otherwise will explicitly follow the winning role of the ballot in determining my decision.

On evidence:The purpose of evidence is to introduce facts, testimony, and data to the round. If you need these things, and you should, read evidence to introduce them. However, while argument uses evidence, argument itself does not need to be evidenced. Argument stands or falls on the merit of the speech act, regardless of who makes it. So I don't need you to read evidence that is someone else making argument. It would be much better (for all of us) if you made the argument in your own words (with reference to properly evidenced facts).So, for example, if you wanted to make Foucault's argument about biopolitics, you'd still need to cite the facts necessary to make that argument. But the argument itself can be made, by you, without reading Foucault's words off a page in the round. (Do feel free to tell me that it's Foucault's argument – even paraphrasing needs citation. What it doesn't need is slavish adherence to text).

On burden of proof:Teams have the burden of proof for any argument they introduce. This means 100% defense is quite possible. The other team doesn't have to prove it won't happen – you have to prove it will.Arguments must succeed on their own merits (be logically valid) in the first speech they occur. Any argument which is incomplete will be summarily dismissed and ignored as if it never happened. Generally this means that you failed to read part of the argument, like a disadvantage without impacts or an affirmative case without solvency. (Opponents should still point out failures of logic. In cases which are not clear cut, the logical validity may be argued, and I will need to determine if the argument is valid before I assess if it is sound and what its impact is in the round. But in the blatant case where a full part of the argument is missing, I will stop flowing the argument and treat it as if it never happened). An argument which is logically invalid has 0% risk, by definition.

Roadmaps and signposting:Roadmaps tell me what order my flow papers should be in. It should consist of a list of names corresponding to the names of arguments = names of flow papers. (When you introduce a new argument, like a disad, please give it a name that you read out loud, so I know what to call it). Do not tell me 'and then i'll do some line-by-line' – line-by-line is not the name of a piece of flow paper, it's a technique (and it should be embedded into your normal argumentation, not separated out as something strange and unusual). If you are introducing new arguments, you can just tell me how many blank pages I'll need for those – the name should come during your speech.Signposting tells me which specific argument you're about to answer. Please do it frequently. Good signposting can earn up to 1 bonus speaker point from me, above what you would otherwise get.

Kuiper, KerykCurrent Affiliation: Lane Tech/Northern Iowa 

Debate Experience: 5 Years, NDT Qualifier  

How many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): 30ish 

How comfortable do you feel with debate?

Very comfortable with speed and jargon. Haven’t much time researching the high school topic as I would of liked, so not as familer with acronyms or the resolution as some but moderately as I have judged many debates on this topic

DISADVANTAGES: 

really don’t like the politics disad but id rather a team do what they do best than base their strategy off of me as a judge. I ran disads for a couple years and am comfortable with the disad outweighs case debate and vice versa – yes an affirmative can win no risk of the disad

TOPICALITY and THEORY: 

T debates can either be very interesting and enjoyable if deployed correctly and debated well but very disappointing if deployed lazily so if T is your main strategy against an affirmative more power to you but if you’re looking for a 2nr that wins on T it needs to be fleshed out beyond the simple extensions of Fairness, Education etc. See my response to how comfortable I am to the topic for more specific T arguments about the resolution

COUNTER PLANS:  

These can be very interesting. I’m a big fan of PIC’s that are creatively constructed and using 1ac evidence as solvency is totally viable. Not as persuaded by perm theory as some but understand the usage of it and can be valid in some instances – if a theory debate that’s larger then perm theory (more PIC bad, Agent, Condo etc) then you should reference my answer to the above question on Topicality about how I would prefer the impact debate to be fleshed out

KRITQUES: 

Love these. Easily my favorite argument in debate – but because of this I am much more critical of the way these are run. I enjoy very well done kritik debate and as far as literature is concerned I am very familiar with everything ranging from postmodernist concepts (Bataille, Nietzsche etc.) to more identity based kritiks (Anitblackness, Queer Theory etc.)

The alt is optional as long as there is a well thought out and executed explanation of how the kritik can act as a nonunique disad and outweighs the affirmative

The link explanation needs to be contextualized to the affirmative and more then just the extension of the card you read in the 1nc

As far as framework is concerned I tend to lean heavily neg on it. I think your time is better spent debating the substance of the kritik instead of trying to exclude it

CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES:  

I am a big fan of these too, as I have been running K-Affs for the last 2 or 3 years. I enjoy them and thnk their discussion is valuable and whether or not its tied to the topic is up for debate (as long as the movement away from the topic is clearly and explicity defending.

Recently I have started running framework in College and am more understanding/likely to listen and judge the arguments you make on framework. I would rather you had a unique topicality violation instead of long form framework because I find I lean negative on model of debate questions. See topicality for more about this.

Describe any stylistics items you would like to share.  

As far as line by line is concerned, while I understand embedded clash is an inevitability I would prefer that both teams try as hard as possible to draw lines for me on the flow argument to argument – this helps prevent judge intervention and leads to much better decisions – the same goes for signposting.

Warranted analysis that has all three parts of an argument should be prioritized over speed

Tag team is fine as long as it’s not overbearing

Email chain always works better – Kerykk@gmail.com

Madda, Joseph

Current Affiliation: St. Ignatius College Prep

Debate Experience: 

High school debater and extemporaneous speaker (4 years).  State extemporaneous speaking champion in Wisconsin.  This is my first year as an assistant debate coach. I have made over 1,000 presentations during a 40-year professional career.  I teach and write about personal communication skills both in person with private students and online at my blog.

How many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): 14 

How comfortable are you with debate? Very comfortable

DISADVANTAGES: No preferences.  Political DA’s are fine.  Affirmative can win no risk of the DA.

TOPICALITY and THEORY: Topicality and theory approaches are acceptable if well argued.  Generally I find T is better left to varsity division as novices have difficulty understanding the theory of it and mounting a plausible argument based on it. COUNTER PLANS:  No preferences.

KRITQUES and Critical Affitmatives:No preferences.  However, as noted above with T, generally I find K is better left to varsity division as novices have difficulty understanding the theory of it and mounting a plausible argument based on it.

Describe any stylistics items you would like to share.  Many debaters, particularly at novice level, talk too fast and their speech intelligibility suffers accordingly.  If they only slow down slightly, (say a reduction in 20-30 wps), their delivery often improves.Sign-posting is very helpful for the judge in order to follow the flow of argumentation.  Line-by-line, warranting, and flashing are all fine.  Tag-teaming is acceptable if both teams agree to it.

Madigan, SeanCurrent Affiliation: Ogden Head CoachDebate Experience: Coach for 3 yearsHow many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): 25 How comfortable are you with debate? Fairly comfortable with debate but prefer judging novice as I want to focus more on arguments themselves than getting into the technicalities of case types. Strong knowledge of resolution. Acronyms I don’t know I can easily parse out. Have a good knowledge of many of the non-Core Files. 

DISADVANTAGES:  I believe that for a DA to win, it has to outweigh case in impact. Negs really have to make that clear if they go for a DA. I’m okay with most politics, but am more interested in international relations DAs (India, North Korea, Japan). That shows debaters are going beyond their own scope of understandings. TOPICALITY and THEORY: T is usually the last thing I will vote on. For a T to really persuade me, it has to show that there is demonstrable harm by considering the AFF. It can’t just be calling foul on another team.

Theory is more interesting to me. If a debater can really effectively demonstrate that engaging with an argument goes against the spirit of debate, I’m way more interested in what they have to say. I find that, again, using it to call out another team isn’t effective, but showing how it can challenge and limit a strong debate is far more interesting. COUNTER PLANS:  I’m not usually sold on CPs since many of them seem tacked onto the original case with no understanding of how the CP would link. If a CP is used, it has to be really specific to the original case. Any type of CP is okay, I just mostly care how well and effectively they link.

KRITQUES:   I actually really like Ks, but again, they have to link to the specific case. The most effective NEG strats for me are the ones that have logic to how the K is used in tandem with anything else. I’m fine with most of the Ks I’ve heard as long as they again link. CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES:   I’ve only judged a few Critical Aff rounds and I often find myself becoming disengaged quickly. It lacks a tangibility to me and often feels as if it’s there to prove how esoteric the AFF can be. Describe any stylistics items you would like to share.   Signposting is KEY, it really makes my job as judge easier.Okay with tag-team except during maverick debates.Flashing is fine by me again as long as its equal.

Miller, CaitlinFormer LD debater, UDL coach of many years. Currently running the program at Jones College Prep in Chicago. Please don't use this as an end-all, be-all paradigm. I vote for which team won the flow. Do this by telling me what to vote on and why. I like any debate that is well-organized, well-played, and where I learn something from you. I enjoy strategy, warrants, explanations, clarity, a good overview or two, nicely parsed out procedurals on T/FW/theory, line-by-line, and clash with evidence. I can handle speed, but there's no sub for clarity. If you see me not flowing, that is a problem. I've been known to stop flowing if I have to figure out, with great difficulty, where I should be. I find myself increasingly on the email chain lately--can't quite explain why, maybe it's mostly interest--but don't feel like you're doing anything wrong if I ask. I am a fairly laid-back judge in round. I don't keep a running clock, but just don't abuse it. Conduct: Racist, sexist, homophobic, misgendered, transphobic, ableist evidence, arguments, or language will result in an automatic loss and little to no speaks from me. Cards about rape/sexual violence should definitely not be read if I am your judge. Ridiculous abuse arguments that reek of butthurtrather than actually legitimate arguments about the debate space or education. I'm an educator and a former debater. I take those roles seriously. I believe strongly that debate is a space for everyone. I don't take kindly to condescension, humiliation, or general rudeness because you've been lucky enough to have collectively more rounds, expensive camps, or experienced coaches. Humility gets you everywhere. Don't be a jerk. General Stuffs: Affs: I like everything. Performance/Kritikal/ Policy. I'd say, since I have an LD background, that I definitely lean towards the k side in terms of my preferences and I would consider myself to be an ethical decision maker, but that doesn't mean I don't wear a policy hat from time to time. I think both sides of the round need to clash with case as much as possible. I judge too many rounds where case gets lost, and it makes me sad. CX: Either my most favorite part of the debate or my most dreaded. I love playfulness, sarcasm, and humor, but not to the point of humiliation. I tend to vote teams down on speaks if, in knowing that your opponent has less experienced than you, you are still a jerk. I give high speaks to teams who critically utilize their CX to advance a strategy. I like being able to anticipate where you're going in the round with the line of questioning you're putting forth.Topicality: I tend to default to reasonability or CI. Not someone who tends to vote on T, but I have. However, I appreciate it as a procedural argument. I prefer T to be super clean and slllllooooooowww down. "We run a camp/core aff" is a pretty terminal aff defense in front of me. I will vote on dropped T as long as the impacts for this are reasonably explained. Kritiks:Love Ks. Well, most. Not a huge fan of death and Baudrillard but I have voted for them in the past. I want to see that the teams running Ks in front of me can substantially explain the K lit to me in their own words. Aff must use FW/T to answer the K and hopefully do it well. Have a mechanism to your alt. Don't be vague or lazy. What does the alt DO? Links: tell a consistent story with your K and that is done through link analysis. I hate when teams just try to dazzle with a fancy K and then not spend the time on the overarching story. 

Explain perms. Parse it out. Substantiate it. Framework: I love good FW debate IF it’s done well. If it’s the same tired stasis point arg, you might see me yawning in the back. DAs/CPs: Fine, fine. Need strong impacts on DAs, and link link link. Prep good frontlines on aff. Love a good tix DA. Elections, I think, still underrated. Recencymandatory. Tend to vote a lot on timeframe with DAs. PICs are fine as long as you substantiate the differences w/aff. Tend not to prefer most agent CPs unless the NBs are super duper worth it. I tend to view CPs as mainly just a test of competition. Just like with Ks, make the perm debate thorough. Rebuttals: I always find myself nitpicking the time allocation of rebuttals. Work with your partner to effectively split block and structure rebuttals.Really hate laundry list impact calc. Hone in on your 1-2 strongest points. Process the debate. Argue and extend warrants, not tags. Overviews, big picture, tell the story.

Nguyen, Amanda

Lane Tech c/o 2016 and I debated for 3 years from my sophomore to my senior year. My sophomore year was pretty much all policy because it was novice year. However, as JV, my partner and I read Kritiks all the time (Death and Batman). My last year, we ran all K affs every time we could. I think those are super interesting.I don’t even think I know what the topic this year is. I judged back in the fall but I forgot!! (Sorry, I am super busy in college) Please understand, and maybe try to explain things a bit more to me. I am great with speed. Just slow down during tags (obviously) and most IMPORTANTLY, BE NICE. I deduct points for acting otherwise. It is annoying and rude, especially during CX if you’re interrupting someone else speaking. Disads: I’m good. Do it right.Ks: I love ‘em. They’re fun and I always love hearing what new things teams are creating.Performance affs: What should debate look like, ideally? I’m all for opening up the debate space and talking about the education that the aff brings in and I think that the neg should hold the aff up to a high standard in what they’re trying to change in the debate space. Be creative! I remember my novice year, I heard a team read a Harry Potter aff and I thought it was hilarious and creative.Side note: I don’t even think I know what the topic this year is. I judged back in the fall but I forgot!! (Sorry, I am super busy in college) Please understand, and maybe try to explain things a bit more to me. I am great with speed. Just slow down during tags (obviously) and most IMPORTANTLY, BE NICE. I deduct points for acting otherwise. It is annoying and rude, especially during CX if you’re interrupting someone else speaking. 

Huynh, Mindy

Mid-20s working professional based in Chicago now, debated competively on a national level (some type of finalist and/or speaker awards at most tournaments).  Policy debater in high school for 4 years (of which 2 years I was captain), active coaching and judging for my alma mater a year afterwards.  Been out of the scene for about 5 years and this is my first year judging since then.

I debated in high school for four years and was the policy debate captain for two of those years.  I competed nationally and have placed and gotten speaker awards at major tournaments.  However, I did not debate in college but remained active in the debate community for about a year.  However, I'm currently a few years out of college so I would say I've been out of the scene for about almost 5 years.  As a result, I'd definitely advise you to stay away from using any topic-related acronyms because I don't keep up with them. 

At the end of the round, I need to hear how you and your partner believe the round should be framed and compare that reason to the other team's. I don't have a preference towards what type of arguments you run as long as there's clash and explanations for why your arguments are viable. I will not believe an argument if you're only doing tagline extensions. 

I was a 1A/2N when I debated in high school and was flexible taking and going for anything.  Nowadays, as I've been far removed from the community, I would prefer patience and explanation especially on kritiks. I would like you to help frame how I should evaluate the round and argue it like any other debate argument with structure and clash. As long as that happens, running a kritik is definitely fine. 

I will flow as long as you are clear. Do not only be clear on the taglines. I like to hear the warrants of the cards you're reading and murmuring through them won't help.  Just getting back in the community so I'm sure my listening skills to spreading has deteriorated.  Sorry, I know that's not what you want to hear.

Patel, Ayesha

I debated for 3 years in high school and have judged a few tournaments since then. So, I am not well read on the topics.

- Don't use acronyms, if you do, explain them first

- I'll vote on any argument, as long as it is articulated well

- Explain your arguments throughout the debate, from the beginning

- DON'T BE A JERK

- Speak/spread clearly

Paulsen, SeanCurrent Affiliation: N/ADebate Experience: 4 years HS, 2 years college, 5 years coachingHow many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): 0 How comfortable are you with debate?I debated in Indiana, which is a comparatively slower state, so I’ll always have a vague preference for a pace that is less than breakneck, but I can flow anything. I’m familiar with most of theory with the exception of some K lit,  I’ve read some of the more prominent articles and am familiar with a variety of topicality interpretations. I’ll be fine with acronyms.

DISADVANTAGES: I’m rarely swayed by Politics DAs without a serious commitment to evaluating how the aff uniquely bites the link. I’m similarly uninterested in generic impact scenarios that don’t tie directly to a type of act the aff commits, especially without some serious work done to tie them to it. Generic DAs as a time suck bother me because I think everyone’s time in the round is valuable, and those arguments waste it. However, I’ll listen to anything that’s well-argued, and DAs are not exception. TOPICALITY and THEORY: I love a good T debate, emphasis on good. If the neg goes for a lot of squirrelly interpretations with a distinct lack of evidence, I’m likely to penalize them. Competing interpretations is a good way to keep me out of what could be a very arbitrary reasonability standard, although the aff doesn’t have to prove they have the best of all possible interpretations, only that theirs provides a reasonable enough limit for the neg to debate it. I won’t vote on abuse in the abstract, there has to be some clear link to how the neg was disadvantaged as a result of the aff. Education and fairness are good standards when they’re argued well.  COUNTER PLANS:  CP theory is a lot of fun and hugely underutilized by most debaters. I don’t have any specific preference on CPs other than they should be held to a high solvency standard, at least compared to the aff. The neg getting up and introducing a flimsy CP text followed by a generic solvency card and a briefly explained net benefit will not easily win my ballot.

KRITQUES:  I’ll listen to any K. Alts to the SQ should be as specific as the theory that is being kritiked—if I am to reject capitalism, communism (or some other systemic approach) is likely the avenue to be pursued. The neg will win my ballot most often when they effectively argue that the framework of the debate should be something other than a traditional squo v plan approach.

I’m not the best judge on framework – I’ll listen to it, though I haven’t coached it often and I didn’t often pursue while debating.  

CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES:  I’ll listen to anything that is thorough and well-prepared. In a round between two teams defending a core advocacy, it has to be carefully outlined to me how I should view my ballot, and what you want me to do with it. Describe any stylistics items you would like to share. Good line-by-line is reliable way to win me over. Signposting is key, if I lose you on the flow, I’m not going to write things down. Power tags are a huge pet peeve, and I’ll be listening to the internals to see how accurate your tag was.

Tag-team is fine as long as it’s primarily driven by the designated speaker.

Salgado, MartinCurrent Affiliation: Lane TechDebate Experience: Debated 3 years during high schoolHow many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): 2 How comfortable are you with debate?Very comfortable with jargon, speed is not an issue as long as It’s loud and audible. If a debater is mumbling or tripping themselves over too many words, I’d prefer they slow themselves down. I prefer to actually hear what you’re saying as speed won’t impress me. Slow down while reading analytics. I’m quite comfortable with this year’s topic. I am very familiar with the acronyms and I have familiarity with some of the non-core files cases. DISADVANTAGES: Risk of DA is a prerequisite for me. I’m open to all DA’s as long as the risk factor is well cemented and presented to me in proper fashion. Politics DA’s are fine.

TOPICALITY and THEORY: I’d prefer both topicality and theory be raised where a team can clearly present the need for their presence. If you’re going for this, I’m expecting you to go full throttle because if you have a very weak set of arguments, I’ll feel like you’re taking away from what could have been a more competitive debate. I enjoy Effects topicality arguments. Fairness & Education are the most salient standards for me. COUNTER PLANS:  No preference, just fortify your net-benefit arguments.

KRITQUES:  I love performance K’s done right. I enjoy hearing Death/Nietzsche K’s. I wholeheartedly dislike alts involving the neg demanding that the aff martyr themselves for the round.  CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES: No preferences, I’m up for anything! Creativity should be at a high level. Describe any stylistics items you would like to share.  Tag team is perfectly fine, but in cases where there is a maverick team it shall not be allowed. E-mail chains are preferable. If you use flash drives, make sure you get it back right away. Let me know when and what you’re moving on to when doing a line-by-line. Don’t expect me to know where you want me to flow things.

Sauer, BenjaminBackground: In college I debated on the national circuit and competed in impromptu speaking, persuasion and CA/rhet crit. I formerly coached collegiate parliamentary and policy debate, and I now regularly judge policy debate and moot court competitions (University of Chicago Law graduate). I currently serve on the Board of Directors of the Milwaukee Urban Debate League. Judging Philosophy: I favor a policy making / stock issues philosophy. Ideally the AFF should advocate a policy topical to the resolution, and the NEG should explain why I should reject the specific policy case made by AFF.

Quick Tips: Speak clearly. Do not simply argue a tagline. Argue the evidence. Argue the logic.Maintain clash. Go down the flow. Debate line-by-line. Avoid jumping all over the flow.Provide a voting framework. Identify the voting issues.Restate your thesis in the rebuttal. Present the key compelling issues for your side.Provide impact assessments informed by relative risk analysis and evidence. Take advantage of the cross examination to force concessions and formulate your arguments.Do not be rude. Play nice. Be witty. Smile. Have fun.

Speed: I have no problem with spreading. That said, debate is communicative. I need to be able to hear your arguments, including your claims, warrants, impacts, links and evidence. I will let you know if I am having a hard time hearing you by saying "clear" or "louder." If I cannot understand you because you are not speaking clearly enough due to speed, any arguments you make will not be flowed. I do not have your cards or speeches in front of me, so while your opponent may have them and can follow along more easily, I can only flow and follow what you communicate to me in your speeches. Please remember that the quality of each of your arguments can be more important than the quantity of arguments made, and I dislike strategies that use spreading to force concessions out of another team instead of actual clash on the policy arguments.

Calling for Cards: I do not call for cards unless a team specifically claims some form of falsification of evidence by the opposing team. So no, I do not want to be on your e-mail chain. Do not rely on a call for cards as a way to speak more quickly and less clearly. Do not expect me to weigh evidence by calling for cards. I expect you to argue the evidence in the round. If I am reading your written evidence and arguments supplemented by oral arguments, I am now judging a moot court competition, not policy debate.

Stock Issues: I will vote on stock issues. Significance arguments should have fleshed out impact assessments with relative risk analysis supported by evidence. While I try to keep my background knowledge from affecting my decision, I am able to spot ridiculous arguments that involve areas in my background (economics, law and political theory). Topicality arguments that are well developed and given time during the 1NC/2NC are more likely to be successful, and the NEG should explain how AFF violated a reasonable and fair framework. If you are going to argue topicality and the AFF asks what a topical plan would look like under your framework for topicality, you need to be able to give an answer. If you cannot provide an example of topicality under your own framework, your argument is very unlikely to persuade.

Cross Examination: I think cross examination is an extremely important and undervalued tool in current policy debate. I will flow a CX that adds arguments or forces concessions, and I recommend flowing those developments into your speeches. Do not be elusive in response to questions. A simple "I don't know" is an acceptable response if you do not know the answer. I expect a witness only to ask questions to the questioner when seeking clarification, and I have no problem with a questioner interrupting a witness, especially if a witness is attempting to filibuster, to ask for more concise answers or to stop a witness if an answer is sufficient. I do not prefer tag teaming on CX, and I award higher speaker points for individuals who do not rely on verbal assistance from a partner in asking or answering questions or making speeches.

Performance / Critiques of Debate: I do not enjoy performance debate or meta-critiques of debate. That said, I will not vote on a "Performance is inappropriate" or "Current debate practices are good" / "Status quo debate is good" without an argument stating so from the opposing team. If the opposition concedes framework, I will not vote on it, but if the opposition makes it a voting issue, I will. Counterplans: I will vote for a competitive CP that provides a reason to reject the AFF's policy. I am not a good judge for a PIC, particularly if your PIC includes the entirety of the AFF's plan. If a CP accepts or results in all of AFF's plan, competition arguably does not exist. That said, I will not vote against it outright without AFF attacking the competitiveness / theory of the CP. Permutations test the CP. Be careful not to use a permutation to amend the CP or adopt things different from the originally proposed CP. I am hesitant about multiple CPs and kritiks, so keep your conditionality within reasonable constraints (i.e. two or three is reasonable, five or six is not). Unless otherwise stated, I default to unconditional CPs. If the status quo remains an option for me to consider, the NEG should tell me. I vote on what I am told, and I dislike doing work for the debater. If you are attacking AFF's case and running a CP, I will infer some amount of conditionality to the CP and that the status quo is an option, but you will receive higher speaker points for making that link for me.

Kritiks: I am not opposed to a K, but the NEG needs to link the K to the AFF's policy. A K with significant impacts without an explained logical link to the AFF's plans and evidence has minimal utility. The K should have an alt that competes with AFF's plan, links to AFF's plan and is a conditional policy option. Successful Ks will provide a reason to accept or reject AFF's specific policy. Also, if you are running a K-AFF or a K, you need to make sure that you are not speaking so quickly that I cannot follow or understand. Ks can involve a lot of specific philosophical terms and concepts, and I am not extensively familiar with the entire realm of philosophical thought (NB: I am familiar with a lot of economic, legal and political theories). Make sure that you go slower for your Ks and don't use a term without explaining what that term means. If I am a blank slate, then I have no outside knowledge of your particular theory, and you have to educate me.

Decorum: You will probably not lose my vote for being offensive (e.g. excessively swearing in round), but you will likely lose speaker points. I expect you to stand when presenting constructive and rebuttal speeches and engaging in CX.

Sheikh, HibaAbout MeI did policy debate for 4 years at Whitney M Young Magney High School in Chicago from 2009-2013. I currently attend Loyola University Chicago and do Parliamentary Debate. I worked at the Chicago Debate Summer Institute on the oceans topic.ParadigmWhile I was at Whitney Young, I debated both locally at Chicago Debate League tournments and at national circuit tournaments. I am familiar with general debate conventions. I would like to think (and try my best to achieve) that I am unbiased and will generally vote on any well articulated argument made in the round. I know that isn't a very satisfying answer so I'll discuss some of my preconceived notions of what debate should look like on this page. Always feel free to prove me wrong; debate is an evolving activity and I would like to think that I am not opposed to changing as the activity changes. I genuinely enjoyed policy debate in high school and want it to be an inclusive, fun, and educational activity.KsI am familiar with most of the popular ks (capitalism, security, heidegger, etc). While I have some basic understanding of philosophy and have run and debated against most Ks, I am not well-versed in all of the literature. Try not to be too technical if it isn't necessary. For example, if debaters don't explain to me what the "hyperreal" is and how it functions in regards to the affirmative plan I am less likely to vote on the Baudrillard K. I also expect teams that run Ks to understand the arguments that they are making. It is really frustrating to watch an unorganized and incoherent K debate. Do not read Ks that have weak links, or do not engage the plan.Non-Traditional/Non-Topical DebateI have very little experience judging non traditional teams. I know that it is becoming more and more common within the debate community. Insofar as I have littler experience with these kinds of arguments I would suggest that teams spend more time explaining your arguments.TopicalityI am fine with it. In depth topicality debates can be interesting. I'm not inclined to vote on potential abuse unless given a very compelling reason.TheoryI will listen to all theoretical objections raised during the round, however I am more inclined to reject the argument and not the team. You probably won't win on potential abuse. But if it's dropped I'll vote on it.Other:Judge intervention is a bad thing. Don't force me to have to intervene by doing impact calculous and comparative analysis in the rebuttals.I stop prep time when the flash drive has been ejected from the computer. Don't steal prep.Clarity over speed. I feel like this is something everyone has been told, but not everyone has internalized. Don't try to speak faster than you are able to.If I don't understand what you are saying, then i'm not flowing it.Being competitive is not a justification for being rude, racist, sexist, homophobic or anything of that nature. I will dock speaker points for this kind of behavior. Treat everyone in the round with respect; We are all sacrificing our weekends to be at the tournament and want to have a good time.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask me in round or you can email me at hibasheikh95@gmail.com

Shields, SammyCurrent Affiliation: Wheaton College

Conflicts (Please list any past associations you’ve had with a school/organization in the last 3 years--i.e. coaching, debating and/or attending): Whitney Young

Debate Experience: 4-years of National Circuit Policy Debate

How many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): About 8

How comfortable are you with debate?

I am fine with spreading and all debate jargon, but the speaker just needs to speak clearly. I am familiar with this year’s resolution; however, I am not sure which cases are also core-file cases. I can do more research into that though. I am more familiar with non-Core file cases from judging at tournaments and helping whenever possible this year.

DISADVANTAGES: Although I primarily spent my time in high-school reading K’s and performance affs, I did engage with DA’s at several camps, card cutting, and when coaching. I have judged policy rounds usually and am more than willing to vote for a team that won on the DA. Teams can win no-risk of the DA if there isn’t a proper link established to the Aff, the DA is non-unique and if there is no I/L to the impact. If a team takes out the impact it does not mean that there is necessarily no-risk of the DA, but that the Affirmative outweighs any risk of the DA because there is not an impact to the DA, or “harm,” produced.

TOPICALITY and THEORY: I have a moderate-high threshold for T because it requires a technicality that I have rarely seen

executed, and I that I sometimes could not execute. I believe that T is made, or killed, by the way the negative team can distinguish their interpretation from the Affirmative teams, which includes word distinctions, and caselist that do/don’t meet your interpretation. Lastly, I believe that the impacts of education, fairness, etc. do not just speak for themselves, but need to be fleshed out fully, and paint a picture for the opposing worlds of debate that each definition creates. For both theory and T, I believe it is important to focus on one of these options in the 2NR/2AR. These arguments deserve a time commitment. COUNTER PLANS: Share any preference you may have. Is there any particular CP theory (Agent, PIC, perm theory) you are particularly persuaded by? I do not have a moderate threshold for agent counterplans and well-written PICS, but I have a high-threshold and might vote on theory for Process CP’s and abusive PICS. I am persuaded by Condo when there are more than 2 conditional advocacies, but I still will vote on Condo if there are two conditional advocacies and the team argued it well. I am also persuaded by PIC theory, if I can also identify the as being an abusive PIC. I am not persuaded by perm theory if argued as a reason to reject the team.

KRITQUES: Share any preference you may have. Are there any Ks or alternatives you do not like? Please include any relevant preferences on Framework.I love K debate. I am fine with any K you would like to read in-front of me. I have either argued for or against any major K out there. I spent my last two years reading variations of Anti-blackness and

Psychoanalysis/Security K. I prefer more elaborate alternatives, but I also am fine with reject alternatives if the Neg can paint a picture of what the world looks like for the K, in contrast to the Aff. I believe the Negs Framework should be something that ACTUALLY gives you offense on the K, and I believe the AFF should interact with this Framework, and have a counter-interpretation more creative than “the squo, or a competitive policy option.” CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES: I read performance affs since my Novice year, and have touched on all the major topics from Transportation Structural Violence, to the anti-black coding of bodies through biometric surveillance. I believe that if you are reading a performance aff, the ENTIRE round is a performance, which means that the CX interactions and language used throughout the round matters. I also believe that there must be some level of interaction with the resolution, or nuance in how the AFF chooses to interact with the resolution. Lastly, I feel that there must be a better form of interaction with the AFF from the NEG beyond Framework. I believe that T might be a better argument against these performance teams if you were thinking about reading Framework. Even with T, I still think that there is a deeper level of argumentation and interaction that could be taking place, and as a 2N who hit several performance AFFs, I found that link to my K, and ran it effectively (for the most part ).

Describe any stylistics items you would like to share. Great line-by-line is a real ethos builder for me, and implicit argumentation is even better, but from first-hand experience, is not always effective if not done the right way, or with the wrong judge. I think an argument is a claim AND a warrant, and in some cases, evidence is ended. I believe you should always sign-post not only because it adds clarity to arguments; in addition, it makes flowing and evaluating my flows easier. I was a debater, so do NOT try and steal prep when flashing. I can tell. It’s annoying, disrespectful and illegal. Therefore, let’s try and flash as efficiently as possible and not steal prep.

Skelton, TomCurrent Affiliation: NoneDebate Experience:  2 years in high school at OPRF.  I have judged on and off since 2008 in St. Louis’s and Chicago’s UDL.How many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): 0 How comfortable are you with debate?Good on the jargon. I don’t mind spreading, but the debater must make sense. The tag lines and author should be clear/slow too.Not too familiar with this year’s case, obviously. I am a fast learner though. Might need some time to learn the acronyms. DISADVANTAGES: I don’t like generic DAs which tends to include politics DAs. If the DA is generic and has a generic link, I’ll find a way to not vote for the DA. This year’s topic might have better politics DAs than most though. TOPICALITY and THEORY:  There are usually plans every year that are on the edge of not being topical. Neg should only run T for these plans. If the plan is clearly topical, I’ll think Neg is either sandbagging or haven’t thought about their strategy. Same with theory. Some arguments are clearly abusive/unfair, but I don’t want to vote for a generic theory argument.

COUNTER PLANS: No, I think the CP argument should be about the net benefit of the CP. So, if it’s an Agent CP or PIC, it’s fine with me if there is a strong argument that there is a net benefit to the CP.

KRITQUES:  I rather have Aff treat the K like a DA to the case. I don’t want Neg to completely abandon the policy framework. I will vote for any K if it’s well argued, but Neg must explain why the plan or Aff’s language is particularly susceptible to the K. I guess that is a little anti-K, but I don’t want Neg to completely abandon the policy framework or just repeat the clichés associated with the K. There must to be some connection to Aff’s plan or Aff’s language for me to vote on the K. i.e. Aff talks a lot about nuclear war or something like that.

CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES: Well, the critical aff should be somewhat topical even if it’s in the gray area of topicality. I don’t care about the performance (most debate can sound bad anyway). Describe any stylistics items you would like to share. Line-by-line: GoodSignposting: Also good.Warranting: GoodTag-team: I’ll allow it, but I’ll deduct points if one partner dominates the c/x.Flashing: Ok, but I will call for cards if I want to.

Gutierrez, JessieCurrent Affiliation: none/judgeDebate Experience: I don’t have debate experience, but I have judged.How many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): 6How comfortable are you with debate in general (i.e. jargon, speed)?I am ok with speed. I will get better with more experience. I don’t know the acronyms, or non-case files but I can learn. DISADVANTAGES: I am not quite sure what Das are, and I have no preference. TOPICALITY and THEORY: I vote for T when they follow the resolution, or when they persuade me that they are in the right at the debate. Other than that, I have no preference.

COUNTER PLANS: No there is no particular CP theory I am persuaded by. CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES: I am not often persuaded by topicality, but when I do the debaters have done a great job at enticing me into picking them as the winners of the debate round.

Sultana, SobiaCurrent Affiliation: Northside

Debate Experience: debated for Northside through 2015

How many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): 15

Not crazy familiar with all the kritikal arguments, so if you are highly critical, need to really spell out your alt and impacts for me. LOVE Nietzsche

To win:-line by line-not just impact calc, but need to compare the process of your impact occuring with the other impacts in the round. - I need a clear role of the ballot otherwise I default to what I see best. -don't use problematic language/offensive language.

Tang, WayneCurrent Affiliation: Northside College Prep Conflicts (Please list any past associations you’ve had with a school/organization in the last 3 years--i.e coaching, debating and/or attending): Maine EastDebate Experience:How many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): 60 General Background:Former HS debater in the stone ages (1980s) HS coach for over many years at Maine East (1992-2016). I coach on the north shore of Chicago. I typically attend and judge around 15-18 tournaments a season and generally see a decent percentage of high level debates. However, I am not a professional teacher/debate coach, I am a patent attorney in my real (non-debate) life and thus do not learn anything about the topic (other than institutes are overpriced) over the summer. I like to think I make up for that by being a quick study and through coaching and judging past topics, knowing many recycled arguments.

DISADS AND ADVANTAGESIntelligent story telling with good evidence and analysis is something I like to hear. I generally will vote for teams that have better comparative impact analysis (i.e. they take into account their opponents’ arguments in their analysis). It is a hard road, but I think it is possible to reduce risk to zero or close enough to it based on defensive arguments.

TOPICALITYI vote on T relatively frequently over the years. I believe it is the negative burden to establish the plan is not topical. Case lists and arguments on what various interpretations would allow/not allow are very important. I have found that the limits/predictability/ground debate has been more persuasive to me, although I will consider other standards debates. Obviously, it is also important how such standards operate once a team convinces me of their standard. I will also look at why T should be voting issue. I will not automatically vote negative if there is no counter-interpretation extended, although usually this is a pretty deep hole for the aff. to dig out of. For example, if the aff. has no counter-interpretation but the neg interpretation is proven to be unworkable i.e. no cases are topical then I would probably vote aff. As with most issues, in depth analysis and explanation on a few arguments will outweigh many 3 word tag lines.

COUNTERPLANSCase specific CPs are preferable that integrate well (i.e. do not flatly contradict) with other negative positions. Clever wording of CPs to solve the Aff and use Aff solvency sources are also something I give the neg. credit for. It is an uphill battle for the Aff on theory unless the CP/strategy centered around the CP does something really abusive. The aff has the burden of telling me how a permutation proves the CP non-competitive.

KRITIKSNot a fan, but I have voted on them numerous times (despite what many in the high school

community may believe). I will never be better than mediocre at evaluating these arguments because unlike law, politics, history and trashy novels, I don’t read philosophy for entertainment nor have any interest in it. Further (sorry to my past assistants who have chosen this as their academic career), I consider most of the writers in this field to be sorely needing a dose of the real world (I was an engineer in undergrad, I guess I have been brainwashed in techno-strategic discourse/liking solutions that actually accomplish something). In order to win, the negative must establish a clear story about 1) what the K is; 2) how it links; 3) what the impact is at either the policy level or: 4) pre-fiat (to the extent it exists) outweighs policy arguments or other affirmative impacts. Don’t just assume I will vote to reject their evil discourse, advocacy, lack of ontology, support of biopolitics, etc. Without an explanation I will assume a K is a very bad non-unique Disad in the policy realm. As such it will probably receive very little weight if challenged by the aff. You must be able to distill long boring philosophical cards read at hyperspeed to an explanation that I can comprehend. I have no fear of saying I don’t understand what the heck you are saying and I will absolutely not vote for issues I don’t understand. (I don’t have to impress anyone with my intelligence or lack thereof and in any case am probably incapable of it) If you make me read said cards with no explanation, I will almost guarantee that I will not understand the five syllable (often foreign) philosophical words in the card and you will go down in flames. I do appreciate, if not require specific analysis on the link and impact to either the aff. plan, rhetoric, evidence or assumptions depending on what floats your boat. In other words, if you can make specific applications (in contrast to they use the state vote negative), or better yet, read specific critical evidence to the substance of the affirmative, I will be much more likely to vote for you.

PERFORMANCE BASED ARGUMENTSAlso not a fan, but I have voted on these arguments in the past. I am generally not highly preferred by teams that run such arguments, so I don't see enough of these types of debates to be an expert. However, for whatever reason, I get to judge some high level performance teams each year and have some background in such arguments from these rounds. I will try to evaluate the arguments in such rounds and will not hesitate to vote against framework arguments if the team advocating non-traditional debate wins sufficient warrants why I should reject the policy/topic framework. However, if a team engages the non-traditional positions, the team advocating such positions need to answer any such arguments in order to win. In other words, I will evaluate these debates like I try to evaluate any other issues, I will see what arguments clash and evaluate that clash, rewarding a team that can frame issues, compare and explain impacts. I have spent 20 plus years coaching a relatively resource deprived school trying to compete against very well resourced debate schools, so I am not unsympathetic to arguments based on inequities in policy debates. On the other hand I have also spent 20 plus years involved in non-debate activities and am not entirely convinced that the strategies urged by non-traditional debates work. Take both points for whatever you think they are worth in such debates.

POINTS In varsity debate, I believe you have to minimally be able to clash with the other teams arguments, if you can’t do this, you won’t get over a 27.3. Anything between 28.7 and 29 means you are probably among the top 5% of debaters I have seen. I will check my points periodically against tournament averages and have adjusted upward in the past to stay within community norms. I think that if you are in the middle my points are pretty consistent. Unfortunately for those who are consistently in the top 5% of many tournaments, I have judged a lot of the best high school debaters over the years and it is difficult to impress me (e.g., above a 29). Michael Klinger, Stephen Weil, Ellis Allen, Matt Fisher and Stephanie Spies didn’t get 30s from me (and they were among my favorites of all time), so don’t feel bad if you don’t either.

OTHER STUFFI dislike evaluating theory debates but if you make me I will do it and complain a lot about it later. No real predispositions on theory other than I would prefer to avoid dealing with it.

Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex.

I do not count flashing time (or general tech screw ups) as prep time and quite frankly am not really a fascist about this kind of thing as some other judges, just don’t abuse my leniency on this.

Speed is fine (this is of course a danger sign because no one would admit that they can’t handle speed). If you are going too fast or are unclear, I will let you know. Ignore such warnings at your own peril, like with Kritiks, I am singularly unafraid to admit I didn’t get an answer and therefore will not vote on it.

I will read evidence if it is challenged by a team. Otherwise, if you say a piece of evidence says X and the other team doesn’t say anything, I probably won’t call for it and assume it says X. However, in the unfortunate (but fairly frequent) occurrence where both teams just read cards, I will call for cards and use my arbitrary and capricious analytical skills to piece together what I, in my paranoid delusional (and probably medicated) state, perceive is going on.

I generally will vote on anything that is set forth on the round. Don’t be deterred from going for an argument because I am laughing at it, reading the newspaper, checking espn.com on my laptop, throwing something at you etc. Debate is a game and judges must often vote for arguments they find ludicrous, however, I can and will still make fun of the argument. I will, and have, voted on many arguments I think are squarely in the realm of idiocy i.e. [INSERT LETTER] spec, rights malthus, Sun-Ra, the quotations and acronyms counterplan (OK I didn’t vote on either, even I have my limits), scaler collapse (twice), world government etc. (the likelihood of winning such arguments, however, is a separate matter). I will not hesitate to vote against teams for socially unacceptable behavior i.e. evidence fabrication, racist or sexist slurs etc., thankfully I have never had to do any of that in my 25+ years of judging.

Trant, KevinCurrent Affiliation: Kennedy High SchoolDebate Experience: 4 yearsHow many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): 40 How comfortable are you with debate? Very comfortable DISADVANTAGES: Please be specific with your links. I’m willing to grant the neg a generic link if the other team doesn’t challenge it, so if you are an affirmative team, please challenge the link. Politics DAs are pretty alright…I guess. TOPICALITY and THEORY:I don’t like to vote on T, but I have in the past. In order to win T, teams must do a very good job of explaining standards and voter. I find that education arguments are most persuasive.

COUNTER PLANS: I generally dislike agent counterplans. Perms are a test of competitiveness. Severance is very bad, and I would prefer teams not rely too heavily on the perm by running strong solvency attacks and theory.

KRITQUES: K’s are an important part of debate, and I think debaters should be prepared to defend the ideology of their cases. K’s can be very interesting when argued well. However, I’m not very likely to vote for the K if the affirmative has only a tenuous grasp of its K. I prefer more “mainstream” K’s like Neoliberalism or Capitalism, but I will vote for well-argued K’s that bring a high level of education to the debate round. CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES: I’d rather not have to vote on topicality. But if you’re running a critical aff , you need to be prepared to answer topicality and framework. If you run against a critical off, I expect you to be able to do more than just rest on generic framework and T arguments.

Ulmer, ClareCurrent Affiliation: NoneConflicts (Please list any past associations you’ve had with a school/organization in the last 3 years--i.e coaching, debating and/or attending): Paideia SchoolDebate Experience: 3 years on the Georgia and National CircuitHow many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): None this yearHow comfortable are you with debate? I’m good with speed; just be clear. For topic-specific jargon, slow down and explain, but for general debate jargon you’re probably fine if it’s not too unusual. Please slow down on new terms and/or explain them! I haven’t judged on this topic. DISADVANTAGES: I think politics disads are easily taken out by a smart affirmative team, even with very little evidence on their side. I don’t think the aff can really win zero risk of a disad, though, just highly mitigated risk. TOPICALITY and THEORY: Love T & theory, just make sure to contextualize everything you read to the aff. I don’t love reasonability, so if that’s your thing, please argue it well.COUNTER PLANS:  Tricky and/or clever counterplans are always impressive to me. Even standard counterplans can be very powerful if run correctly, so go for it!KRITQUES: Read Ks, but please make sure they have alts that you can explain and defend. I’m pretty flexible on Framework.CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES: I don’t have a lot of experience with K affs, but I do think they’re usually interesting. Ideally a K aff will explain why the debate space is particularly key to the conversation/debate that the aff deals with. Line by line & signposting: please do it!Tag-teaming: do it if you need to.Flashing: do it, I won’t take prep for it.

Waxman, Zane I’m Zane, debated at Brophy Prep from 2006 to 2010 and now debate for Northwestern (2010-). I’m fairly new to judging competitive debates, but I care a lot about the activity and will put a lot of effort into judging fairly/objectively etc.

go for whatever you want, I have no dispositions toward arguments and just want to see people debating well. with that in mind, I always prefer a case-specific strategy – you sound better and smarter and cool neg strats are much more fun/better for debate.

Here are some of my thoughts on the activity and how I’ll judge you – PLEASE persuade me otherwise, I like ideological change. However, in the absence of a discussion in the debate, this is how I’ll think about your business.…

A dropped argument is a true argument – However, meta matters, if your first argument on a K is framework and your thirteenth arg is “the res means the judge is the USFG” and the block answers 2AC 1 but doesn’t explicitly address 13, they haven’t “dropped” an arg and it definitely isn’t “game over.” Additionally – try not to say things like “game over,” I’ll steal something from Antonucci: the phrase is “meaningless unless you’re actually calling on me to stop the timer and yell “TKO!” Which I wouldn’t do.”

Clarity is Key - not just on tags, on the text of the cards as well. Most of constructives are spent reading evidence, it should probably be comprehensible. I'll try and flow warrants from the text of your cards, so don't just muddle it up because you want to get to your next argument.

Analytics are cool - be smart.

honest assessments are key - you're never winning everything, but you're rarely winning nothing (hopefully). Figure out what you win, what they win, tell me, and tell me why i still vote for you.

T – Reasonability does not mean that if you are “reasonably topical” you win, it means that if your COUNTER-INTERPRETATION IS REASONABLE for debate, limits, etc – you win. I have no idea what it means to be “reasonably topical.” ALSO – limits arent an impact – and fairness probably isn’t either – the 2nr/2ar need to paint a picture of how debates happen, realistic affs that would be run, and why THESE debates are good/bad for this topic/debaters in general to win. T is a disad – the violation is the link and the standards are the impact. Do impact calc.

Ks/Framework – I’m probably not going to be convinced that Ks are bad for debate, because they probably aren’t, I am more likely to be convinced that you should be able to weigh your impacts against theirs, or something along those lines. You need specific link analysis – lines of evidence from their 1ac combined with specific link cards is probably the best-case scenario for you. Be smart and use EMPIRICAL EXAMPLES – I am very persuaded by smart historical examples or modern analogies. Don’t rely on cheapshots (V2l, floating PIKs, truth=fake, etc), if you win them, baller, but make sure to combine them with substantive/technical strategy. If you expect to win on one card you read in the block – that’s fine, but MAKE THAT CLEAR IN THE BLOCK – flag it as an independent argument as early as possible.

DAs/CPs/Case – not much to say here, the more specific the better, but if you’re a politics and case kinda debater, that’s fine, there’s a reason for everything.Theory – Slow down a little bit. Blippiness won’t win you debates – in the 2ac it’s fine, as long as it’s clear, but depth in the rest of the debate is key. Combining hypothetical situations for abuse with what they actually did is best. Finally – combining theory arguments can get you far if you’re aff. Reject the arg, not the team is presumed until the side going for theory overcomes it - just labelling something a VI doesn't make it so.

Cheap shots – I’ll vote on them, but make sure that when you originally make them (be it the 2AC or the block) – you are clear about its implication for the ballot, IE – drop=loss, and why.

I'll probably have to read a solid amount of your cards if it's a dece debate, tell me how to read them so you're not unhappy with my conclusions. Spin O/W Good Card.This is a first draft, i'll try and edit it as things come up. If you have other questions, just ask me. I'm excited to be your judge, hope you have fun.When I debate, I enjoy a fun/civil atmosphere between teams. It's usually more enjoyable for everyone that way. that doesn't mean you are a pushover in cross-ex, or that you aren't aggressive. I just think it's more impressive for you to beat down your opponents with some class. have a good time.

White, VanessaCurrent Affiliation: UnaffiliatedDebate Experience: 3 years High School Policy Debate [Lakeland, NY]How many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): 0How comfortable are you with debate in general (i.e. jargon, speed)?Speed with clarity is great! I am comfortable with policy debate jargon, but not jargon specific to the topic. I am not familiar with this year’s resolution, acronyms or files , core or otherwise. 100% tabula rasa.

DISADVANTAGES: All DAs with uniqueness, link, and impact are acceptable. An affirmative can beat the DA by disproving uniqueness, link, or impact of any DA. TOPICALITY and THEORY: Topicality was my personal specialty, and I enjoy it immensely. That being said, I have not heard a good topicality argument sustained past the 2NC in 4 years. I am persuaded by any standard that the debaters tells me is persuasive, if they defend and win the position [that the standard trumps other voting reasons]. As with ALL arguments, tell me why it matters the most.

COUNTER PLANS:  Counterplans are fine. While not familiar with a ton of CP theory, I’ll listen to anything, just tell me why I should vote for it.

KRITQUES:   All Ks are fine. CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES:  I have witnessed 5 debates with critical affirmatives, each one was entertaining, but seemed exceedingly difficult to judge. I am persuaded by topicality if the negative wins the debate around the importance of topicality. If I thought that argument was tied, I default to believing that topicality matters, the aff must WIN [not just muddy] the topicality argument if they are running a critical aff. Describe any stylistics items you would like to share. 

Sign-post sign-post sign-post. Tag-team is fine. If during cross-x, you elicit a piece of information that effects the debate, you must use

time in your next speech to tell me where that piece of info fits into the debate. Your last speech should tell me which arguments win you the debate and why they win

you the debate compared to the other team’s arguments.

Williams, Shakena   

Current Affiliation: Phoenix Military Academy Experience: 4 years of high school debate, 2 years of Model UN How many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): 2 How comfortable are you with debate in general (i.e. jargon, speed)? Very comfortable. As a former debater, I am very comfortable with debate rhetoric and knowing the layout of each round. However, I’m not too much of a fan of current debaters’ speed reading since most forget to read their tags clearly and to signpost within their roadmap. I am very particular about this speed reading and that, among a few other things can completely make or break a round, especially if there’s no clash as a result of it. How comfortable do you feel with this year’s resolution? Are you familiar with acronyms and non-Core Files cases? Comfortable with this year’s resolution. It’s self-explanatory. DISADVANTAGES: I am familiar with the politics DA, they all are pretty much all the same.

TOPICALITY and THEORY: I am a big fan of Topicality, so I’m a big voter of it. If argued correctly I’m an voter of T, especially when it comes to grounds and education. COUNTER PLANS: Not a big voter on CP depending on theory and the CP alternative. KRITQUES: I am the not a big voter on Ks but will take it into consideration.

CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES: I'm good with everything as long as there’s a clear roadmap and signposting.

Preferences on line-by-line and signposting, warranting, tag-team, or flashing? I good with all those things. However, with it comes to flashing evidence I do have a 2 min time limit until I take it out of prep time

Yasuoka, Matthew Affiliation: JonesBig picture:In my dream debate round I do not have to think as I make my decision because the winning team has clearly articulated voters that demonstrate why they have won. That being said, I try not come into the round with any preconceived notions of what impacts "matter." It's not enough to read your nuke war -> extinction argument because why should I presume that extinction, death, etc. are inherently bad? Thus, it is up to the you to frame the impacts and explain why I should weigh yours a certain way. I also tend to prefer impact analysis that doesn't just say probability 100% Time frame is now, but hashes out the links in relation to the round. It is not enough to prove that X is good or that X is bad, you must win X is better/worse than Y to secure my ballot. 

Theory:I really enjoy the theory debate. Defining the paramaters of the round and what debate ought to look like is a fascinating exercise that requires lots of thinking about debate as a practice. Theory also gives you the freedom to develop fascinating, brand new arguments. That being said 2 really well reasoned arguments in your shell is better than ten blips. Also if you concede the Counter Interp, I'm pretty inclined to not vote for you on theory. Please explain why theory is a voter. Don't be afraid to impact out to the various frameworks or other flows these types of applications can really earn you speaks and strengthen theory. 

Framework:TVA is probably important. I'm agnostic on framework permutations. Examples are super important on this flow. You're probably going to be doing better if you cleverly shape your interpretation to at least include some K affs. Portable skills are probably a hot mess. The question of whether or not debate is a game matters to me. If debate is a game, I will evaluate the round differently (ie fairness, limits, etc probably become more important to me), than if it isn't a game. I'm not really a fan of most of the cards by debate authors that say "debate should be X." It's much more interesting to look at what happens when we conceive of debate in a certain way. IE if we debate about policy action what happens? Does that allow us to become more effective activists? Does it challenge the lines of impossibility? Does it lead to better education? Then, I need impact calc. I need to see comparison on impacts and also compare your stories on framework. What happens in your world of debate versus theirs? Really, I think of the interpretation as a plan text about what the debate space should do and accordingly I want to see what happens when the debate space does your plan.  

Topicality:I think my previous paradigm discouraged teams from going for T. I can be persuaded either way on reasonability/competing interps. There's a lot of rounds where entering the 2NR I would definitely vote for T. 

Kritik:I love the K as an argument and it has really shaped my reading and thinking through out my education. That being said, there are a lot of really generic Ks floating around and I am becoming increasingly inclined to punish teams on speaks that cannot explain the K in their own words and don't know their authors. That being said, it is still affs job to answer the K. Bringing in framework and/or theory is almost always a necessity. You probably want to answer link mitigation and get specific on why you link to the aff in front of me. 

Aff's Role:I'm pretty open to most role's aff wants to set for themselves. Policy? Cool. Performance? Cool. Kritikal? Cool. Project? Cool. Of course, this role is still debatable and how different roles interact with topicality, disads, etc. is debatable as well. 

Speaker points:I distribute them based on how many things you do that I've explicitly stated here, clarity, and strategy. I award speaker points on a range from 27 - 30. Overt racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-black, etc. behavior will drop your speaks substantially.  

Ziegelmueller, BillCurrent Affiliation: NorthsideHow many rounds have you judged in 2016-17 (general estimate): 5Tl;dr (I'm told this means summary): I'm an experienced debater who just recently returned to judge. I'll vote on anything, but I lean policy. I will reward you for clarity and persuasion. Explain why I should vote for you, especially in rebuttals.

Background: I was an NDT policy debater at Wake Forest before you were born. I then judged regularly for Northwestern at college tournaments and also at some local high school tournaments for several years in the mid-90's. After that, I didn't see or judge a debate until 2015. So, don't assume I know anything about the topic, electronic files, your reputation, or really anything that matters.

General Paradigm: I will vote for the team that best persuades me that it should win. I will vote on anything, but I prefer evidence-based policy rounds. Topicality may be debated like any other issue, but to win on T the negative must commit to the argument and persuade me why the aff interpretation is abusive. I am not as comfortable with kritiks as with policy, and if you run a kritik don't assume I know anything about the philosphy that you're advocating. The farther you get from debating the topic the more you will have to explain why I should vote for you. I tend to evaluate kritiks much the same way I evaluate a DA--is there a clear reason we are having this discussion in this round (link) and is there a clear reason why I should reject your opponents or vote for you (impact). Too many kritiks sound like generic, non-unique DAs to me, and the more generic your argument is the less likely I am to vote on it. I'm particularly unimpressed with kritiks that fault the affs for merely existing, being who they are, doing what debaters do, etc. You will do better if you specifically link the kritik to the affirmative plan, evidence, or rhetoric. K affs are the same way. If I can't understand it I won't vote for it.The same comments really apply to all negative arguments. I prefer less generic and more specific attacks to those that simply spew generic DAs. I tend to reward debaters who do not merely read their blocks but who come up with their own arguments on the fly, think independently, make strategic decisions, explain their positions, and weigh the competing policies or issues in rebuttal.

Pet Peeves:Tag team c/x is stupid. If you can't do your own cross, learn how to. If your partner needs to ask a question or two to help him/her prepare, that's fine, but each cross should primarily involve one person asking and one person answering. I punish debaters who waste c/x or make no effort to ask questions that expose flaws in the opposing argument--that is the purpose of c/x, after all--so use the time wisely.If you can't flash/email files quickly, learn how. I won't run prep time as long as I believe you are doing your best to transfer things efficiently, but don't test my patience or waste my time.Debate is still a speaking activity. I will not have your speech doc open, so you need to communicate with me orally. Tell me when you're moving between arguments, distinguish between labels and evidence, tell me what you want me to know. I try not to inject myself into the round, so I am unlikely to tell you if I can't understand you or think your argument is stupid. You should know if you're being clear without me having to tell you. Don't be a jerk to your opponent or partner. There is no reason to get indignant, angry, snotty, rude, etc. Have fun and be nice.