Recent Changes

Today

  1. page Anderson, John edited I call myself a policy maker but Theory: I default competing interp, generally am open not p…
    I call myself a policy maker butTheory: I default competing interp, generally am opennot persuaded by reasonability claims if work is being done on the top but I definitely boast a healthy skepticism when it comes to allunconventional standards i.e. specification arguments. Winning my ballot takes committing toI like a voting issue and impacting it outreally well-done line by explaining whyline and find far too often instances of debaters extending their own standards and not answering the opponent’s. Weigh impacts. In policy: very unlikely that I am voting for you. Unless told otherwise,will grant any RVIs on theory read in the 1NC. In LD: much lower threshold. I default toam a huge believer that the standard "save livesLD 1AR is the hardest speech across all of the debates and money" framework. I'm particularly fondI buy there is a dangerous time skew for answering off-case positions and potentially undercovering some of them, so I lean towards granting the aff RVIs on theory debatewhen there are multiple off and case arguments. That being said, I don’t do the work for you here: you don’t automatically get an RVI, but will be less likelyif you spend the time and give reasons why I grant you an RVI, respond to supportreasons I don’t grant it to you, *AND* you win the interp (please do not go for RVI after dropping theory proper) you can safely assume I’m buying the argument. I would rather you undercover other issues if you’re committing to RVI than give a half-hearted gotry at it. Topicality is a favorite buttheory and undercover it needs time spent*AND* everything else. For negs looking to avoid losing on it foran RVI in front of me: don’t read theory you don’t intend to win.
    Disads: I appreciate good use of mechanical skills on each level of the argument: I want uniqueness analysis, I want link analysis, etc. More than anything, seeing as the fundamental question on most disads is their probability, I want you to walk
    me through the impact scenario from plan passage to vote.impact. You usually don’t prove probability with a single internal link card. Dispute internal warrants in evidence and extend your own along with being responsive on the larger level.
    Kritiks:
    I prefer competing interp but if itstend to grant risks of a wash orlink unless there is a timesuck I'll default reasonability, generally inclear separation of the affs favor.advocacy from the criticism. I love counterplans. CPs give both sides opportunitiesprefer offensive reasons to 1. weigh possible policy optionsreject alternatives and assume that not solving the benefits/disadvantages and 2. discussoffense is better than contributing to it but I hope there are bigger issues on the theory flow the parametersthan that. I am immediately skeptical of alts that cede the debatepolitical so you’ll need to walk me through both solvency and whatmitigating the turn.
    Cap: I like specific links, or at least nuanced explanations if your cap K is against
    a team can and cannot do. 2AC attacks on CP needdemonstrably socialist policy. If you’re reading cap good, respond to be agressive BUT the entire neg strat needsimpacts / cap bad warrants. I would prefer you find better places to be responsive and committed in orderrespond, but I definitely don’t want to win.hear you say cap is good because of innovation, etc. if it means you ignore suffering impacts and don’t do any weighing. I don'tstill want good impact analysis from the team critiquing.
    Counterplans: I use sufficiency framing unless solvency deficits are leveraged such that I don’t. I really
    like it as a back-up option so don't waste 2NR timetheory debates on CP unless you've committedso don’t worry about having to kick it because it’s not being evaluated.
    Performances: I want to know what
    the whole round. Case defense won't winperformance does to affect my ballotdecision. When answering performances, be responsive on as many levels as you can. Obviously I don’t want you to take any problematic positions, but what I also don’t want to see is you extending post-fiat voters and arguments without an offensive voter. Make me believe something bad happens if we enactlegitimizing them first or otherwise doing work on f/w. I don’t like rounds where one debater/team is reading a performance and the other team's advocacy. Disads are great, please be responsive. Kritiks are fineside panics because they aren’t familiar, but if that’s the further away from generic Ks you gocase please justify why your vision of debate is best or indict the more explanation I'll need. I'm most interestedopponent’s. I give leeway in K frameworkthose instances and alt, sowould rather vote for a team unversed in the style that makes an effort to answer than for a lazy performer who won’t do the minimum work to win your link/impact (I'll evaluate even risks of offense) and then spend timethe ballot. However, I will still vote on FW/altthe performance if read and defended well.
    Framework: By default, I believe
    - Knowledge production > role-playing
    - Systemic impacts > calculative impacts
    - Utilitarianism > deontology
    - Life > quality of life
    Obviously I want you
    to gettell me how to vote. I feel case debateweigh if you’re going for a different strategy, and on every level tell me what is underrated.most important and how it affects my decision. In LD: I like to see affs extend all partsabsolutely hate when debaters do a ton of work on their 1AC through all speechesframework and directly clash with neg attacks. Neg should make an attemptdon’t extend contention level offense. Winning framework is not a voter in & of itself and it won’t win you my ballot, but it *will* allow you to attack 1ACjustify why you win given your offense on case / elsewhere. Affs reading framework are welcome to kick out of theirs in favor of opposing framework. I am skeptical of negs doing this in the NR if they go for policy votersit has become a relevant issue in the round.
    Policy on-case: I don’t want the 1AR extending case cards the 2AC doesn’t talk about. I don’t vote on your defense unless it is *very* explicitly terminal. 99% of the time I don’t care about your inherency and probably would only ever care if your plan was not a shift from the status quo and a theory block was read about why the aff can’t defend the squo. Don’t read harms defense / squo solves and call it inherency
    or be preparedI’ll dock you speaks for not understanding the difference. I’m very skeptical of new case offense in the block, and would always prefer you get your foot in the door on case in the 1NC, because I don’t have a good metric to do some serious impact weighing.explain how much leeway I give a 1AR based on new arguments in the block but it’s just not something I’m willing to err neg on.
    Speaker points:
    Speed is fine as long asand I’ll indicate otherwise when necessary. I can get your authors, dates,am super nitpicky about hearing authors and warrants. Slow down on authortaglines. A problem I hate and dateswish to avoid is you reading a card and then beginning a new one with no clear indication of motion so I'm not missing these. Analysis should be slower thanI flow the tagline as the evidence you were just reading. I dock speaker points for this lack of clarity, so use “and”, subpoints, or other clear signifiers to keep my flow clean. I hearalso hate extending cards I can’t easily find on my flow due to not hearing the author when it was originally read, so beware. Debate is first and keepforemost a clean flow.technical event and I will always evaluate substance over delivery, and within delivery I typically value techtechnical skills over truth. This doesn't mean you lose as soongeneral persuasiveness / “pretty talk”. I start each competitor out at 27.5 points, which I identify as average, and adjust accordingly. Strategic decisions, responsiveness, clarity, and demonstrable understanding of issues get you drop an argument, but as a debatermore points. Disorganization, shoddy analysis or rambling on unimportant issues, and fluency breaks will move you down. I need pen time on theory and arguments that you spend little time on! Please give me a second to be ableswitch flows when you’re moving around. I absolutely hate passive aggression, snideness, and disrespectful behavior, and will not hesitate to provide clashdock your speaks to all opposing arguments, so if the other team says somethingminimum even in the face of flawless delivery and skill for your teaminteractions with your opponents. Considering this is consistently failing to refute it, that is bad debatinga competitive event I obviously understand situations can get heated, and I absolutely love impassioned performances, but I will most likely evaluatenot tolerate disrespect or continual bad attitude. Don’t make a statement while CXing an opponent that argumentcounters their previous answer and then transition into your next question with “…but that’s fine.” I don’t reward pettiness and clearly I feel *really* strongly about this so if you’re in favor ofprelims acting like a jerk please don’t be surprised when you lose speaks.
    Misogyny/homophobia/transphobia/racism/Islamophobia/etc.: I believe it’s reasonable to use
    the team reading it if they chooseballot to carry it throughreact to real damage done in debate by competitors seeking to make the round.event less accessible to others. I rely heavily on my flow, so be mindful. Be professional and polite,will not hesitate to vote down anyone being blatantly offensive remarks and rude in-round conduct come outexpect competitors to have a base understanding of your speaks.how such behavior can hurt others in the debate space. I understand that not everyone (particularly young people) has been exposed to different groups and ideas and I don’t want to vote down each person/team that isn’t 100% politically correct, but be smart: I don’t want to vote for violent language against marginalized groups.
    (view changes)
  2. page Yao, Brian edited Updated for: SFBA Districts CPS 2017 PLEASE READ IMPORTANT NOTES FOR NAT QUALS LD: Becaus…
    Updated for: SFBA DistrictsCPS 2017
    PLEASE READ

    IMPORTANT NOTES
    FOR NAT QUALS LD: Because of my firm belief thatCPS 2017: This'll be the nationalfirst tournament isI'll have judged in about 2/3 of a traditionalyear. On the one (NSDA finals are always a perfect example of what lay LDhand, this means you should probably take it slightly slower with me (or be like), my tolerancereally good with email chains / road maps), at least for progressive debating styles (i.e. spreading, theory) isthe early rounds. On the other, I'm probably more far lower for this tournament in particular comparedremoved fron my argument biases than I've ever been. You can expect me to when I judge tournaments on the circuit. The general ideas in this paradigm still hold, but generally: no spreading (though you can definitely go fast--be somewhat stricter about clarity (ok mostly just no whale noises i.e. speak at a brisk pace but nothing incomprehensible)speed) and no strategic theory (I will still take theory in the case of legitimate abuse). If you have any other questionssomewhat looser about progressivewhat arguments you'd likeyou can run than this paradigm generally indicates. Feel free to run, please ask before round.
    If you're a PuFo debater (i.e. they got desperate and had to put me on PuFo rounds), a lot
    what exactly this means in terms of the non-circuit debate related paradigmatic notes are cross-applicable to PuFo. In particular, I wouldwhatever arguments you'd like to emphasize the point about weighing-- too many PuFo rounds are impossible to judge because the debaters hurl insane amounts of evidence out without actually explaining the interactions among the evidence. I did a fair amount of PuFo in high school, so I can handle / flow the evidence pretty well, it's just that I refuse to weigh the evidence for you. If you're not beginning to crystallize in the summary / if your final focus isn't primarily voting issues, I will not be happy. run.
    Monte Vista High School (Danville) '16
    Short Version:
    ...
    Long Version:
    Background
    ...
    currently a first-yearsecond-year student studying Applied Math and Statistics at U.C. Berkeley (yes, I like stats).Berkeley. Over my
    In other words: I don't care what your style of debate / argumentation is, just do it well.
    Speaking Preferences
    ...
    at understanding spreading: I've been away from debate for almost the entire last half year, and I've largely relied on email chains in my limited judging experience during that time to make sure my flow is clean.spreading. That being
    For refutation speeches, I really like good structure when you make your responses, i.e. numbering your responses when you make multiple ones, giving a clear tagline for each response, clear (and concise) road map, etc.
    Argument Preferences
    ...
    say-- framework (good, substantive debate on the value / value criterion is always great to listen to) is paramount:
    If you slime in the 2AR, you lose speaks, and depending on the severity of the slime, the round.
    ...
    isn't complete BS)BS-- for example, well-run and legitimate disclosure theory is fine, but font size theory is not), and Ks
    T is cool, a lot of my favorite debates (as a competitor, judge, and observer) have been decided on T.
    Trick arguments are annoying to judge and annoying to debate.
    I'm not a huge fan of plans / counterplans,Plans and counterplans are fine, but depending on the topic,I've often found that they can provide for some interestingconstrain debate (I initially didn't think this about Jan / Feb 2017, but after judgingin a fair amount of roundsway that isnt particularly strategically interesting. Of course, I don't judge debates based on the topic, I've changed my mind and am perfectly open to well-presented, reasonable planshow interested / counterplans). (On a similar note,entertained I usually prescribe to the philosophy that PICsam, but I do really appreciate cool strategies in round! (PICs are bad / usually abusive,okay too, but my threshold for proving that your PIC is okay is much lower than usual for this topic in particular)I'm pretty receptive to theory against them)
    Dense philosophical positions in particular are probably the only significant example of case strategies that, despite not being absurd or discriminatory (see below), I really don't feel comfortable judging (I'm not familiar with the authors that most people run on the circuit, which I feel like is a significant bar against accurately judging debates that involve such positions), and consequently, my threshold for explanation and clarity is very high for these.
    ...
    I'd ever seen, RoB).seen)
    All in all, don't make any absolutely absurd or discriminatory arguments, and I'll probably listen to whatever you have to say, as long as it is explained well and articulated reasonably clearly.
    (view changes)
    8:15 am

Yesterday

  1. page Brown, Grant edited Grant Brown (He/Him/His) Millard North ’17, Swarthmore College ’21 (Studying Religion & Philos…
    Grant Brown (He/Him/His)
    Millard North ’17, Swarthmore College ’21 (Studying Religion & Philosophy)
    ...
    of LD
    Instructor at NSD Flagship, NSD Philadelphia, and the Texas Debate Collective
    Assistant Lincoln-Douglas Coach at Lake Highland Prep
    ...
    Anything - excluding the obviously violent.
    3. What are they experienced in?
    ...
    ethical philosophy/frameworks.
    4. What do they like?
    I don’t have any predetermined notion of what debate should look, act, feel, or sound like. If you are well researched, understand your literature, and are passionate I will enjoy whatever you have to present. I’m convinced I can be a 1 for any debater, in terms of openness, and it is only potential technical, experiential, or preferential variables that put that into question.
    ...
    Here is a rough framework I will attempt to follow – I assign speaks relative to the pool, a 29.5 at a local tournament is different than a 29.5 at the TOC:
    <25-26: Unethical; offensive, clipping of cards
    27-28: BelowVery below average, unlikely
    ...
    clear.
    28-29: AtSlightly below, at, or slightly
    ...
    make it far.far (I try to average a 28.5)
    29-30: AboveVery above average, most
    (view changes)
    11:48 am

Tuesday, November 21

  1. page Brown, Grant edited Grant Brown (He/Him/His) ... Swarthmore College 21’ ’21 (Studying Religion & Philosophy) …
    Grant Brown (He/Him/His)
    ...
    Swarthmore College 21’’21 (Studying Religion & Philosophy)
    4 years of LD
    Instructor at NSD Flagship, NSD Philadelphia, and the Texas Debate Collective
    Assistant Lincoln-Douglas Coach at Lake Highland Prep
    ...
    Anything - excluding the obviously violent.
    3. What are they experienced in?
    ...
    ethical philosophy/frameworks. I am studying Religion and Philosophy in college.
    4. What do they like?
    I don’t have any predetermined notion of what debate should look, act, feel, or sound like. If you are well researched, understand your literature, and are passionate I will enjoy whatever you have to present. I’m convinced I can be a 1 for any debater, in terms of openness, and it is only potential technical, experiential, or preferential variables that put that into question.
    ...
    I enjoy T debates that include carded evidence to support their impacts and interpretation.
    Policy Arguments
    ...
    them more.
    Good analytics can be more effective than bad evidence - I am likely a good judge for strong "spin" and extrapolation outside of the evidence itself.
    ...
    and underutilized.
    Ethical Frameworks
    Slow down and explain the main points of clash - specifically what implications your extensions have.
    ...
    I'm a fan of frameworks interacting with kritiks, theory, and otherwise.
    Tricks
    ...
    of the debate,debate in both their content,content and in their function.
    Being
    ...
    my temperament.
    These debates can be frustrating, especially when one side is obviously attempting to engage substantively and the other is playing the tricks game.
    Cross-X
    (view changes)
    11:09 pm
  2. page Wang, Kathy edited ... specific argumentation: LARP/Traditional Policy/Substance: this was my favorite type of argum…
    ...
    specific argumentation:
    LARP/Traditional Policy/Substance: this was my favorite type of argument as a debater, and still my favorite probably. innovative and cool plans/cps/das get good speaks from me. substance debate is great. everything else is great too but substance debate is great. i like traditional policy and am very open to techy debates of that nature. can people stop roasting me bc i like substantively engaging the topic pls.
    ...
    for senior year.year and now do mostly Ks in college policy. Ks that
    ...
    the latter!
    High Theory: rule of thumb: if you think your team is the only team in the pool running your position (and def if you think your team is the first in the debate comm as a whole to read this position), it will need more explaining. i read a lot and am familiar with most things that have some sort of popular precedence in debate (deleuze, baudrillard, etc.), but high theory seems to be the field that invites the most innovation, and you shouldn't be too quick to trust my ability to grasp a whole new and nuanced philosophical interpretation of like, ontological rhizomes or some shit in less than 45 minutes. if you can pull it off and be clear and not bastardize the lit, i actually have been finding myself to really enjoy high theory debates.
    Performance: performance is cool with me, as long as it's not being read to just be ~edgy~. i think issues brought up in performance debate need a lot of nuance -- if your performance is just like "i'm gonna do some stuff but then attach a narrative and that'll automatically propel it to the next level!" then i probably will be very unimpressed. i've thought about it a lot (and i coach a really dope performance debater who made me realize i'm more passionate about this than i thought) and realized that i really enjoy a great performance -- oftentimes those are the debates i learn the most from.
    ...
    - feel free to ask me shit after the round but the rfd is not your place for arguing your position more lol. i'm really tired of needlessly having my time wasted in rfds with salty debaters. stop preffing me.
    - tech over truth, minus obviously offensive arguments. my threshold that if i can re-explain an argument to you in the RFD, then it's good enough for me to vote on.
    ...
    even microaggressions.
    IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO ME THAT DEBATE IS A SAFE SPACE. YOU CANNOT ARGUE THIS WITH ME. i don't give a shit if the real world isn't safe. debate, as a place to compose advocacies and solutions, should be an inclusive space. this means a) yes, i do believe in trigger warnings/content warnings. if you genuinely trigger someone in-round without providing one and don't apologize/show respect about it you will get an L20. b) saying anything blatantly oppressive -- racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/classist, and all others when i am in the room and you are under my jurisdiction will result in a huge speaks tank AT THE VERY LEAST. c) if you are genuinely uncomfortable or triggered, stop the round. i will not judge you. i understand that things are sometimes overwhelming. your safety always comes before a sick 2NR. d) please just be a decent person. if you do not respect everyone else in the room, i will not respect you. i generally try to be a kind person but i have really low tolerance for people who think they're too good to do the same. i know this whole paragraph is written pretty aggressively but i'm usually a cheerful (if a bit tired) kid and i've never had to flip shit at anyone, please don't be the first.
    my contact info is all over this paradigm, plus you can reach me by email or ask for my number. if you feel unsafe at all during a tournament or just need someone to talk to, let me know and i will be here for you.
    (view changes)
    7:39 pm
  3. page Brown, Grant edited ... This paradigm is primarily for LD. If I’m judging Policy, do whatever but know that I am not u…
    ...
    This paradigm is primarily for LD. If I’m judging Policy, do whatever but know that I am not up-to-date on topic norms. If I'm judging PF (for some reason?), consider me a flow judge.
    A spreadsheet, for your reference, with my decisions can be found here.
    Post Bronx Update:
    I've found that I have a very difficult time resolving debates in which there are multiple different layers that may interact. This is especially true in regards to theory debates that involve meta-theory or theory take-outs with both debaters claiming primacy of their arguments. You should do lots of clear analysis and weighing.
    Furthermore, I found myself voting negative when I thought the affirmative was close to the mark because of a lack of sufficient 1AR explanation of a warrant and implication, an inability to collapse in the 2AR, or, arguments being too new in the 2AR. I'm going to attempt to adjust my threshold for explanation, but it's still high, please attempt to adapt to that. The negative tends to naturally be able to explain more, which oftentimes results in defaulting or erring negative. To offset this the affirmative should choose to explain and pinpoint what is important and explain why the quantity of the negative is overcome by the quality of the affirmative.

    General Comments
    When I considered a judge, I normally looked for a few specific things that were not always answered – I suppose I’d call this the “short version”:
    1. What are their qualifications?
    ...
    and now teach/coach.instruct and coach.
    2. What will they listen to?
    Anything - excluding the obviously violent.
    3. What are they experienced in?
    ...
    ethical philosophy/frameworks. I am studying Religion and Philosophy in college.
    4. What do they like?
    I don’t have any predetermined notion of what debate should look, act, feel, or sound like. If you are well researched, understand your literature, and are passionate I will enjoy whatever you have to present. I’m convinced I can be a 1 for any debater, in terms of openness, and it is only potential technical, experiential, or preferential variables that put that into question.
    ...
    2NRs should resolve the affirmative offense and explain a larger thesis of how the world of the alternative resolves the links and impacts.
    Alternatives are oftentimes not competitive, but affirmatives fail to articulate a solid permutation. Similarly, explain your permutations - one sentence in the 1AR and 3 minutes in the 2AR won't cut it.
    Non-Topical"Kritikal" Affirmatives
    You should advocate what you can theoretically justify/defend.
    Explain your methodology, approach, or thesis.
    In similar terms, defend something - be it a performance, core theory, or textual advocacy - shiftiness results in sympathy for procedurals.
    The further the affirmative is from the topic the more topicality claims become persuasive.
    ...
    (ssd, tva, truth-testing).truth-testing, fairness first).
    Theory
    I've grown to appreciate the nuances, strategy, and content of theory debates.
    I default to no RVI, drop the argument, and competing interpretations. I default to a pretty modest understanding of competing interpretations in which a risk of offense isn't "game over" - if you disagree you ought to explain your version.
    The later in the round the shell is read the less likely I am to feel comfortable voting on it.
    I am persuaded by responses to theory that play to the idea that it should be used primarily for reasons of checking abuse not as a strategy.

    I am profoundly unpersuaded by any claims that appeal to a constitutive nature of the activity/judge and jurisdiction claims. So unpersuaded that if it is anything less than dropped I'm unsure if I would vote for it. It seems logically incoherent.
    IThe later in the round the shell is read the less likely I am to feel comfortable voting on it.
    I
    will vote
    ...
    and brackets theory - but I oftentimes findtheory.
    I've found
    that the reading of the latter isI'm a better judge for superfluous and absurd reasons.theory debaters than I suspected I would be.
    Topicality
    [For K affs vs T see Non-T Aff section]
    ...
    I enjoy T debates that include carded evidence to support their impacts and interpretation.
    Policy Arguments
    I really enjoy these debates - they're some of my favorites to watch and judge. Stunting on people with topic-specific knowledge is sweet.wish I judged them more.
    Good analytics can be more effective than bad evidence - I am likely a good judge for strong "spin" and extrapolation outside of the evidence itself.
    1AR gets some leewayA strong 2NR on extensions.
    Counterplan theory
    the case is compelling but easily mitigated by having an advocate, citing aff authors,very strategic and having specifics that make you legit.
    Multiple condo is probably bad, one is probably okay.
    underutilized.
    Ethical Frameworks
    Slow down and explain the main points of clash - specifically what implications your extensions have.
    Most hyper-specific frameworks seem to have contrived offense that is truly consequentalist or deontological; you should be able to explain why this isn't the case for your standard.
    I'm a fan of frameworks interacting with kritiks, theory, and otherwise.
    I'm not 100% sure what "truth-testing" is supposed to mean - you should explain that if it is a main part of your strategy.
    Tricks
    I have voted on these arguments a lot when they are well explained in the context of the rest of the debate, in their content, and in their function.
    ...
    your best interest - if your opponent doesn't get your awesome trick there is a decent chance I didn't either.
    I find most of these
    interest, for both strategy and my temperament.
    These
    debates tocan be frustrating,
    Cross-X
    This needs to end within 5 or so seconds after the timer goes off, anything more is prep.
    (view changes)
    7:12 pm
  4. page Koh, Benjamin edited ... Alyaa Chace (All Byram (Byram Hills), Nicole ... coach Valley KK,and KK, Newport AL, an…
    ...
    Alyaa Chace (All Byram(Byram Hills), Nicole
    ...
    coach Valley KK,andKK, Newport AL, and Loyola JC.
    ...
    Studies in theat Center for
    Overview
    The round belongs to its debaters, not the judge, so it's the job of the debaters to tell me who won, not the other way around. I do my best to evaluate rounds in terms of least intervention. The biases and defaults in this paradigm are meant to help you, not to restrict what you want to do.
    If you use the word "retarded" as an equivalence to the word "stupid" or "bad" without acknowledgement (that is, an apology upon saying it), I will drop you.
    Slow down. I'm much more willing to admit to my missing arguments than other judges.
    My judging ability decreases throughout the day as I get more tired. Like actually. Overview analysis is incredibly helpful.
    I would rather hold regrets over ignoring weighing made than voting on something I know isn't accurate. Weighing first. Weigh or lose.
    Argumentative Preference
    ...
    I think the value and importance of K debate is indisputable. Paradigms that exclude discussion of identity or oppression are problematic
    I don't believe in a pre/post-fiat distinction. Arguments are positional and claiming that there should be exclusivity between the "debate round" and the "real world" seems nonsensical to me.
    ...
    to truth. What this means is that you should assume that i know nothing about the true accuracy of your claims and center upon the later rebuttals to layer the framework arguments and tell me what to evaluate first.
    LARP debates when done well are excellent but can too quickly become a pouting war between cards and tags- with analysis thereof left at the door. I'm less interested in what your evidence says as opposed to what it does. Description is not comparison.

    Theory debates need tie-breakers. These are magical ways to resolve these complicated theory debates. I need these if you want to do a multi-shell strategy.
    Evidence Ethics/ Clipping Cards/ etc.
    Evidence ethics is an argument to be made in the debate round. I will not stop the round because of an accusation of people miscutting or misusing evidence, for there is a fair academic debate to be had.
    Card clipping: I will review recordings if available. To accuse someone of clipping cards will cause the round to stop. I'll decide using whatever material I have to figure out if somebody has clipped. If I decide a debater was clipping, I will give that person a L20. If the person accusing is wrong, for I have decided that clipping did not occur, I will give the accuser a L20. I have never judged an accusation of card clipping. I'm not as good at flowing as other judges are, and will invariably give somebody the benefit of the doubt that they did not clip cards.
    Argument'sArguments I don't
    "Negatively worded interpretations bad"
    "All theory arguments against an aff are counter interpretations to already existing implicit interps."
    ...
    Hedonistic Util
    Disclosure Theory
    ...
    required to.
    I'm much more receptive to arguments about disclosing broken advocacy texts than I am other forms of disclosure (i.e. I don't think the arguments necessitating disclosure of a whole res Kant aff are nearly as persuasive)
    Speaking:
    (view changes)
    1:20 pm
  5. page Boals, John edited Basic Info: John Boals Boalsj@gmail.com (Email me if you have questions about my judging prefere…
    Basic Info:
    John Boals
    Boalsj@gmail.com (Email me if you have questions about my judging preferences, this is not for email chains)
    Debated for Apple Valley (2013-17)
    Currently do College Policy for Concordia-Moorhead
    ...
    Theory/Trix-3
    Framework (Analytic Philosophy)-Please strike me I barely understand anything but Rawls and util
    11/21 UPDATE:
    1. After doing college policy for a little while I have experienced a world beyond arbitrary theory shells and It's glorious. My disposition on theory has changed in that my BS meter is substantially higher aka please don't read ridiculous theory in front of me like I'll still vote on font size theory but your speaks will be ATROCIOUS.
    2. My opinion on disclosure is marginally different now that I have coached an independent. I will now actually look at the wiki to see if there is a genuine attempt at disclosure, as we all know sometimes people forget to disclose or the wiki decides to not work just for them or in general. The one thing that will persuade me is if you show me screenshots of a conversation or provide some other method of proof that you had communication with the other person and they explicitly refused to tell you what the aff was.
    3. If you put me on the email chain I will straight up steal your cards and distribute them as I see fit. It is not my job to follow along a speech doc because Y'all should be clear enough so that I can get the warrants down. The only time I will look at evidence is after the round if either a) the meaning of the evidence is contested or b) Y'all debated so poorly I'm looking for a tiebreaker in the evidence because that's maybe marginally better than a coin flip.

    People Who Influenced Me:
    Chris Theis
    ...
    I always thought theory was run in situations where it didn’t need to be like most of the time abusive arguments are just bad so I never understood why people didn’t just answer them.
    The one thing that is not debatable is disclosure. If I am judging you and you have not disclosed at a minimum the first three last three, tags and cites of previously read positions you will lose the round unless there is verifiable proof of technical difficulties (like wiki crashing or no hotel wifi).
    BLAKE UPDATE:
    1. After doing college policy for a little while I have experienced a world beyond arbitrary theory shells and It's glorious. My disposition on theory has changed in that my BS meter is substantially higher aka please don't read ridiculous theory in front of me like I'll still vote on font size theory but your speaks will be ATROCIOUS.
    2. My opinion on disclosure is marginally different now that I have coached an independent. I will now actually look at the wiki to see if there is a genuine attempt at disclosure, as we all know sometimes people forget to disclose or the wiki decides to not work just for them or in general. The one thing that will persuade me is if you show me screenshots of a conversation or provide some other method of proof that you had communication with the other person and they explicitly refused to tell you what the aff was.

    Topicality/Framework/Clash of Civ:
    I'm willing to vote either way on this. I think that the topic exists for a reason but what that reason is, what the topic means, and how we engage the topic are all up for debate.
    ...
    This was my bread and butter senior year. I read queer pessimism on the neg almost every round. I also have a pretty good understanding of antiblackness literature. More Moten and Harney, Calvin Warren and Frank Wilderson than Hartman or Sexton though. Ableism was something I never really specifically touched on but the authors I read somewhat overlap so don’t be afraid to read something I might not be familiar with. This goes for most kritikal identity arguments actually, Ive read a lot of authors which means I understand the fundamentals well enough to figure the rest out quickly with good analysis on yalls part.
    I think that specific link work on the AC is underrated. Reading link cards that apply to the whole topic is all well and good but what specifically about the 1AC is bad?
    ...
    the 1AC weighswins that they can weigh case against
    The best kritik rounds I’ve seen have a large amount of material analysis. This means taking events from history or other methods of analyzing the world and using them to show why your methodology is correct.
    State’s prolly bad in general but I think good instances of legalism exist. I don’t think any author would say we shouldn’t use lawyers to get queer POC out of prison. The point of clash for the state debate really exists at the link level. If the neg wins that the aff is a bad instance of state power they win and vice versa.
    ...
    need to both solve the
    I do not believe that straight people should read authors like Edelman or Stanley. This also applies to authors like Wilderson. The exception to this is if an author has personally given you the go ahead (it happens) or if they have written in a published piece of literature that its ok. For example, Harney and Moten have a section in their book where they discuss the necessity of white people fighting back against racism through the Undercommons. Jack Halberstam also discusses this in that same book. Make sure you accurately represent your authors to the best extent possible (I understand debate sometimes requires bastardization but keep it under control).
    I like performance, I did it and did it well. It builds ethos and pathos well but cannot be used to replace actual arguments on the flow. I need some argument as to the validity and importance of your performance. I also do not think that the performance alone is reason to vote someone up. Do not say I should vote for you because you read someone else’s narrative. The case in which this makes sense is where a narrative is given as a reason to take a certain action in which case the narrative then becomes evidence in support of an action. I will, however, vote someone down on performance. If you win that the performative nature of the 1AC or 1NC was oppressive or bad for the activity in some way I am more than comfortable voting someone down. This might be a double standard but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
    ...
    I think that these kritiks are extremely difficult to articulate well in the short time span of LD but it is possible. If you want to read something like this in front of me just remember that I will know what you are talking about so you should spend slightly less time on pure explanation and more explaining how your arguments predict/control the internals to your opponent’s impacts and what exactly the alternative does or how we go about adopting it. For example, explain how whatever being actually impacts individuals who would supposedly be helped by the legal project of the 1AC.
    You should also read the above sections about link/impact/alt work and attempt to do the same things.
    ...
    Phil (STRIKE ME)ME):
    I don’t understand it like at all. I have tried to read even the most basic of philosophy authors and just cannot grasp ethics. I’m probably just missing fundamentals but I could care less about whether or not to push the fat man in front of the trolley because it just doesn’t help me learn to survive or teach me different liberation strategies.
    If you for some god forsaken reason decide to read some in front of me either a) kick it in the next speech or b) explain it in super simple terms. Assume my knowledge of philosophy is the same as some random person on the street who watched a khan academy video on kant 3 years ago and faintly remembers the words categorical imperative.
    ...
    Somewhat Important ThingsThings:
    I presume neg unless a counter-advocacy is read and then presumption shifts aff. Arguments can be made to shift presumption to another direction but how about you spend that time garnering offense so I don’t have to vote on presumption.
    Permissibility will almost always flow neg because ought means a positive obligation. You will be hard pressed to convince me otherwise. If your strat is to trigger skep you are better off proving skep means you look to presumption not permissibility.
    ...
    If your authors are problematic, don’t cite them directly. For example, cite Rawls instead of Pogge.
    This will be updated as I learn more about my judging preferences.
    Last updated: 11/1/201711/21/2017
    (view changes)
    11:51 am
  6. page Boals, John edited ... I always thought theory was run in situations where it didn’t need to be like most of the time…
    ...
    I always thought theory was run in situations where it didn’t need to be like most of the time abusive arguments are just bad so I never understood why people didn’t just answer them.
    The one thing that is not debatable is disclosure. If I am judging you and you have not disclosed at a minimum the first three last three, tags and cites of previously read positions you will lose the round unless there is verifiable proof of technical difficulties (like wiki crashing or no hotel wifi).
    BLAKE UPDATE:
    1. After doing college policy for a little while I have experienced a world beyond arbitrary theory shells and It's glorious. My disposition on theory has changed in that my BS meter is substantially higher aka please don't read ridiculous theory in front of me like I'll still vote on font size theory but your speaks will be ATROCIOUS.
    2. My opinion on disclosure is marginally different now that I have coached an independent. I will now actually look at the wiki to see if there is a genuine attempt at disclosure, as we all know sometimes people forget to disclose or the wiki decides to not work just for them or in general. The one thing that will persuade me is if you show me screenshots of a conversation or provide some other method of proof that you had communication with the other person and they explicitly refused to tell you what the aff was.

    Topicality/Framework/Clash of Civ:
    I'm willing to vote either way on this. I think that the topic exists for a reason but what that reason is, what the topic means, and how we engage the topic are all up for debate.
    I waswas/still am almost always
    I am not particularly receptive to an RVI on these types of arguments but think that impact turns to T/Framework are extremely persuasive.
    ...
    done correctly. On the other hand I do think that TVA's need a solvency advocate and should also be topical, most TVA's I hear are pulled out of someone's ass with no basis in the literature along with the fact that they usually don't even meet the definitions people read above them.
    I don’t think that fairness is a voter but rather an internal link to equal access to the benefits of the activity. Try something less nebulous like education about the specific topic. For example, a voter that said learning about climate change from a policy perspective is good on an environment topic would be fantastic.
    LARP:
    ...
    Analytic Phil (STRIKE ME)
    I don’t understand it like at all. I have tried to read even the most basic of philosophy authors and just cannot grasp ethics. I’m probably just missing fundamentals but I could care less about whether or not to push the fat man in front of the trolley because it just doesn’t help me learn to survive or teach me different liberation strategies.
    ...
    explain it in super slowly.simple terms. Assume my
    Other Somewhat Important Things
    I presume neg unless a counter-advocacy is read and then presumption shifts aff. Arguments can be made to shift presumption to another direction but how about you spend that time garnering offense so I don’t have to vote on presumption.
    (view changes)
    11:39 am
  7. page Boals, John edited ... Boalsj@gmail.com Debated for Apple Valley (2013-17) Currently do College Policy for Concord…
    ...
    Boalsj@gmail.com
    Debated for Apple Valley (2013-17)
    Currently do College Policy for Concordia-Moorhead
    Quick Prefs:
    K (Identity)-1
    ...
    Sean Fahey
    Chris Vincent
    James McElwain
    If you can debate well in front of any of them you should be fine in front of me.
    @Lillo Kids:
    I might've done LD in high school but it was really progressive, y'all can do whatever u want in front of me but my LD background means I might not be up to date with policy-specific jargon and have a substantially lower bullshit threshold than most policy judges.

    About Me:
    I debated LD for 4 years at Apple Valley in MN. During my 4 years, I ran everything except trix and analytic phil. I have successfully read LARP, pomo, identity, and theory. I ran T but always lost on it (remember that). I am comfortable with basically any area of literature except analytic philosophy which is a double-edged sword. If you know what you are doing and do it well I will be pleased however I will know if you are just throwing random offs at your opponent to trip them up and won’t be happy (I’ll still vote on it tho).
    (view changes)
    11:30 am

More