Judge Philosophies

Alex Glanzman - KCKCC

My email is glanzman94@gmail.com
Please include me in the email chain


4 years college debate for KCKCC (NDT/CEDA, NPDA, and NFA)

NFA-LD champion (2016)

NPTE Top 8 (2016)

NPDA Quarterfinalist (2016)

CEDA Double Octo-Finalist (2014)

3-5 years coaching high school policy

I disliked when debating going onto someoneâ??s paradigm and it was just a mountain of text. So Iâ??m gonna try to be quick and simple

1. Above all else---play to your strengths. I may be viewed as a K hack, but I reward debaters who debate in a way strongest for them, not strongest for me. Iâ??ve been around long enough to be able to evaluate all kinds of argumentation. I adapt to you, not the other way around.

2. Warranting and explanation are key. Evidence isnâ??t written in context to the particular round happening. Itâ??s your job to contextualize it to respond to argumentation. Means I prefer teams who do more than tagline extensions and use their 1AC/1NC shells effectively. Analytical depth is necessary in front of me

3. For virtual debate, going slower during analytics/tags is an absolute must. Lots of reasons why. But mostly itâ??s to ensure that your arguments are translated onto my flow correctly. I can handle top speed, but the disconnect with virtual debate makes it more of a challenge. This is doubly true with theory debates.

4. I tend to err on tech over truth, but capital T truth will always be persuasive no matter what. Judges should be neutral and adapt to your strategies, which means that even if an argument isnâ??t true/is spun in a way that isnâ??t trueâ?¦itâ??s your field.

5. Framing is a big deal to me---things like extinction first, ontology first, etc. helps me filter importance of arguments and tends to help teams more often than not in front of me. Usually people just use framing to just get access to impacts; take it further. Framing is how I evaluate comparisons of arguments and how to come to a decision.

6. I do have some biases. I put heavier solvency burdens on policy affs, for instance. Presumption is usually a legitimate argument in front of me compared to other judges, I believe. So â??defensiveâ? claims can go a little farther. I also tend to be persuaded more by pessimistic claims than optimistic claims in K debate.

7. I pay attention to rhetoric---so check yourself. Check your evidence. Rhetoric PICs and voters are absolutely a viable strategy in front of me. You can win theory against it. Or stuff like â??apologies solveâ?/â?discourse doesnâ??t shape the realâ? etc. Iâ??m just saying

Now onto stuff people like to ask:

1. Can I run a K aff? Absolutely.

2. Do I have to have a plan? Absolutely not

3. What about performance? Go for it. Every speech act is a performance so I donâ??t see why I canâ??t evaluate things like re-narrativizing spaces/poetry/music/story. I did some performance debate in CEDA so I do have a conceptual idea of how to engage and evaluate

4. Will you vote on framework? Yes. So far Iâ??ve voted for it more than against it. I think framework debaters need to be focusing more on how TVAâ??s and their interp solve back the aff instead of just simply going for â??state goodâ? though. Portable skills, institutional influence, switch side are all persuasive net-bens to me

5. Will you vote on T? Yes. Itâ??s how I won NFA. I do find value in the topic. On the whole, competing interps is my default. I can be persuaded reasonability is a good check. I also think for K affs an interp that says â??disengage the topicâ? or â??the topic is violentâ? is sufficient enough to count as a counter-interp to me.

6. What about the K? Most of my experience comes from K debate. Itâ??s my wheelhouse and I have been exposed to a lot of lit over the years so this is the debate I am most comfortable with and can provide the best feedback for. Thatâ??s double edged though---because I have a lot of experience with it, it probably means I have a higher threshold for argumentation unconsciously.

7. How about impact turns? Go for â??em. I love a good de-dev and wipeout debate. Not the biggest fan of Malthus. Absolutely wonâ??t listen to impact turns labeled â??patriarchy goodâ?, â??anti-blackness goodâ?, etc.

8. How about counterplans? This is my weakest area of debate exposure. Iâ??d advise you not to run process CPs because they kinda go over my head. I love PICs though. And I understand simpler CPs like consult, states, xo, etc. But honestly most CP debate has just become a debate over opportunity cost with the net-bensâ?¦so I always use the net-benefit to evaluate whether a CP is even worth it.

9. Will you vote on theory? Yes. Since I tend to go more for tech over truth blippy theory arguments can become round winners if dropped/explained properly.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

Happy debating.

Alexander Maier - Sacramento


Andrea Brown - St. Mary's

LD Philosophy:

Open specific:

I don't do well with speed over the internet. Your tags and cites need to be read at a slow pace. You can go as fast as you want in your cards but everything else needs to be at least three steps below your normal pace.

I've been out of LD for a while now and am not familiar with the current norms. I will try to go with whatever norms you want although that's always debateable.. If you're going to argue I have to vote on the rules, I would prefer that you give a reason why I should care about rules but I'll vote on it unless the other side argues that differently.

If there's something I missed because of my internet or yours, I will try to let you know at the end of that speech. If there's a preferred norm to handle this, let me know before the round starts when both you are your competitor are present.

Only the bottom paragraph of my parli philosophy applies to LD.

Novices: Assuming you're not super-fast, you'll be fine.

Parli Philosophy

Important: If you want me to prioritize truth over tech, please say this in the first speech. I will listen to arguments against truth over tech, but I will analyze them through a truth framework.

Speed and decision making:

I'm fine with speed and speed Ks. I will tank your speaks threshold if you don't slow down for a team that calls slow. In the MO/LOR/PMR you need go at least two steps slower than your top speed and pick the arguments that matter. Stop extending everything. I start my round analysis with the team that has the conceptually clearer rebuttal, see if I think they've won the arguments they claim they have, and then go through the other team's rebuttal. If you don't funnel your arguments through the role of the ballot, I might do that for you, and I've voted teams down for losing under their own role of the ballot.

Random stuff:

I don't need proven abuse to vote on theory but in a close framework debate, I tend to lean towards justice over fairness. I'm usually a flow judge (offense over defense warrants over none) but if that's a bad way of evaluating your arguments, I'm happy to switch to something else just walk me through what you want me to do. I will keep flowing because if I don't, I will forget your arguments/performance/whatever. I've never voted for presumption and if you go for presumption, you're probably already losing. If you tell me to gut check my arguments, I will and my gut will tell me I'm hungry. If you tell me to use my intuition, I will but I will not confine my intuition to one argument so be prepared for those consequences. I fundamentally don't believe contradictions are a thing for the K perm so if you're neg, you need DA(s) to the perm not reasons why it won't work. I'm working on protecting in the rebuttals but only for very big things, if you think it's small but key, call the point of order. Frankly, I would prefer if you didn't trust me and just called it. At the end of a debate day, I am usually exhausted so my capacity to put my decision into words goes way down. If that's you, I'm sorry and you can catch me later and ask me to explain better if you want.

Will vote you down over:

I saw something in lila lavender's philosophy and really liked it so I'm adding a version of it. I reserve the right to vote you down for being overtly oppressive. This means if you say racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, Islamophobic, etc stuff, I reserve the right to vote you down. If you do any of those things directly to your competition, I definitely reserve the right to vote you down. However, there's a chance if a competitor does this in a way that outsiders might not realize is violent, no-verbally, or during crosstalk, I won't catch/process it happening during the round so if this is happening in-round, I prefer you pointing that out.

Banafshae Khan - Hired


Bethany Davis - Sacramento

Please set up a SpeechDrop (https://speechdrop.net/) to share files. Or include me in the email chain (Bethanydavis@csus.edu). As a last resort share a USB, I will request to see all files on it at the end of the round.

I will be timing you through each portion of the round. I will not provide visual or audio clues to your prep time usage (i.e. 30 seconds used). Help me to help you, please signpost.

If you perm, give me analytics (better yet, evidence) on why the positions are not mutually exclusive.

Topicality - it is a voting issue. As long as you meet the definition and have a reasonable counterinterp I will vote aff. I will vote neg if a counterinterpretation is not provided, or is unreasonable.

K's - I am unfamiliar with this position, if the benefits do not outweigh the plan, I will vote aff. You can run this position, but be prepared for leg work to convince me. Be careful running K-affs, I have no idea how these function.

Counterplans- don't be a time suck. Prove preferability through evidence support. Prove mutual exclusivity if permed. Have evidence to back up your argument.

Advantages vs. Disadvantages - timeframe, magnitude, probability. Impact calculus will be your best friend if you run none of the other strategies above.

Happy debating!

Chad Meadows - WKY


Colin Quinn - UNT

Colin Quinn
University of North Texas

Framing how I should evaluate things is the most important thing to do. When that doesn't happen I have to intervene more and rely more on my predispositions rather than the arguments made.

Topicality: I like T debates. I think that for the neg to win a T debate there needs to be a well established competing interpretations framework and a good limits or ground argument. Affs need to have a reasonability argument paired with a decent we meet or counter-interpretation.

Counterplans: The neg needs to establish competition and a clear net benefit. I think i'm generally aff biased although they need to focus on what they can win (Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument except conditionality bad, I think most condition/consult-esque counterplans are legitimate but not competitive, etc).

Disadvantages: Impact calculus should be a priority. I do not think that there's always a risk of anything and can be persuaded that there's zero risk.

Kritiks: Impact framing arguments are the most important thing to win. They filter how I evaluate the rest of the debate in terms of deciding what is important to win and what isn't. I think that negatives need to make definite choices in the 2NR in terms of how to frame the K and what to focus on otherwise the aff is in a strategic place. Link/Impact scenarios that are specific to the plan make the debate much harder for the aff.

Affs: I think that framework is useful and can be won but I am sympathetic to affs that are topical without maybe defending a resolutional agent. I think a winning framework argument should be centered around a method that encourages the best discussion about the topic rather than just the government. When negs lose framework debates they fail to win links to the aff c/i or role of the ballot arguments. Topical version arguments are useful but negs need to remember to explain the reason they solve the affs offense; "you can still talk about x" often doesn't cut it. I think that affs that don't defend a plan need to focus on framing the ballot because that's how I will filter all of their arguments. I think that it is difficult for aff's to win framework debates without a we meet or counter-interp that can frame any other offense you have in the debate. 

I may not know the very specific part of the topic/argument you are going for so make sure it's explained. I'm pretty visible in terms of reactions to certain arguments and it will be obvious if i'm confused as to what is going on. 

Don't cheat.

Craig Hennigan - Truman

TL/DR - I'm fine on the K. Need in round abuse for T. I'm fine with speed. K Alts that do something more than naval-gazing is preferred. Avoid running away from arguments.

I debated high school policy in the early 90âs and then college policy in 1994. I also competed in NFA-LD for 4 or 5 years, I don't recall, I know my last season was 1999? I then coached at Utica High School and West Bloomfield High school in Michigan for their policy programs for an additional 8 years. I coached for 5 years at Wayne State University. Now I am the Assistant Director of Forensics at Truman State University in my 5th year running the debate part of the program.

Dropped arguments can carry a lot of weight with me if you make an issue of them early. This being said, I have been more truth over tech lately. Some arguments are so bad I'm inclined to do work against it. If its cold conceded I will go with it, but if its a truly bad interpretation/argument, it won't take a lot to mitigate risk of it happening. I have responded well to sensible 'gut check' arguments before.

I enjoy debaters who can keep my flow neat. You need to have clear tags on your cards. I REQUIRE a differentiation in how you say the tag/citation and the evidence. If it blends together, I do not do well flowing your argument.

With regard to specific arguments â I will vote seldom on theory arguments that do not show significant in-round abuse. Potential abuse is a non-starter for me, and time skew to me is a legit strategy unless itâs really really bad. My threshold for theory then is pretty high if you cannot show a decent abuse story. Showing an abuse story should come well before the last rebuttal. If it is dropped though, I will most likely drop the argument before the team. Reminders in round about my disposition toward theory is persuasive such as "You don't want to pull the trigger on condo bad," or "I know you don't care for theory, here is why this is a uniquely bad situation where I don't get X link and why that is critical to this debate." Intrinsic and severance perms I think are bad if you can show why they are intrinsic or severance. Again, I'd drop argument before team.

I donât like round bullys. If you run an obscure K philosophy don't expect everyone in the room to know who/what it is saying. It is the duty of those that want to run the K to be a âgoodâ person who wants to enhance the education of all present. I have voted for a lot of K's though so it's not like I'm opposed to them. K alternatives should be able to be explained well in the cross-x. I will have a preference for K alts that actually "do" something. The influence of my ballot on the discourse of the world at large is default minimal, on the debate community default is probably even less than minimal. Repeating jargon of the card is a poor strategy, if you can explain what the world looks like post alternative, that's awesome. I have found clarity to be a premium need in LD debate since there is much less time to develop a K. Failing to explain what the K does in the 1AC/NC then revealing it in the 1AR/NR is bad. If the K alt mutates into something else in the NR, this is a pretty compelling reason to vote Aff. (Or in the opposite of the person running the K for that matter).

Never run from a debate. I'll respect someone that goes all-in for the heg good/heg bad argument and gets into a debate more than someone who attempts to be incredibly tricksy in case/plan writing or C-X in order to avoid potential arguments. Ideal C-X would be:

"Does your case increase spending?"

"Damn right, what you gon' do about it? Catch me outside."

I will vote on T. Again, there should be an in-round abuse story to garner a ballot for T. This naturally would reinforce the previous statement under theory that says potential abuse is a non-starter for me. Developing T as an impact based argument rather than a rules based argument is more persuasive. As potential abuse is not typically a voter for me and I'll strike down speaker points toward RVI's based on bad theory. Regarding K's of T, there are better ways to garner offense, like say... your case.

Anything that you intend to win on I need to have more than 15 seconds spent on it. I won't vote for a blip that isn't properly impacted. Rebuttals should consist of focusing on the arguments that will win you the round. It should reflect some heavy lifting and doing some real work on the part of the debater. It should not be a laundry list of answers without a comparative analysis of why one argument is clearly superior and a round winner. Kevin Ambrose said during one of my decisions that the ability to encapsulate the round in the last 15-20 seconds of your speech is a lost art. I agree.

Performance: Give me a reason to vote. And make sure to adequately respond to your opponents arguments with the performance. I do not see that many of those rounds in the first place. If you win a framework debate, you're more than halfway there to a win. I think there are lots of ways that framework can be run that isn't inherently exclusive to debate styles. However I think there are framework arguments that are exclusive too, which isn't very cool. The main issues that I voted on in those rounds were dropped arguments. If a team running an alternative style aff/K is able to show that the other team is dropping arguments then that is just as valid as the traditional style making claims that arguments are dropped and should be weighed accordingly. I am seldom compelled that my ballot changes anything outside the debate community or outside the room. If you have specific evidence to why it does, then I have voted on those arguments (Think Giroux type evidence on pedagogy). Most of the time though, the idea that my ballot changes anything places too much importance on me. I'm just a poor debate coach. However if there's things in the room that are going on that can be remedied by my ballot, I'm definitely listening.

Speaker Points -

Upon entering the LD community, I was informed that my previous speaker point distribution was akin to Santa Claus on a meth binge. It has now been revised.

Floor- 25 - you might have said something offensive about the other team or my family. I may have had to think about whether or not to stop the round. You didn't complete a speech and conceded. You were racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic and unapologetic. Or you didn't complete speeches.

26-26.5 - You made me feel like a qualified judge. (There were noticable and glaring flaws in your strategy. You went for Condo Bad without a unique reason why I should vote and there was only 1 K and 1 CP in the round. You have problems with fundamentals of making arguments)

26.5-27 - I had to think and do work, but also had to send you a message that I'm not a good judge. (You made some tactical errors that I noticed perhaps went for the wrong NR, or you asked a bunch of questions in C-X that never came up in the speech. Or you lacked confidence, you looked like you were behind. You dropped a lot on the flow.)

27-27.5 - Meh. Middle of the road.

28 - You made me pay attention to my flowing. At one point I was hoping you would not go for the PIC because I had no idea what was happening on that flow. (Odds are you made the correct strategic decisions, outcarded your opponents or did not drop round-winning arguments and tooks advantage of your opponents dropped arguments. You should get a low speaker award)

28.5-29.5 - I would give you a cigarette after the round if asked if I still smoked. (You have noticed a double turn or a speech act by your opponent that is a round winner. You also have reminded me of items in my paradigm for why you are going for the items that you are. You should be top 10 to top 5 speaker.)

29.5-30 - Would you like to do my oral defense for me? (I could not find a flaw in your performance to incredibly minor flaws that there is little way to realize that they even happened)

Small note: If you're totally outmatching your opponent, you're going to earn speaker points not by smashing your opponent, but rather through making debate a welcoming and educational experience for everyone.

Card Clipping addendum:

Don't cheat. I typically ask to be included on email chains so that I can try to follow along at certain points of the speech to ensure that there isn't card clipping, however if you bring it up I in round I will also listen. You probably ought to record the part with clipping if I don't bring it up myself. Also, if I catch clipping (and if I catch it, it's blatant) then that's it, round over, other team doesn't have to bring it up if I noticed it.

Joey Barrows - UOP

I competed in LD for two years, and did Parli for one. I don't have much of a bias towards any particular strategy. I am willing to vote on pretty much anything if it's winning on the flow. If I'm having a problem with speed I will let you know.

Joseph Packer - CMU


Justin Perkins - Sacramento

My name is Justin Perkins, I am an assistant coach at California State University, Sacramento where I am primarily responsible for Individual Events and Debate events including Parliamentary Debate and NFA-LD. I have competed in Competitive Forensics for 4 years in High School for Oceanside High and 4 years in College for Palomar College and California State-University Los Angeles, primarily in Interpretation events. I majored in Performance Studies and am inclined academically and intuitively with the message and the performer-audience relationship in all its critical perspectives. I think persuasion is magic, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. I have been coaching since 2006, and have been judging debate since 2007. I judge about 40 rounds a year, if not more, I don't really keep count. I also judge that many and more in Individual Events. I'd like to get as close as I can to cohesive way to view and judge all forensic performance, for after all, every event seeks to persuade its audience, and each does so in similar yet beautifully different ways.

Everything is debatable. I view debate as a fun and complex game of serious, academic inquiry. I view myself as a referee of said game and am inclined to allow the players to decide the outcome on the field of play. With that said, I'll get one thing out of the way, because I forget to say it most of the time; If you have any position that is fun, experimental, controversial, out-of-the-box, or non-traditional, I may be your best chance to win it. This means I'm willing to listen to anything; there is nothing you can say that will automatically lose my ballot or automatically win my ballot. I will fight to remain objective and not weigh in on my decision until the final second has expired and will try as I may to write, record, and weigh everything levied in the round. I also tend to weigh inventive, on the spot, witty in-round arguments more than I should.

This leads into the first question that debaters usually have; speed and structure. I don't find speed to be a particularly appealing way to persuade an audience, and debaters usually out pace their structure to the point of incomprehensible stammering, but hey, itâs your round as much as it is mine. I will, upon verbal agreement in the round, verbally call out âclearâ? for you to speak more clearly, âSpeedâ? to speak more slowly, and âSignpostâ? if I don't where you are. Feel free to adhere to these cues at the expense of speaker points and possible arguments that might influence my decision. Don't âcross applyâ? or âpull throughâ? arguments, especially just incoherent numbering/lettering systems, please restate and analyze and then weigh why you're winning under the agreed upon criteria.

I enjoy the procedural debate as long as it is a witty, intellectual exercise of logic. I weigh offense on the procedural in the time trade off and donât really recognize âreverse votersâ? for numerous reasons. I weigh good, practical arguments more than dropped, fallacious arguments unless really encouraged to do so. The best way to not lose a procedural is to not violate procedure in the first place. I love positions that interrogate structures of power, and criticize aspects of society at large. I embrace the Kritik, but also traditional forms such as DA/CP and other inventive double binds. Give me your best and have fun.

Kelly Hutchison - UOP

Read what ever you want, I am willing to listen to any argument, critical or topical affs. I like framework arguments, but make sure that they have impacts and flush them out. I wont do extra work for you, that means you need to make extensions. Please make sure that you have evidence to back up your claims, and then give analysis. Debates without evidence are boring and not as educational.

Kelly Buckband - Hired


Kevin Ozomaro - UOP

I’ve debated for 5 years, I’ve coached hs LD, parli, and pf. I have about 5 years of coaching between high school and college. I have a years worth of middle school debate coaching.

The Basics:

  • In NFA-LD Post AFFs you have run on the case list or I get grumpy (https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/)

  • Use speechdrop.net to share files in NFA-LD and Policy Debate rounds

    • NOTE: If you are paper only you should have a copy for me and your opponent. Otherwise you will need to debate at a slower conversational pace so I can flow all your edv. arguments. (I'm fine with faster evidence reading if I have a copy or you share it digitally)

  • I’m fine with the a little bit of speed in NFA-LD and Parli but keep it reasonable or I might miss something.

  • Procedurals / theory are fine but articulate the abuse

  • I prefer policy-making to K debate. You should probably not run most Ks in front of me.

  • I default to net-benefits criteria unless you tell me otherwise

  • Tell me why you win.

General Approach to Judging:

I really enjoy good clash in the round. I want you to directly tear into each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on. If at the end of the round I'm looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments I'm going to be disappointed.

Organization is very important to me. Please road map and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around—if necessary—but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at. Clever tag-lines help too. As a rule I do not time road maps.

I like to see humor and wit in rounds. This does not mean you can/should be nasty or mean to each other. Avoid personal attacks unless there is clearly a spirit of joking goodwill surrounding them. If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it.

If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won't. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I'm always happy to discuss the round at some other time during the tournament.

Kritiques: I'm probably not the judge you want to run most K's in front of. In most formats of debate I don't think you can unpack the lit and discussion to do it well. If you wish to run Kritical arguments I'll attempt to evaluate them as fairly as I would any other argument in the round.I have not read every author out there and you should not assume anyone in the round has. Make sure you thoroughly explain your argument. Educate us as you debate. You should probably go slower with these types of positions as they may be new to me, and i'm very unlikely to comprehend a fast kritik.

I will also mention that I’m not a fan of this memorizing evidence / cards thing in parli. If you don’t understand a critical / philosophical standpoint enough to explain it in your own words, then you might not want to run it in front of me.

Weighing: Please tell me why you are winning. Point to the impact level of the debate. Tell me where to look on my flow. I like overviews and clear voters in the rebuttals. The ink on my flow (or pixels if I’m in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round? Do some impact calculus and show me why you won.

Speed: Keep it reasonable. In parli speed tends to be a mistake, but you can go a bit faster than conversational with me if you want. That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you can’t do that and go fast, slow down. If someone calls clear…please do so. If someone asks you to slow down please do so. Badly done speed can lead to me missing something on the flow. I'm pretty good if I'm on my laptop, but it is your bad if I miss it because you were going faster than you were effectively able to.

Speed in NFA-LD: I get that there is the speed is “antithetical” to nfa-ld debate line in the bylaws. I also know that almost everyone ignores it. If you are speaking at a rate a trained debater and judge can comprehend I think you meet the spirit of the rule. If speed becomes a problem in the round just call “clear” or "slow." That said if you use "clear" or "slow" to be abusive and then go fast and unclear I might punish you in speaks. I'll also listen and vote on theory in regards to speed, but I will NEVER stop a round for speed reasons in any form of debate. If you think the other team should lose for going fast you will have to make that argument.

If you do not flash me the evidence or give me a printed copy, then you need to speak at a slow conversational rate, so I can confirm you are reading what is in the cards. If you want to read evidence a bit faster...send me you stuff. I'm happy to return it OR delete it at the end of the round, but I need it while you are debating.

Safety: I believe that debate is an important educational activity. I think it teaches folks to speak truth to power and trains folks to be good citizens and advocates for change. As a judge I never want to be a limiting factor on your speech. That said the classroom and state / federal laws put some requirements on us in terms of making sure that the educational space is safe. If I ever feel the physical well-being of the people in the round are being threatened, I am inclined to stop the round and bring it to the tournament director.

stolen from Ryan guy of Mjc

Kyle Cheesewright - CofI

This is my most recent judging philosopy. If you want to see a collection of them, with information that is more or less relevant, Net Benefits has an interesting archive.

“All that you touch
You Change.
All that you Change
Changes you.
The only lasting truth
Is Change.
God Is Change.”
–Octavia Butler, “Parable of the Sower.”

Debate is a game. Debate is a strange, beautiful game that we play. Debate is a strange beautiful game that we play with each other.

I love debate. It’s the only game that exists where the rules are up for contestation by each side. There are some rules that aren’t up for discussion, as far as I can tell, these are them:

1/ Each debate will have a team that wins, and a team that looses. Say whatever you want, I am structurally constrained at the end of debate to award one team a win, and the other team will receive a loss. That’s what I got.

2/ Time limits. I think that a discussion should have equal time allotment for each side, and those times should probably alternate. I have yet to see a fair way for this question to be resolved in a debate, other than through arbitrary enforcement. The only exception is that if both teams decide on something else, you have about 45 minutes from the start of the round, to when I have to render a decision.

Pretty much everything else is open to contestation. At this point, I don’t really have any serious, uncontestable beliefs about debate. This means that the discussion is open to you. I do tend to find that I find debates to be more engaging when they are about substantive clash over a narrow set of established issues. This means, I tend to prefer debates that are specific and deep. Good examples, and comparative discussion of those examples is the easiest way to win my ballot. Generally speaking, I look for comparative impact work. I find that I tend to align more quickly with highly probable and proximate impacts, though magnitude is just so easy.

I tend to prefer LOC strategies that are deep, well explained explorations of a coherent world. The strategy of firing off a bunch of underdeveloped arguments, and trying to develop the strategy that is mishandled by the MG is often successful in front of me, but I almost always think that the round would have been better with a more coherent LOC strategy—for both sides of the debate.

At the end of the debate, when it is time for me to resolve the discussion, I start by identifying what I believe the weighing mechanism should be, based on the arguments made in the debate. Once I have determined the weighing mechanism, I start to wade through the arguments that prove the world will be better or worse, based on the decision mechanism. I always attempt to default to explicit arguments that debaters make about these issues.

Examples are the evidence of Parliamentary debate. Control the examples, and you will control the debate.

On specific issues: I don’t particularly care what you discuss, or how you discuss it. I prefer that you discuss it in a way that gives me access to the discussion. I try not to backfill lots of arguments based on buzzwords. For example, if you say “Topicality is a matter of competing interpretations,” I think I know what that means. But I am not going to default to evaluating every argument on Topicality through an offense/defense paradigm unless you explain to me that I should, and probably try to explicate what kinds of answers would be offensive, and what kinds of answers would be defensive. Similarly, if you say “Topicality should be evaluated through the lens of reasonability,” I think I know what that means. But if you want me to stop evaluating Topicality if you are winning that there is a legitimate counter-interpretation that is supported by a standard, then you should probably say that.

I try to flow debates as specifically as possible. I feel like I have a pretty good written record of most debates.

Rebuttals are times to focus a debate, and go comprehensively for a limited set of arguments. You should have a clear argument for why you are winning the debate as a whole, based on a series of specific extensions from the Member speech. The more time you dedicate to an issue in a debate, the more time I will dedicate to that issue when I am resolving the debate. Unless it just doesn’t matter. Watch out for arguments that don’t matter, they’re tricksy and almost everyone spends too much time on them.

Before I make my decision, I try to force myself to explain what the strongest argument for each side would be if they were winning the debate. I then ask myself how the other team is dealing with those arguments. I try to make sure that each team gets equal time in my final evaluation of a debate.

This is a radical departure from my traditional judging philosophy. I’ll see how it works out for me. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. For the record, I have strong opinions on just about everything that occurs in a debate round—but those strong opinions are for down time and odd rants during practice rounds. I work to keep them out of the debate, and at this point, I think I can say that I do a pretty good job on that account.

I just thought of a third rule. Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I thought speeches are. If you tell me what speaker points I should give you, I will listen, and promptly discard what you say. Probably.

For the sake of transparency: My personal gig is critical-cultural theory. It’s where my heart is. This does not mean that you should use critical theory that you don’t understand or feel comfortable with it. Make the choices in debate that are the best, most strategic, or most ethical for you. If your interested in my personal opinons about your choices, I’m more than happy to share. But I’ll do that after the debate is over, the ballot submitted, and we’re just two humans chatting. The debate will be decided based on the arguments made in the debate.

“[Y]ou can’t escape language: language is everything and everywhere; it’s what lets us have anything to do with one another; it’s what separates us from animals; Genesis 11:7-10 and so on.”
-David Foster Wallace, “Authority and American Usage.”

Kyle Shallcross - Hired


Louis Petit - UNT

Noel Massarelli Jesionowski - JCU


Paul Villa - DVC

Updated for NPDA 2022:

Top 8 things to keep in mind if I am judging you.

  1. I have chronic wrist conditions on both sides, you are fine to spread but if something gets lost as a result of excessive speed I am not going to pretend I have it written down.

  2. I find it hard to imagine a world where the negative deploys a well-developed Topicality/Framework shell with a clear violation or the affirmative deploys a well-developed condo shell and I dont vote for it.

  3. My threshold for response to vacuous/bad arguments is exceedingly low.

  4. I generally default to reasonability on theory by default, I think that the offense-defense paradigm breaks down on a lot of theory positions (IE, there is probably always some marginal benefit to further specification but I dont really see why that means the aff should lose). Condo is a notable exception since I dont really understand how someone can be reasonably unconditional.

  5. I am more predisposed to defense than most judges and absolutely believe it can be terminal.

  6. I wont vote on any kritik that I dont understand the solvency mechanism of or feel I couldnt otherwise explain as part of my RFD. This applies to all advocacies but kritiks tend to be where this comes up most frequently. I dont dislike the K, I read the K in at least 50% of my neg rounds as a competitor, my students read the K all the time, plenty of debaters have won on Ks in front of me, I just need you to actually explain your argument as opposed to obfuscating.

  7. I dislike the trend of backfilling or massively recontextualizing positions. Chances are, if your argument feels largely new I am going to give the rebuttals a lot of leeway in their ability to answer.

  8. Almost without exception, the team that does the best world resolving arguments and winning thesis level claims will win my ballot, I don't find debates particularly difficult to resolve but if you don't do that work for me I am almost certainly going to default to making the simplest decision possible.

Background: I am the director of debate at Diablo Valley College, I competed in LD and NPDA at the University of the Pacific for 3 years and then was an assistant coach for the team during grad school. I can hang, I just hate sophistry and vacuous debate.

Steven Farias - UOP

(March 2021) Quick Read (NPDA/NPTE):

Most debates I watch these days in parliamentary debate discuss structural and/or systemic violence both on the AFF and NEG. The second most common thing I see is theory of some sort. The best debates I see discuss these issues across the debate (i.e.- how does access to the debate implicate the way folks in the round acknowledge and interrogate structural and/or systemic violence). Debates that often end in frustration tend to silo arguments and retreat from counter-arguments in favor of concessions.

I think the AFF should defend a topical advocacy. This does not mean I believe the AFF MUST role play or defend the state structure of the status quo. I believe being creative in how we imagine what state structures can become can allow us to engage in what Native Hawaiian scholar Manulani Aluli Meyer refers to as the radical remembering of the future. Societies and nations have excisted without structures of oppression in the past which means that the current political and economic system is anything but natural and inevitable. I borrow here because I think there are excellent justifications (although many in debate may end up half-measures) for why the AFF can be topical AND critically interrogate current political and economic systems.

I think NEG advocacies in parli should be unconditional as the concept of testing the AFF and what it means to do so is altered by the structure of parli debate. Theory and advocacies are distinct. Theory is distinct from T. If the NEG provides an advocacy and maintains that advocacy through to the end of the debate, then they presumption flips to the AFF as the burden of proof has shifted. Kritik, performance, T, theory, framework, Disads/CP to non-topical AFFs, and Disads/CP to topical AFFs are all open to the NEG. However, I think that the opportunity to indict the AFF in the LOC is often overlooked and many NEG teams allow the AFF infinite offense by conceding case warrants and relying on implied clash.

I think that parli debate is a unique format and that format allows meaningful engagement. While these are things I think the AFF and NEG should do, the only thing you MUST DO is defend a world view at the end of the debate and if you want to win, you ought be comparative in your impact analysis. If you have any questions, I have a lot more below and also am happy to answer any questions atsfarias@pacific.edu.


TLDR Version: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. In terms of theory I generally have a medium threshold for voting T/Spec except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. However, clever theory is great and generic CONDO Bad is meh. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually have a high propensity to solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. Finally, pet peeve but I rule on points of order when I can. I generally think it is educational and important for the LOR/PMR strategy to know if I think an argument is new or not. I protect the block as well, but if you call a point of order I will always have an answer (not well taken/well taken/under consideration) so please do not just call it and then agree its automatically under consideration.

Section 1: General Information-

While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war these days when the topic is about education, a singular SCOTUS decision, immigration, etc. BE RESOURCEFUL WITH YOUR IMPACTS- ethnic conflict, mass exodus, refugee camps, poverty, and many more things could all occur as a result of/in a world without the plan. I think debaters would be much better served trying to win my ballot with topically intuitive impact scenarios rather than racing to nuclear war, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE PROBABILTY MEANS MORE THAN MERELY CONCEDING AN ARGUMENT/LINK CHAIN.

I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips dont ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say I didnt get that. So please do your best to use words like because followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.

Section 2: Specific Arguments

The K- I do not mind critical affirmatives but be prepared to defend topicality/framework with more than just generic links back to the K. Moreover, I feel that this can even be avoided if the affirmative team simply frames the critical arguments they are going to make while still offering, at the very least, the resolution as a policy text for the opposition. On the negatiave, I think that Ks without alternatives are just non-unique disads. I think that reject and embrace are not alternatives in and of themselves, I must reject or embrace something and then you must explain how that solves.

In terms of ballot claims, I do not believe the ballot has any role other than to determine a winner and a loser. I would rather be provided a role that I should perform as the adjudicator and a method for performing that role. This should also jive with your framework arguments. Whoever wins a discussion of my role in the debate and how I should perform that role will be ahead on Framework.

For performance based arguments, please explain to me how to evaluate the performance and how I should vote and what voting for it means or I am likely to intervene in a way you are unhappy with. Please also provide a space for your competitors to engage/advocate with you. If they ask you to stop your position because arguments/rhetoric have turned the space explicitly violent then all folks should take it as a moment to reorient their engagement. I am not unabashed to vote against you if you do not.

I believe you should be able to read your argument, but not at the expense of others engagement with the activity. I will consider your narrative or performance actually read even if you stop or at the least shorten and synthesize it. Finally, I also consider all speech acts as performative so please justify this SPECIFIC performance.

Topicality/Theory- I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competing definitions and a question of what debate we should be having and why that debate is better or worse than the debate offered by the AFF. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an AFF who is winning that the plan meets a definition that is good in some way (my understanding of reasonability), if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T.

In terms of other theory, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized arguments to parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position (read: multiple conditional advocacies, a conditional advocacy, usage of the f-word) is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other teams responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications by prioritizing the arguments. Yes, I have a lower threshold on conditionality than most other judges, but I do not reject you just because you are conditional. The other team must do the things above to win.

Counter Advocacies- Best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team. It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. ALTs, PICs, Consult, Conditions, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with so long as you defend the solvency of your advocacy. Theory can even be a counter advocacy if you choose to articulate it as such. You should do your best to not link to your own advocacy as in my mind, it makes the impacts of your argument inevitable.

With regard to permutations, if you go for the perm in the PMR, it must be as a reason the ALT/CP alone is insufficient and should be rejected as an offensive voting position in the context of a disad that does not link to the CP. I do not believe that every link is a disad to the permutation, you must prove it as such in the context of the permutation. Finally, CP perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the ALT is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links in both instances as well.

Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as I would when I was a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (Ts and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (Ks and Alts or CPs and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. If you are really asking how I weigh after the explanation in the general information, then you more than likely have a specific impact calculus you want to know how I would consider. Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks.


Section 1 General Information

Experience: Rounds this year: >50 between LD and Parli. 8 years competitive experience (4 years high school, 4 years collegiate NPDA/NPTE and 2 years LD) 12 years coaching experience (2 Grad years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific and 3 years NPDA/NPTE at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 7 years A/DOF years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific)

General Info:I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate because I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. I think the AFF should find a way to be topical, but if you are not I then I am sure you will be ready to defend why you choose not to be. I think the NEG is entitled to read whatever they like but should answer the AC and should collapse in the NR. Failing to do one or both of these things means I am much less likely to vote for your strategy because of the primacy of the AFF and/or an inability to develop depth of argument in the NR.

As an academic familiar with critical theory across a host of topics (race, gender, "the state", etc.) feel free to read whatever you like on the AFF or NEG but I expect you to explain its application, not merely rely on the word salad that some of this evidence can use. I understand what is in the salad but you should be describing it with nuance and not expecting me to do that for you. The same is true for standards on theory, permutation arguments, solvency differentials to the CP, or the link story of an advantage or disad. I am willing to vote on any theory position that pertains to the topic (T) or how debates should happen (all other theory). This includes Inherency, or any stock issue, or rules based contestation.

In terms of impacts, I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war, or other black swan events, and would appreciate if you were more resourceful with impacts on your advantage/disad. I think probability means more than just a blipped or conceded link. The link arguments must be compared with the arguments of your opponents.

Last--I do not think you need evidence for everything in the debate. Feel free to make intuitive arguments about the world and the way things operate. I do think its good if you have evidence for 80-90% of your arguments. I will also say that evidence on issues where it is usually lacking (like voters on theory or RVIs) will be weighted heavily if the only response back is "that's silly"

Section 2 Specific Inquiries

1. How do you adjudicate speed? What do you feel your responsibilities are regarding speed?

I can handle top speed and am not frustrated by debaters who choose to speak at a conversational rate. With that said, I believe the issue of speed is a rules based issue open for debate like any other rule of the event. If you cannot handle a debaters lack of clarity you will say clear (I will if I have to) and if you cannot handle a debaters excessive speed, I expect you to say speed. In general, I will wait for you to step in and say something before I do. Finally, I believe the rules are draconian and ridiculously panoptic, as you are supposedly allowed to report me to the tournament. If you want me to protect you, you should make that known through a position or rules violation debated effectively.

2. Are there any arguments you would prefer not to hear or any arguments that you dont find yourself voting for very often?

I will not tolerate homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, disablism, or any other form of social injustice. This means that arguments that blatantly legitimize offensive policies and positions should be avoided. I do not anticipate this being an issue and rarely (meaning only twice ever) has this been a direct problem for me as a judge. Still, I will do my best to ensure the round is as accessible as possible for every competitor. Please do the same. Anything else is up to you. I will vote on anything I simply expect it to be compared to the alternative world/framing of the aff or neg.

3. General Approach to Evaluating Rounds:

Evaluating rounds-I evaluate rounds sequentially against the Affirmative. This means I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (Ts and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (Ks and Alts or CPs and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. I do not assume I am a policy maker. Instead I will believe myself to be an intellectual who votes for the best worldview that is most likely achievable at the end of the debate.

4. Whether or not you believe topicality should be a voting issue

Yes, it is because the rules say so. I will listen to reasons to ignore the rules, but I think T and generally all theory arguments are voting issues.

5. Does the negative have to demonstrate ground loss in order for you to vote negative on topicality?

Generally yes, but I will vote on reasons the negative has a better definition for the resolution. To win that debate there should be a comparison of the debate being had and the debate that the competitors could be having.

6. Do you have a close understanding of NFA rules/Have you read the NFA rules in the last 6 months


7. How strictly you as a judge enforce NFA LD rules?

I only enforce them if a position is won that says I should enforce them. I will not arbitrarily enforce a rule without it being made an issue.

8. Does the negative need to win a disadvantage in order for you to vote negative?

No. I am more likely to vote if the negative wins offense. But terminal case defense that goes conceded or is more explanatory to the aff will win my ballot too.

9. What is your policy on dropped arguments?

You should do your best not to drop arguments. If you do, I will weigh them the way I am told to weigh them. So if it is a conceded blipped response with no warrant, I do not think that is an answer but instead a comparison of the quality of the argument. Also, new warrants after a blip I believe can and should be responded to.

10. Are you familiar with Kritiks (or critiques) and do you see them as a valid negative strategy in NFA-LD?

My background is in critical theory, so yes and yes they are valid negative strats.

Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks!

Tim Elizondo - Hired


lila lavender - UCLA

Hey yall!!! I'm lila (she, her and they, them) and I have been involved with debate for around 8.5 years at this point (with 7 years of HS + collegiate competition). During that time I had the pleasure/honor to debate with the wonderful Jessica Jung, and among many other accomplishments of ours that I hold dear, we won NPDA nationals once upon a time; that was pretty swell <333

Tldr: Go as fast as you want, ill be able to flow it. That said, for online NPDA rounds, if you could make sure to give pen time between positions + slow/repeat texts; that would be awesome!!! ^^ Most people would probably label me as a K hack, so do what you will with that information. Although, what this information probably actually means is that I just detest bad/opportunistic Ks even more. That being said though, I don't really care what you do, unless it is explicitly reactionary, if you win whatever position you are reading I will vote for it. I have no inherent predilections to what debate should be, or how specific 'rules' of debate ought function (barring the necessary antagonism against colonial power). It's your job to tell me how to evaluate that, so please do it. Oh also I won't kick arguments for you, if you don't know how to collapse your a bad debater.

Updated Notes (as of Oct 29th 2020):

1. I will NOT vote for any team comprised of entirely non-Black debaters (either those of us within the settler class, or non-Black colonized people) reading Afropessimism, in fact I will drop you for it (if you do so). Read: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/Black militant debaters have been articulating, since Afropessimism was first forged within debate by/for Black survival/combat of debate's constitutive antagonism, that non-Black debaters should not read/endorse Afropessimism as a position within debate; so we ought not. If we cannot materially defer to the Black vanguard (within debate or elsewhere), then we cannot principally read arguments about/engage in the expropriated aid for Black revolutionary sovereignty. This also should not have to be said, but unfortunately because of debate's (and thus the World's) constitutive antiBlackness it does: any argument/position about antiBlackness does not = Afropessimism. To assume such would not only be the definition of anti-materialism, and thus antiBlack abstraction, but in fact a direct result of antiBlack opportunism within the context of debate's material conditions; a recovery of debate's, as a piece of settler society's, base antagonism in the face of contradiction intensified by Black militancy within debate itself. So if you are another white/settler reading my paradigm, or a non-Black Indigenous and/or colonized person, do not take this as "don't read arguments/positions about antiBlackness." Because not only should you, but you must; if your analysis/theory/praxis is lacking a material line in reference to the base antagonism of antiBlackness, and thus the vanguard necessity of Black militancy, then your already behind/lacking material (and thus revolutionary) coherence. If your a team/debater comprised of only other white/settlers, and/or non-Black Indigenous and/or colonized people, then just don't read/defend Afropessimism-as-position (or any other piece of the Black radical tradition that requires Blackness-as-singular advocate to defend).

2. The revolutionary praxis/theory that I align with has shifted fairly drastically since my time competing within NPDA; for the most part (although not entirely or totally of course) away from the theory/'praxis' that I often defended/advanced during my time within NPDA (and for what many of you likely know me for). I say this not because it will likely shift my judging a whole lot, but rather just to be transparent, and to give a clearer picture as to what I will be more politically persuaded by; and thus on the flip side, that which I won't be as politically persuaded by, or rather not as much as I perhaps used to be. That change being, that I know consider myself (and seek to materially practice) a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, Maoist internationalist particularly. Specifically, as I have been taught/am always being taught by my Black, Brown, and/or Indigenous comrades (as well as the anti-colonial formations that I directly and indirectly follow the leadership of), the correct anti-colonial line being: 1). the world-system of Euro-Amerikkkan imperialism being the principle (global) contradiction, born from the base antagonisms of antiBlackness and settler-colonialism, and productive of the economy of racial capitalism and cisheteropatriarchal-conquest. 2). Militant decolonization, through anti-colonial socialism, is the only revolutionary (antagonistic) negation of the imperial dialectic. 3). Black and/or Indigenous Gender-oppressed revolutionaries, and cadres, are the vanguard of militant decolonization; which thus requires revolutionary deference to the revolutionary leadership of Black and/or Indigenous Gender-oppressed revolutionaries. In relation to debate, and thus the content that I am more politically-in-relation with/happy to see, this means that (for the most part) I largely see the vast majority of what some may term 'postmodernism' (although of course this does not mean I won't vote on it, or I have lost any of my previously knowledge on this work) as a). materially impotent and/or b). liberal, academic, counterinsurgency. If anyone is curious in reading any, incredible, pieces of anti-colonial synthesis that have aided me (been introduced to me, etc) in arriving here:







3. If you misgender me, your competitors, or anyone else within the space during the time at which i am judging and don't correct yourself, or continue to do so, I will auto drop you. This extends to any sort of transphobic and/or transmisogynistic violence; I am done with having to put up with that shit and ill use my temporary power as a judge to create an incentive for students to stop doing so. I say this not because Gender is an exceptional form of violence among other colonial machines, because I will certainly drop you for investing within any other proximal colonial violence. Rather, I just know so much of debate coercively position trans fems as 'men.'

4. While it is true that I was quite a fast debater, this does not mean that if you are slower and/or more lay that I don't want to judge you. Most importantly though, if you slow and/or clear your opponents (if they are going too fast or are being needlessly unclear) and they do not adapt to meet those demands, then I absolutely will tank their speaks and give you a lot of leeway in answering their arguments even if they are technically conceded.

Parli Overview:

Obviously everything below applies to Parli as well, so please read it. If you ask my what my paradigm is in the round instead of reading it on tabroom, I am going to be a little grumpy. That said, please do not hesitate to ask any specific questions or confusions about something in my paradigm, because I am always more then happy to answer those!!!!

Specific stuff:


Policy Affs: Despite my love for the K, I think a strategic and well written policy aff make for some of the best debates possible. I have no preferences on how policy affs should be formatted but I think it is always a good idea, especially since having me as a judge means the neg will probs run a K, to have a framework on the top, or bottom, of the 1AC that justifies policymaking in some manner. Please make sure your ADV's have uniqueness, links, and impacts, but other than that do what you want. To be clear though, liberalism is colonial-imperial violence that must be combatted. Which is not to say that all 'policy action' takes place within the materiality of liberalism, but rather, that the specific framework for which policy is generally deployed (situated) within LARP 1AC's is just that; liberalism, and it's bare minimum, by way of submission to the politics of settler society. So just know if you do decide to read a policy aff in front of me, while I will always judge it on the flow, I am not going to be sympathetic to the politics of the 1AC.

K Affs: K Affs, 'performative' or not, are amazing. I put 'performative' in scare quotes not because I don't like the positions that have been signified as performances within debate, in fact quite the opposite. Instead, I do so to indicate that all of debate is a performance, and to parse out radical mircopolitical practice within debate as exclusively 'performative' seems silly to me. That said, if you want to read these types of arguments in front of me, please please please do. Once again I do not really care about the content of K affs but I am most familiar with; DnG, antiBlackness, (neo)colonalism and settler-colonalism, trans and queer theory, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and other anti-capitalist practice, and decolonial feminisms. If your feminism is not, or not informed by: Black, Indigenous, and trans feminisms, dont read it. I hate Lacanian psychoanalysis. That being said, just because that is true does not mean I won't vote on it, just wont be judging it. Mentioning those areas of revolutionary theory that I am most familiar with is not to say that, those are the only ones I will listen to/vote for. Rather, I mention them (which is also not an exhaustive list by any means) to be transparent in where my knowledge bases come from/have been taught through. The tldr here is that I ALWAYS love to judge principled positions from these, or any, bases of revolutionary theory!!!! If you are going to reject the res, which is totally cool with me, you should make sure to have justifications as to why the res is bad, and why rejecting it on the affirmative is key. To give you an example of what K Aff's I tended to go for, Jessica and I most often went for: Gender Death, Sex Workers, Juche, Medicalization, and Han.

Framework Affs (LD): As a quick preface, if you are doing LD and reading this you can run whatever type of aff you want, I have merely labeled this under LD because its most relevant to LD. Framework affs are dope, I love them and used to run them all the time when I was debating in LD. I am pretty well versed in most of the frameworks that are common on the circuit and especially with, as much as I hate it, Kantianism and Deontology. What makes framework affs strategic is their ability to have a framework that when won, wins the debate for the aff. Due to that fact, if you are running a framework heavy aff then you should make sure you have a framework that is strategic in that vein, not just a framework that seems fun to run.

1NC's/Off cases:

Note: Again, if you are in LD you can run whatever off positions are the most strategic, do whatever you think will best win you the round. That being said though, while I am cool with it and will be able to flow you, if you are hitting an opponent who does not want you to spread, don't be an ass. That does not preclude you from running K's or DA's or T, just don't spread them if you opponent does not want you to.

DA/CP: DAs and CPs are great, but I have noticed this trend lately in which people label every piece of case specific offense as "Disads." This is slightly annoying because it greatly reduces and distorts the reasons that DAs are strategic. DAs need to have uniqueness, case specific links, and external impacts that the Aff cannot resolve; all other case offense are just case turns. Even if you have a CP that solves for your DA(s), make sure you have status quo uniqueness on the top of the DA that way you are not forced to go for the CP if you want to go for the DA. If you are running a counterplan make sure it has clearly defined sections of "text," "competitiveness," and "solvency." Also I think that conditionality is great, not that I wont vote on condo bad, so if you wanna read 5 contradictory condo offs I am very cool with that.

Ks: I love Ks, they are what I ran most in highschool and what I ran most in college. If you want to see the types of Ks that I am most familiar with, and what that means for you, look to the K aff section of my paradigm. If you are in policy, during the 1NC make sure you have either labeled or unlabeled thesis, links, impacts, and alt sections. If you are going for the K in the block it is always a good idea to read a framework for the K in the 2NC. On the other hand, if you are in LD and reading a K in the 1NC you need to make sure to have a framework, thesis, links, impacts, and alt. Something that I have noticed in hs LD and Policy is that K alts never explains why the alt is key in resolving the K, but rather just describes what the alt is, so make sure your alt actually has descriptive solvency. In terms of the K's I went for most, Jessica and I often collapsed to Bataille, Barad, Semiocap, Maoism, and Trans Spatiality.

T/Theory: I love good topicality and theory debates, they are some of the most technical types of debate and I love good technical debate. While theory and topicality are not exactly the same thing, they do share a similar structure of how they should be formatted. Both should have a clear interpretation, violation, standards and voters. While I know the general trend is to collapse the standards and voters into the same section, it would easier for me if you would make sure that those are two distinct sections wherein the standards explain why violating the interp is bad, and how losing that standard links into what ever voters you are going for. Then in the voters section terminalize why those voters are the biggest impact in the round. I have a pretty low threshold for frivolous theory in that I think if a theory position really is that bad, then you should not lose to it. I think most people would probably in fact label me as a debater who reads and goes for frivolous theory quite frequently, so if thats your jam, go for it. That said, if you use frivolous theory as a form of disrespect, i.e. reading 40 spec shells against a project, that is not going to fly for me. Read it when its strategic, not when its repugnant.

Final Note: For both LD and Policy I would like to be on an email chain for all of the speech docs read in the round, email is "reiayanami454@gmail.com." If you have any other specific questions about my paradigm you can message me on facebook at "Chris Coles (lila lavender)" or email me.