History

Overall my competitive background is unimpressive. I mostly did Public Forum and Domestic Extemp for my 3 years of competition. I am however very well versed in Lincoln Douglass, and Congress. I was a finalist in the Senate at State after an unfortunate year. I attended James Madison High School. I have been judging mostly LD since I graduated high school in 2015 and I’ve figured out what I do and don’t like in round. I have graduated from UTSA with a major in Criminal Justice, Double Minoring in Legal Studies and Political Science. I am currently attending UNT College of Law. If you are reading this, please ask me how law school is going! It would be nice to see if anyone reads this.

Value Debate

I do not require a value debate in round. If a framework is established I will default to it until it is contested. Framework is the lens of which I view the round. When I make a decision, it is based off a very mathematical calculus. When no framework is established, or two frameworks are negated, I default to a utilitarian calculus. If you and your opponent have the same framework, or the framework doesn't greatly affect the offense in the round, do not feel obligated to keep debating it. Hearing two people bicker about the definition of moral, even though nobody is arguing a nuanced case around a specific definition, is maddening.

Theory

I for the life of me, could not tell you what a proper theory structure looks like. Tell me what happened and why I should care, and I will buy the argument. I do not enjoy theory debate, and I believe that it should be used solely to check abuse.

Kritik

Link to the resolution or I will probably not vote you up. Imma repeat that to make sure it is perfectly clear, LINK TO THE RESOLUTION OR I WILL PROBABLY NOT VOTE YOU UP. Otherwise I do enjoy seeing things like antiblackness, queer theory, Fem, etc. as long as there is a clear link. I do not enjoy seeing cases that can literally be run on any topic without any real research. I am a big fan of permutations to crappy K’s. If you insist on not linking you better have a damn good reason, and provide a clear Role of the Ballot.

Disads and Counterplans

I enjoy both disads and counterplans, when run correctly. I do find it odd though, most of these could very well be called contentions. I'm sure there is some old technical reason that separates them, but its mystery to me. Remember that any plan you produced can't simply be fiated into existence, that is to say, it must be possible at the very least. Of course with persuasion the idea of plausibility can shifted one way or another, but that is on you.

Speed

I am pretty decent with speed, but keep in mind if you are spreading and have time left at the end of your speech or end up repeating the same thing ten times, your speaker points aren’t going too look nice. The point of spreading is not to confuse your opponent, it is simply a tool to get more arguments out in a given time.

Update January 2020

Considering it's been 2 years since I've updated this, I figured I'd add this little tid bit at the end. Amazingly my preferences haven't changed much, I do find myself enjoying progressive debate more and more as the years go on, but I think it's important that every judge have an open mind when going into a round. I strongly encourage you to run whatever version of debate you believe gives you the best chance to win the round. If you have any questions please come find me before or after the round.

Update 2023

It seems like 2 and a half years seems to be the pattern on how often I feel obligated to update this little forum. I am now a third year law student and unfortunately have not been able to judge debate nearly as often as a like, so if I look slightly lost or confused in your round, it may not be your fault, I am just rusty. What I enjoy seeing in rounds has not changed. I may ask you to slow down more than I used to in my prime, but I promise to do my best to keep up with what you need.

As of this year I am currently competing in Moot Court, and will be competing in Mock Trial, on behalf of the University of North Texas at Dallas College of Law.

I am an old school traditional judge.

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

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

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

Remember, debate is impossible without effective communication.

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

I am open to all arguments and will do my best to adapt to you. I am very focused on my flow so be mindful when moving from one card/argument to the next to leave a gap or say "and" to clearly indicate motion. Slow down on authors and dates please.

CX: I'm a policy maker but am always open to other arguments. My main concern is whether or not you've proven the resolution is true or false.
Topicality/theory: I default competing interp. If there aren't good extensions or if it's a wash I probably won't vote here.
K: If the lit is obscure you'll need to explain it to me a little more than popular Ks. Feel free to ask.
Case: I want the aff to extend in every speech. I will likely not vote exclusively on case defense, so negs please have another voter.

LD: I'm very line-by-line driven, and focus on the flow. Be very specific with voters.
Value/criterion: Not a must-have, and in many rounds I judge I find debaters will spend time on this without ever impacting it as a voter. If you go for this, that is totally fine, but give a clear reason why it matters in determining the resolution's truth.
Pre-standards/observations: Fine with these, but I feel the more outlandish ones need a little more work to actually matter. In any case, it is important that these are answered and not dropped.
Off-case: totally fine and love to see it, so long as whoever runs any off has an understanding of how to run that argument.
NC: I tend to be less persuaded by strats that try to spread the aff thin and just go for whatever they drop/undercover, and while I won't stop you from doing that, I begin to err heavily in the aff's favor when they have four minutes to answer 4 off, respond to your case, and defend their own. In my opinion, it's better for debate for you to demonstrate your skills by thoroughly arguing a really good voter rather than throwing half-hearted args at your opponent to see what sticks.
Aff: The most frustrating part of judging LD is watching 1ARs that try to do line-by-lines on everything and drop part of the flow. I want to see a 1AR identify the reason the 1AC theoretically wins, extend that and respond to attacks against that premise, identify why the neg would theoretically win, and respond to that. The aff does not have to win every single argument in round to prove the resolution true, so show your skill by covering what you absolutely must in this small period of time. Too often I see 2ARs make good arguments that are too little too late, so do whatever it takes to give a 1AR that doesn't drop anything important (only drops stuff that isn't important) be it taking extra prep, going with opposing framework, etc.

I need Updated 1/10/19 for Churchill Classic

Background:

I debated for four years for Reagan H.S. in San Antonio. I primarily did LD but did a bit of CX my junior and senior year. I’ve been judging debate tournaments on and off since I graduated (since 2014), but this is my first tournament judging since last years Churchill tournament.

Overall:

If there is an email chain, include me on it: barraza.lu@gmail.com

As a debater, I was more comfortable running Plan’s/CP’s/DA’s than K’s and Theory. However, I’ll vote for anything that is explained well enough.

As long as your argument is not racist, sexist, ableist, or homophobic, you should use the style/arguments you’re most comfortable with/best at.

I have no issue reading evidence you tell me to call for after the round, but don’t tell me to read it for the sake of reading it, there needs to be a clearly articulated reason.

I am fine with speed, but again, it’s been 5 years since I’ve debated so I wouldn’t go super fast. I’ll yell clear when I lose you.

If you want to know your speaks, politely ask me after the round is done and the room is cleared

Have respect for your opponent: don’t be an ass in round, don’t steal prep, don’t cut cards

Framework:

I think this is an important part of LD debate and should be discussed at some point regardless of what you’re running, how you do this (value/criterion/standard/ROB) is up to you!

Topicality/Theory:

I really dislike voting on potential abuses, but if it’s what you want to do, go for it. If it’s explained well and you made a convincing argument, I’m willing to work with it. I personally am not a fan of RVI

K’s:

If you can explain it well, do whatever your heart desires. However, I need a clear overview/explanation towards the end of the round, and a roll of the ballot arg always goes a long ways

CP:

I loved running these in LD, and think they’re great if done correctly. Simply changing the actor is not enough imo, I need to see a well thought out/evidence based net benefit

DA:

Love them, I think every piece of evidence is equally important in them. Get as creative as you want, as long as you can back it up.

Exp: I debated for four years at Winston Churchill High School in San Antonio, Texas between 2008-2012. I went to camps at UTNIF and GDI. And I've been judging since 2012. Needless to say policy debate and I go way back.

Overview: While I ended my debate career on the left side of argumentation, experimenting with form and critical theory, I would still bust out a strategic cp/D/A where strategy required. At this juncture I enjoy a great policy-oriented debate as much as I enjoy a well argued critical position. If your coach or buddy says they knew how I debated and high school and that you should do 'X' in front of me, disregard them. Be you. Do what you do best. Read the arguments you like to read, just take strategy into consideration.

How I Judge: I default to an offense/defense paradigm, regardless of whether critical or traditional arguments are being read. Given the nuanced uniqueness of the activity - that the rules can be debated while debating - I think it is important for debaters to establish their interpretations of what is acceptable through T, Theory, and Framework where it is applicable. It is on you to tell me how I should see the round, how I should evaluate the arguments within it and how I should vote. It's also on you to tell me what type of calculus to use when I vote (impact weighing, f/w, theory, etc). Should I be a utilitarian or should I look at the round in another way? What is the role of my ballot? Should an argument deemed theoretically objectionable in round be rejected or should the team that read it be voted down? You tell me.

Etiquette: Whether you think policy debate is a fun place to role play and prep for college or you think it is a revolutionary ground for X movement, above all this activity is two things: a student activity and an educational activity. As students, you are expected to interact on the spectrum between not rude and cordial. I understand that arguments can get heated, particularly those that a debater might have a personal connection with. Don't be afraid to express what you need to express and say what you need to say, but be mindful that stark disrespect and gratuitous foul language don't float in my boat. Be competitive, be authentic. As long as you are mindful of the line between competition and flat out aggression in terms of how you carry yourself, all should be well in my book.

Tech Considerations: Paperless debates tend to give me 1,001 headaches as a judge. A lack of proficiency amongst students causes rounds to drag on and reflects a lack of preparation. Ballpark estimate, I think 75% of you are bad at doing this in an efficient and effective manner. Don't be a statistic! Prep time ends when the flash drive is out or when the speech doc is sent.

I'm open to answering any specific questions pre-round.

I competed in LD and PF at McNeill High School in Austin, Tx. 

I am very progressive when it comes to speed and technical arguments. I always prefer a substance debate over a K or theory. But I love counter plans and plan affs. 

I will say clear but if I dont understand you after that I can't vote for something I didnt hear or couldnt understand.

I'm pretty close to tabula rasa. I'm not going to tell the contestants what to say to persuade me; it's up to them to come up with that. If contestants weigh arguments, I consider the relative weight they assign when evaluating the round.

I do have some preferences, though. I prefer real world topical arguments to fanciful ones (e.g., Harry Potter DA). I prefer resolution based arguments to theory, though I understand that sometimes theory is useful. I tend not to vote neg on topicality unless they can show aff's case is clearly abusive. I will vote on what is presented in the round, though, not based on an idea of what I think debate should look like.

I also have some preferences regarding structure. Signpost, signpost, signpost! Refer to arguments by which points and sub-points they fall under, as well as the sources of the cards.

I have no philosophical objection to speed, but if you speak to quickly for me to flow, you won't get credit for all your arguments. Word economy is preferable to speed.

My competition background is in LD. I have been judging LD and PF for about 10 years now. I also judge WS, but not CX (except for an NCX round once in a blue moon).

Ask me anything else you would like to know; I'm very approachable.

Fall 2016

I debated for 3 years at Ronald Reagan High School (LD/Policy) and 5 years at the University of Texas at San Antonio (Policy). 6 years of judging experience. I judged high school debate when possible during my time in college, including a break from college debate before my last year. I was out of debate for a couple of years doing an MA in Philosophy at U of Memphis, but shouldn't have trouble keeping up.

I mostly did critical debate at UTSA, and am very familiar with it. I have often voted against critical teams that are out-debated by policy teams, though. There is no reason to be afraid to go for policy arguments; if it is what you are best at, then you absolutely should read them.

General

• I don't have any preferences for arguments presented in a round. I generally prefer that debaters read what they are most comfortable with, and try to make the best arguments possible. Do what you're good at.
• Speed is fine, but clarity is essential. I can't flow what I can't understand.
• Spin control/explanation is important to win debates, and will be rewarded with speaker points. However, it is not mutually exclusive with good evidence. When comparing spin vs. quality evidence, I side with evidence as long as it is sufficiently explained. I like to have a good story/explanation of the argument over more evidence, should you have to make that choice.
• My standard for competition is that the Neg should prove why rejecting the Aff is necessary. Alternative methodologies that "solve better" are insufficient without proving this.
• I prefer strong link and internal link stories and good impact comparison. I don't like "risk of a link..." arguments as much, but I will vote on them if necessary.
• I tend to side with the Aff on questions of topicality and the Neg on theory. These are just tendencies, though, and I will vote on any good argument.
• Speech docs don't replace the flow. I flow on paper, always evaluate the flow first, and look at evidence in the context of the flow. I generally look at evidence when there are arguments presented about the validity/soundness of the evidence itself, if I have personal questions about pieces of evidence, or if I have to adjudicate arguments based on evidence comparison.

T/Framework

• Topicality debates can be great when they are well explained and give a vision of what debate looks like. Examples of arguments included/excluded from your interpretation and why those arguments are or are not good for debate are extremely helpful. Again, explanation is key, even in technical debates.
• I tend to side with the Aff on reasonability, as long as it is well explained in the context of the interpretation and the argument is won on the flow. I will otherwise evaluate T through competing interpretations.
• I don't have a problem with T/Framework as an answer to K Affs, though I prefer substantive reasons to vote for T/FW over theory generally. It's strategically beneficial to show why a focus on an external actor (the USFG) is better than focus on personal agency/identity or criticisms, both while answering impact turns and showing that there is a benefit to your framework. I don't have any issues voting on theory alone, though, as long as the impact turns are answered in some fashion (T version, arguments from fairness, etc.).

Critical/Non-Traditional Debate

• I have no problem with critical debate or K Affs. While I generally prefer a relation to the topic in some fashion, and an advocacy statement, I always evaluate rounds based on the arguments presented.
• Explanation is essential. These are arguments based in very complex literature, and you should be aware of and explain the nuances of your position. I also prefer link specificity, either through good link evidence or through a good case debate.
• Self-serving role of the ballot arguments are not good framing arguments, in my opinion. There should be a clear way for me to adjudicate the Aff's claims in the context of your ROB. However, if my ballot is important in some way, then this must be explained.
• Feel free to read performance/methodology/etc. arguments as long as they are well explained. I enjoy creative debates the most, so well-presented, non-traditional arguments are enjoyable to watch.

Speaker Points

• It is important that debaters have a presence in the round. Do not confuse assertiveness with aggression; you can be intense without being mean or dismissive.
• I also award speaker points based on smart strategy, creative arguments, and especially clear and good explanation.
• I do not ever add or deduct points based on the types of arguments that people run; I am only concerned with how they are run.
• Try to have fun! The best debates that I have been in or have judged have been debates where people had a good rapport. This isn't mutually exclusive with intense debates, either.

If you have any other questions or concerns, email me at tyler.colwell122@gmail.com.

Affiliation - North Crowley High School

-I debated at North Crowley High School for three years, where I graduated in 2014. I debated LD my Sophomore year, followed by CX (from lay UIL to TFA and NFL). I currently work as a long-term substitute / student teacher at NCHS as well as assisting coaching the debate team.

In short

-I typically like to see a good impact calculus in the round. I usually vote for the team that would solve for the most impacts, unless I’m given a really good theory argument. Honestly though, I’ll vote on whatever framework is best presented to me in the round, so long as I see some good debate on that topic / if someone drops said framework.

Theory

-I love theory debate. In policy, I frequently ran not only T but other theory arguments. Debate theory well, and you will have impressed me.

Policy

-This is my bread and butter. If you can present pragmatic solutions and solvency, I am far more likely to vote for you.

Kritik

-Don’t just run Ks for the sake of running a K. I prefer topical Ks, not recycled generic Ks like Cap unless you’ve provided me some really good links.

Speed/Speaks

-I’m fine with speed. Slow down for tags and analytics. I rarely give 30 speaks, but 28 is common from me. I will give a 30 if you are able to spread with a lot of clarity, answer CX questions with confidence/in stride, and provide good analytic arguments and/or analysis of the round. Your speaker points will lower if you are visibly condescending to your opponents. I was a pretty argumentative/combative/rude student as a debater and I would like to do my part not to encourage a toxic debate community, because I saw the harms it can cause.

Ethics

-I may drop you for misrepresenting evidence (powertagging, shifting words around) if the opponent can prove it. My biggest debate pet peeve is the sheer amount of evidence out there that is cut in such a way it misrepresents the argument the original author was making.

Email me at t.davies951@gmail.com if you have more questions

Hi I’m Shree. If you decide to have an email chain please put me on it: shreedeshpande799@gmail.com.

Preface:

In high school and college my favorite judges were always folks who were amenable to most arguments, more than happy to give feedback after round, and had an overall chill vibe to themselves. I try to judge the same way. I carry few, if any, biases regarding what debate is or how debaters should debate outside of speech times and the parameters set by the tournament. You do you.

What is doing you? All I ask is for you to: gradually build up your speaking speed to a level that’s clear for me and comfortable for you; respect me, your partner, and your opponents; debate how you want to debate not how you think I want you to debate; R E L A X.

Don’t be a bigot or a douche; be late to your round; clip cards or cheat.

Judging Philosophy proper:

Most debates I judge are decided on execution. A team may have forgotten to answer or extend a particular argument and their opponents capitalize on it.

Fewer debates I judge are determined on more technical issues such as link direction, impact framing, and evidence quality.

Sometimes I judge debates where there is very little clash or explanation.

You want to avoid this last scenario. You want to avoid it at all costs. You may not like or agree with the outcome.

Topicality is about competing interpretations. Provide compelling reasons why your vision of the topic is better than your opponents’ and at least defense to their reasons. Assume I am not super familiar with topic-specific acronyms or abbreviations.

Framework debates often boil down to fairness. Procedural fairness is an impact and “fairness for whom?” functions more as an impact framing argument than an impact turn. To get my ballot if you are aff, win the impact turn outweighs and leverage your method against the TVA.

Theory I’m agnostic on most things. Blippy theory arguments are the worst. Hearing theory walls read between teams is the worst.

Counterplans I don’t have a specific threshold for how many conditional arguments are cheating. If you win it, you win it. New 2NC counterplans justify new 1AR arguments. I’ll kick the counterplan for you in the 2NR if you tell me how you still win despite me kicking it.

DA 0% risk is a thing.

Kritiks Saying “it’s a methods debate” does not automatically mean your alternative is competitive and will get you one (1) eye roll from me.

Updated: 01/07/2020

Standing Conflicts: Strake Jesuit College Preparatory (TX)

Background:

I am a 2016 graduate Strake Jesuit College Preparatory in Houston, TX. I debated LD for four years on the TFA and TOC circuits. I’ve qualified to TFA State three times, clearing to doubles my senior year. I also qualified to the TOC and NSDA Nationals my senior year. I also briefly debated college policy for UT-San Antonio during my freshman year of college.

Pref Shortcuts (1 = best):

LARP/Stock: 1

K: 1

Framework: 2

Theory: 2

Tricks: 5

Generic: 2-3

General:

I’m a pretty open book with what arguments I will accept. I’ll vote on almost anything, as long as I’m given a clear reason to do so. That being said, however, don’t be offensive. Definitely don’t impact turn something like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.; things like cap and extinction though, I’m fine with. If you do something morally repugnant, I’ll drop you with 0 speaks.

Speed:

I’m fine with speed. I have a pretty good ear, so I’ll usually be able to catch what you’re saying. I’ll say “clear” three times and deduct 1 speaker point after the three times, but after that I’ll probably just stop flowing. Just be clear. Sometimes it helps to have an email chain going for the round to make absolutely sure, but I won’t require it.

Ks:

I really enjoy hearing a good K debate. As a debater, I read a lot of ableism, cap, race, biopower, and discourse kritiks. Don’t know so much about stuff like DnG and other high theory arguments, but I can have a good enough understanding of them to evaluate them in the context of the round. I won’t be impressed if you simply just use cool jargon and name drop the entire round. I’d really prefer to hear well-thought-out, topic-specific links and kritiks that have good strategic value, as opposed to generic state bad links that you can recycle every topic.

T/Theory:

I have a similar view to my former coach Adam Tomasi… Taken from his paradigm- “It's absurd to me that people rush to theory instead of doing topic research. I don't think any frameworks are unfair, I don't think the lack of an ‘explicit weighing mechanism’ is unfair, and I don't care if the aff's theory spikes didn't ‘take a stance on drop the debater or drop the argument’.” Although, these are my personal opinions on many of the more frivolous theory arguments, I did read a good deal of theory when I was in high school. I’m certainly alright with theory debates, though it’s just not fun to judge all the time when it gets to the point of 2 new shells in the 1AR. T’s alright. I read some T, answered some T in my day. Make sure a topical version of the aff is well-explained and I'll be happier if it's very creative. My soft defaults are competing interps, drop the debater, RVI’s.

Theory vs K:

I don’t have a default as to which comes first. You should do that weighing for me in the round and I’ll evaluate it that way. In the event that neither debater does any weighing on that debate, I guess I’d just put the layer with most engagement done by both debaters first.

Framework:

I like a good framework debate. I know how to evaluate a framework debate and if it’s a good one, I’ll like it.

Policy Arguments (Plans/CPs/DAs):

As a debater, I read a lot of DAs, such as PTX, Elections, Econ, Court Clog, etc. I really enjoy these debates. If you just make sure links to disads are clearly established, a lot of comparative weighing and impact analysis is done, and CPs are competitive, we’ll be fine. I’d prefer it if your extinction scenario makes some sense and is reasonable. Have some basic semblance of uniqueness, link, internal link, impact. PICs are also cool too, if they’re well thought-out and have really clever competition with the aff. I also enjoy really nuanced theory interpretations about the legitimacy of conditional counterplans and PICs, and I enjoy listening to that debate.

Tricks:

Hate them. I’m not a fan of skep, NIBs, spikes, presumption, and other sketchy things. Proceed with caution because I won’t be too happy if you read these arguments in front of me. But I’ll vote on them if weighed correctly and won’t deduct speaks for reading them.

Speaks:

I evaluate speaks based on quality of argumentation, engagement, and strategy. Higher speaks if I sense that you know a lot about the topic and about the arguments you’re reading. I’ll also probably give higher speaks if I hear a good joke or two, or if you debate with flair. Speaks will also be deducted if y’all are exceptionally rude or aggressive to each other. Be nice, but confident. Have fun, but be smart.

Other:

-I default to comparative worlds. Arguments to the contrary can be made, of course.

-Tech over truth.

-Flashing and emailing don’t come out of prep time. However, don’t try and put together your speech doc and think you’re not gonna take prep to do so.

-Time yourselves.

-You should email, flash, or pass pages to your opponent, so they can be able to see your case somehow.

-Have fun and be nice.

If this doesn’t give you a good enough idea about my judging style or views on debate, I generally tend to agree with these people- Chris Castillo, Adam Tomasi

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the round. You can also contact me by email (qjc097@my.utsa.edu) or by Facebook message.

fine with speed, I am a frameworks judge, but I do not like points to be dropped. fine with well developed thories. 

4 years policy debate experience at Ronald Reagan High School. In college but  not debating. 

Plans ( or the lack thereof) - Plans are cool. Not having a plan is also cool. I'd like to think that I'll vote on whatever kind of aff you run, plan or not, as long as it has some impacts and a way to solve them. I ran affs with plans (of sorts), but I enjoyed a lot of non-plan affs that I ran into. Just make sure that if its a no-plan aff you make sure I understand the theory behind it, as well as what it is you do do. An explanation of the role of the ballot would be helpful.

I'm also throwing performance under the no-plan umbrella. It's fine too.

Kritiks - I like kritiks. I ran them. I think it's really annoying when they're really generic, but really fun if they're really specific. I'm also not a fan of jargon, since it's pretty useless unless you have background knowledge about the specific K. Even if I do understand it, I find that often it's a poor substitute for more specific explanation. I might know the phrases you're using, but if I don't know what it has to do with the aff it's pretty useless.

Counterplans and Disadvantages - I have no particular feelings or thoughts about these. They are useful arguments.

Theory - I'll vote on it. Not necessarily as a reason to reject the team though, so prove that. Go slow or I can't flow it and you won't win on it.

Topicality - I went for topicality a lot, but I'm not sure if that means I'll vote on it more because I think it's a fun argument or less because I have higher standards for it. Make sure you develop it fully throughout the debate - I'll be hard-pressed to vote for a topicality violation that the block spent 30 seconds on. I default to competing interpretations, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Go slow.

For speaks, I guess just be clear and persuasive. Go a bit slower on tags and cites and/or do something fairly obvious when going to the next card. It gets really difficult to flow and keep things in order when everything is the same speed and there's no sign of when a card begins and ends.

Be respectful to everyone in the room. Flashing is prep. I'll say clear a couple times if you're unclear. I'll probably stop trying to flow after that. I'm really bad at timing so I prefer not to do it. I'll default to the debaters being in charge of timing. Or you could take the risk having me time and see which team ends up with a couple extra minutes of prep (I love a good gamble).

Ask me whatever other questions you have before the round.

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with. I will do my best to offer you the same consideration.

Doc Sharing

Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop.

Speed

I am old - likely 10 years older than you think if not more - this impacts debaters in two ways 1. I get the more triggered when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you are using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it to outspread your opponent then I am not your judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time. If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible. 2. I just cannot keep up as well anymore and I refuse to flow off a doc. I only have four functional fingers on one hand and both hands likely 65% what they used to be. This is especially true as the season moves along and at any tournament where I judge lot of rounds.

General Principle

I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).

Speaker Points

This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Do not docbot. If you do not intonate you are not debating you are reading and that is just frustrating to me. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.

Policy

Theory

I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.

Kritiks

A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).

Performance/Pre-Fiat

If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.

Competition

Arguments should be competitive otherwise they are just FYI. This means kritikal argument should likely be doing more than simply reading a topic link and moving on. All forms are perms are testable - I do not default to a view on severance/intrinsic - it's all debatable. I do default on perms do a test of competition. If you want to advocate the perm this should be clear from the get. A perm should have a text, and a net benefit in the opening delivery otherwise it is a warrantless argument.

Condo

In policy, (LD its all debatable) a few layers are fine - 4+ you are testing the limits and a persuasive condo bad argument is something I would listen to for sure. What I am absolute about is the default. All advocacy are unconditional unless you state in your speech otherwise. No this is not a CX question. You should be saying, I present the following conditional CP or the like, explicitly. Not doing this and then attempting to kick it means an advocacy shift and is thus debatable on theory.

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

I note above that I cannot keep up as much anymore. If your approach is to spam theory (which is increasing a norm in LD) I am not capable of making coherent decisions. I will likely be behind on the flow. I am trying to conceptualize your last blip in a manner to flow and you are making the 3rd or 4th. Then I try to play catch up, but argument is in the wrong place on the flow and it is written as a partial argument. I am not against theory - I loved theory as a debater, but your best approach is to go for a couple shell at most in the NC and likely no more than 1 in the 1AR if you want me to be in the game at all. This is not to say I would not vote on potential abuse/norm setting rather keep your theory to something you want to debate and not using it just a strategic gamesmanship is best approach if you want a coherent RFD.

Disads/CPs/NCs

I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.

Philosophy/Framework Debate

I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might be and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.

Public Forum

I have very frustrated feeling about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.

1. Debate

If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.

2. Speech

If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.

If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.

Theory

I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.

Framework

I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.

Finally Word for All

I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.

Experience:
I am the head coach at Plano West. I was previously the coach at LC Anderson. I was a 4-year debater in high school, 3-years LD and 1-year CX. My students have competed in elimination rounds at several national tournaments, including Glenbrooks, Greenhill, Berkeley, Harvard, Emory, St. Marks, etc. I’ve also had debaters win NSDA Nationals and the Texas State Championship (both TFA and UIL.)

Email chain: robeyholland@gmail.com

PF Paradigm

· You can debate quickly if that’s your thing, I can keep up. Please stop short of spreading, I’ll flow your arguments but tank your speaks. If something doesn’t make it onto my flow because of delivery issues or unclear signposting that’s on you.

· Do the things you do best. In exchange, I’ll make a concerted effort to adapt to the debaters in front of me. However, my inclinations on speeches are as follows:

o Rebuttal- Do whatever is strategic for the round you’re in. Spend all 4 minutes on case, or split your time between sheets, I’m content either way. If 2nd rebuttal does rebuild then 1st summary should not flow across ink.

o Summary- I prefer that both teams make some extension of turns or terminal defense in this speech. I believe this helps funnel the debate and force strategic decisions heading into final focus. If the If 1st summary extends case defense and 2nd summary collapses to a different piece of offense on their flow, then it’s fair for 1st final focus to leverage their rebuttal A2’s that weren’t extended in summary.

o Final Focus- Do whatever you feel is strategic in the context of the debate you’re having. While I’m pretty tech through the first 3 sets of speeches, I do enjoy big picture final focuses as they often make for cleaner voting rationale on my end.

· Weighing, comparative analysis, and contextualization are important. If neither team does the work here I’ll do my own assessment, and one of the teams will be frustrated by my conclusions. Lessen my intervention by doing the work for me. Also, it’s never too early to start weighing. If zero weighing is done by the 2nd team until final focus I won’t consider the impact calc, as the 1st team should have the opportunity to engage with opposing comparative analysis.

· I’m naturally credulous about the place of theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD/CX, I default reasonability over competing interps and am inclined to award the RVI if a team chooses to pursue it. Don’t be surprised if I make theory a wash and vote on substance. Good post fiat substance debates are my favorite part of this event, and while I acknowledge that there is a necessity for teams to be able to pursue the uplayer to check abusive positions, I am opposed to this event being overtaken by theory hacks and tricks debate.

· I’m happy to evaluate framework in the debate. I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default Cost-Benefit Analysis.

· Don’t flow across ink, I’ll likely know that you did. Clash and argument engagement is a great way to get ahead on my flow.

· Prioritize clear sign posting, especially in rebuttal and summary. I’ve judged too many rounds this season between competent teams in which the flow was irresolvably muddied by card dumps without a clear reference as to where these responses should be flowed. This makes my job more difficult, often results in claims of dropped arguments by debaters on both sides due to lack of clarity and risks the potential of me not evaluating an argument that ends up being critical because I didn’t know where to flow it/ didn’t flow it/ placed it somewhere on the flow you didn’t intend for me to.

· After the round I am happy to disclose, walk teams through my voting rationale, and answer any questions that any debaters in the round may have. Pedagogically speaking I think disclosure is critical to a debater’s education as it provides valuable insight on the process used to make decisions and provides an opportunity for debaters to understand how they could have better persuaded an impartial judge of the validity of their position. These learning opportunities require dialogue between debaters and judges. On a more pragmatic level, I think disclosure is good to increase the transparency and accountability of judge’s decisions. My expectation of debaters and coaches is that you stay civil and constructive when asking questions after the round. I’m sure there will be teams that will be frustrated or disagree with how I see the round, but I have never dropped a team out of malice. I hope that the teams I judge will utilize our back and forth dialogue as the educational opportunity I believe it’s intended to be. If a team (or their coaches) become hostile or use the disclosure period as an opportunity to be intellectually domineering it will not elicit the reaction you’re likely seeking, but it will conclude our conversation. My final thought on disclosure is that as debaters you should avoid 3ARing/post-rounding any judge that discloses, as this behavior has a chilling effect on disclosure, encouraging judges who aren’t as secure in their decisions to stop disclosing altogether to avoid confrontation.

· Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions you may have before we begin the round, or email me after the round if you have additional questions.

LD/CX Paradigm

Big picture:

· You should do what you do best and in return I will make an earnest effort to adapt to you and render the best decision I can at the end of the debate. In this paradigm I'll provide ample analysis of my predispositions towards particular arguments and preferences for debate rounds. Despite that, reading your preferred arguments in the way that you prefer to read them will likely result in a better outcome than abandoning what you do well in an effort to meet a paradigm.

· You may speak as fast as you’d like, but I’d prefer that you give me additional pen time on tags/authors/dates. If I can’t flow you it’s a clarity issue, and I’ll say clear once before I stop flowing you.

· I like policy arguments. It’s probably what I understand best because it’s what I spent the bulk of my time reading as a competitor. I also like the K. I have a degree in philosophy and feel comfortable in these rounds.

· I have a high threshold on theory. I’m not saying don’t read it if it’s necessary, but I am suggesting is that you always layer the debate to give yourself a case option to win. I tend to make theory a wash unless you are persuasive on the issue, and your opponent mishandles the issue.

· Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you.

· I’m voting on substantive offense at the end of the debate unless you convince me to vote off of something else.

· You should strive to do an exceptional job of weighing in the round. This makes your ballot story far more persuasive, increasing the likelihood that you'll pick up and get high speaks.

· Disclosure is good for debate rounds. I’m not holding debaters accountable for being on the wiki, particularly if the debater is not from a circuit team, but I think that, at minimum, disclosing before the round is important for educational debates. If you don’t disclose before the round and your opponent calls you on it your speaks will suffer. If you're breaking a new strat in the round I won't hold you to that standard.

Speaks:

· Speaker points start at a 28 and go up or down from their depending on what happens in the round including quality of argumentation, how well you signpost, quality of extensions, and the respect you give to your opponent. I also consider how well the performance of the debater measures up to their specific style of debate. For example, a stock debater will be held to the standard of how well they're doing stock debate, a policy debater/policy debate, etc.

· I would estimate that my average speaker point is something like a 28.7, with the winner of the debate earning somewhere in the 29 range and the loser earning somewhere in the 28 range.

Trigger Warnings:

Debaters that elect to read positions about traumatic issues should provide trigger warnings before the round begins. I understand that there is an inherent difficulty in determining a bright line for when an argument would necessitate a trigger warning, if you believe it is reasonably possible that another debater or audience member could be triggered by your performance in the round then you should provide the warning. Err on the side of caution if you feel like this may be an issue. I believe these warnings are a necessary step to ensure that our community is a positive space for all people involved in it.


The penalty for not providing a trigger warning is straightforward: if the trigger warning is not given before the round and someone is triggered by the content of your position then you will receive 25 speaker points for the debate. If you do provide a trigger warning and your opponent discloses that they are likely to be triggered and you do nothing to adjust your strategy for the round you will receive 25 speaker points. I would prefer not to hear theory arguments with interps of always reading trigger warnings, nor do I believe that trigger warnings should be commodified by either debater. Penalties will not be assessed based on the potential of triggering. At the risk of redundancy, penalties will be assessed if and only if triggering occurs in round, and the penalty for knowingly triggering another debater is docked speaks.

If for any reason you feel like this might cause an issue in the debate let’s discuss it before the round, otherwise the preceding analysis is binding.

Framework:

· I enjoy a good framework debate, and don’t care if you want to read a traditional V/C, ROB, or burdens.

· You should do a good job of explaining your framework. It's well worth your time spent making sure I understand the position than me being lost the entire round and having to make decisions based on a limited understanding of your fw.

Procedurals:

· I’m more down for a topicality debate than a theory debate, but you should run your own race. I default competing interps over reasonability but can be convinced otherwise if you do the work on the reasonability flow. If you’re going for T you should be technically sound on the standards and voters debate.

· You should read theory if you really want to and if you believe you have a strong theory story, just don’t be surprised if I end up voting somewhere else on the flow.

· It's important enough to reiterate: Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you. Also, if you do not heed that advice there's a 100% chance I will miss some of your theory blips.

K:

· I’m a fan of the K. Be sure to clearly articulate what the alt looks like and be ready to do some good work on the link story; I’m not very convinced by generic links.

· Don’t assume my familiarity with your literature base.

· For the neg good Kritiks are the ones in which the premise of the Kritik functions as an indict to the truth value of the Aff. If the K only gains relevance via relying on framework I am less persuaded by the argument; good K debates engage the Aff, not sidestep it.

Performance:

· If you give good justifications and explanations of your performance I'm happy to hear it.

CP/DA:

· These are good neg strats to read in front of me.

· Both the aff and neg should be technical in their engagement with the component parts of these arguments.

· Neg, you should make sure that your shells have all the right parts, IE don’t read a DA with no uniqueness evidence in front of me.

· Aff should engage with more than one part of these arguments if possible and be sure to signpost where I should be flowing your answers to these off case positions.

· I think I evaluate these arguments in a pretty similar fashion as most people. Perhaps the only caveat is that I don't necessarily think the Aff is required to win uniqueness in order for a link turn to function as offense. If uniqueness shields the link it probably overwhelms the link as well.

· I think perm debates are important for the Aff (on the CP of course, I WILL laugh if you perm a DA.) I am apt to vote on the perm debate, but only if you are technical in your engagement with the perm I.E. just saying "perm do both" isn't going to cut it.

Tricks:

· I'm not very familiar with it, and I'm probably not the judge you want to pref.

Feel free to ask me questions after the round if you have them, provided you’re respectful about it. If you attempt to 3AR me or become rude the conversation will end at that point.

If I call for a card, send it to my email and send the cut card. This includes PF.

This is not about the stats you have, if you are not making an analysis with your stats, that is reason enough to vote on presumption (please don't make me). Just having bigger numbers, doesn't mean the round is a clear win.

UNLESS IT IS A GAME CHANGER please for the love of whoever you pray to, do not try to win a debate round on recency of evidence. It becomes a moot point and a waste of your breath.

I debated for Barbers Hill HS for four years. In both LD and CX. Qualifying for TFA state my junior and Senior year. I did IPDA- public debate- with during undergrad until Spring 2020. I now consult in disability advocacy and DEI development.


TLDR (1 = best):
LARP/Stock: 1
K: 1
Framework: 2
Theory: 2
Tricks: 5
Generic: 3-4


General: I'm fairly open to seeing what you're most comfortable doing as long as it creates good debate. Many times I have seen rounds where it was like two ships passing in the night because someone read something so off the wall there was no way to respond to it, or maybe there is a way but no one knows it but you. That's not cool. I will yell slow, clear or loud. Sit, stand or float. I don't mind one way or another. I always stood, but because my coach didn't afford the option-- do what makes you happy!
Taken from Megan Nubel’s paradigm- “Please do not use derogatory or exclusionary language, including but certainly not limited to referring to arguments as ‘retarded,’ saying that you ‘raped’ someone on a particular argument, or using ‘gay’ as synonymous with stupid, etc.” On that note, definitely don’t impact turn something like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.; things like cap and extinction, though, I’m fine with. If you do something morally repugnant, I’ll drop you with 0 speaks."


Speed:
You do you. I will yell slow or clear if need be. Please, though, for the love of debate, slow down for author names or tags at least. If you get an unnecessary amount of "clear" warnings, I'll probably deduct speaker points or stop flowing altogether. You need to be aware of your threshold of what is clear and what is not clear.


LARP:
I've always been a Util debater but will listen to the best you have. Having done policy before, buying extinction impacts are more difficult for me (I say this because I had a judge say they were totally cool with it all, I read an extinction impact and then was told I read the one thing they wouldn't ever vote on), but I won't vote on it. You just need to make it very clear to me why it's such a big issue. Tip: the longer the chain the less buy-able the extinction impact is. If you want an easier way to my heart and my ballot, read short chains with more plausible impacts.


Ks:
I fell in love with the K debate at the end of my junior year and tried to read them as much as possible in my senior year. While I wasn't necessarily a K debater all of high school, I've read plenty to know generally where you're probably going to be trying to go. But do not assume I know everything about your K. I don't appreciate backfile Ks just to have something to read-- I feel like that errs on the said of the bad debate. Taken from Cameron McConway's paradigm- " I’m willing to listen to critical affirmatives but am also willing to listen to framework and cede the political style arguments against non-T affs. I also will default to evaluating the K the way it is articulated in round, not based on how I understand the literature. I do think incorrect interpretations of literature are fair game for lower speaks, though."


T/Theory :
Flesh it out if you expect me to buy it. I’ll listen to it for sure, but it needs to be done well. I’ve had my butt kicked by too many good debaters with very good T/Theory strats to just be okay with you reading something and not doing something effective with it. If you read it to try to spread the aff out of the 1A, it's strategy, but I’m not a huge fan of kicking something like that. I was taught it was the top layer of debate, so I wouldn’t kick out of the top layer of debate. I will just you (get it because I have the ballot lol). I don’t want to feel like I should be defaulting to anything, but if I have to not only will I draw a sad face on the ballot but I’ll only to it to drop the argument and competing interps. I also believe it’s a very good strat when faced with these arguments, to go ahead and read RVIS. I will for sure evaluate them if you do it correctly.


Phil/Framework:
I have high expectations when it comes to framework debates because that’s one thing I prided myself in doing fairly effectively. If you’re going to do it, be sure you can do it well in front of me. I’m not proud to say, but I feel fairly underread in phil to be able to judge it if you’re not fleshing out the arguments for me, but if you can flesh it out, I’ll listen. Just don’t fly through these arguments because I’m going to need a little bit more time to catch them and comprehend them than I normally would.


Tricks:
I’ve never been a fan, but if it's what you do and you do it well enough for it to get my ballot then by all means. I wasn’t sure what else to say, so I did some searching and Cameron McConway put it perfectly. “ I think burden affs can be interesting and strategic, and I am willing to listen to scepticism to contest frameworks or justify frameworks because it is the grounding of most normative ethics and important in philosophy, but please do not read skep to answer oppression arguments. [...] I’m not going to be thrilled if there are arguments that change function or trigger something in the next speech either; I think the function of arguments should be clear from the time they are read (not saying you cannot use something to take out another argument that it doesn’t appear to interact with- this is about contingent standards).”


Things that will kill your chance at my ballot:
-Racism, sexism or anything that is offensive to anyone
-Belittling someone in round-- also called ad hominems
-Reading things that link back to the idea of oppressive situations being acceptable
-Making the room uncomfortable or unsafe.

-Not reading a trigger warning on something that clearly needs one
Please always remember: debate is a safe space and should be treated as one


Things I appreciate:
-Kindness
-Politeness
-Assertiveness (there is a difference between being assertive and aggressive)
-Trigger warnings
-Being true to yourself as an individual, a debater, and an advocate
-Having fun


Speaks:
I was once, told, “if you ever get a ‘WIN-30’ you should quit debate because that means you were perfect and you no longer need the activity.” I do not believe this is true to an extent, I will give you a 30 if you deserve it. Speaks are about clarity, strategy, and ability to adapt to the room. If you’re a seasoned debater and you go five off on someone who got thrown into varsity, your speaker points may hurt a little, but not enough to hurt you from breaking if I feel like you deserve to break. I average a 27.5-28. If you get a 25 from me then you did something horribly egregious in round, and you should expect it to be on the ballot with some way for your coaching faculty to contact me to discuss it in depth, if they so, please. A 29 means that you did very well, but you made some easily fixable errors.


PS:
I hope you find yourself in debate to grow as a person. Be an advocate for something you care about, be true to yourself, and be comfortable saying the important things. Remember, it isn’t always about the ballot, but the message you bring in and out of the round.

PPS:

A couple of times, I have had people ask if I would be okay with them trying out an unorthodox or new strategy in round. I, always, feel like there has to be a spot for it. I think that if you want to try something out and you want feedback beyond the ballot back, just let me know and I'll be sure to be super extensive and let you know. I want debate to be a learning experience before anything else.




Any other questions feel free to:
Email me: sage.e.hooks@gmail.com
Text me 7..133...14..62......30
Or ask me before the round

I debated for Stony Point High School in LD for 4 years at the local, state, and national level. I previously coached for Westlake High School. I am willing to listen to almost any argument.

I will usually ask for pronouns before/after the round. Include trigger warnings if appropriate. Be kind to your opponent. This does not mean “don’t be explicitly rude”, it means be kind.

Regardless of what argument you read, be clear about the strategic implications and have a thorough understanding of your own position. It can truly undermine your chances of winning a debate round if your case is poorly written or if you do not understand the implications of your own position.

General:

- Be clear and slow down on tags or anything you want to ensure that I flow.

- I prefer strategies that are explained at the meta level, do not just do detailed work on the flow and assume I know how this means you win the round. Explicit impacting will minimize judge intervention.

Speaker Points: I award points based on a combination of strategy and clarity (of speech not clarity of arguments). To be clear by strategy I mean how effective your strategy was in the round and whether it was purposeful.

Theory: I default to a competing interpretations paradigm for theory. I enjoy listening to unique and specific interpretations. If you have specific theory questions, feel free to ask.

Ks:

Please do not assume I am well versed in the literature/theory you are using. The more specific link arguments you have, the more compelling the kritik will be. If you plan on reading a long kritik with minimal explicit work on the aff flow, that is fine, but I need to see embedded interaction with the AC while the K is read. That means specific references to the AC. Do not rely on 1 or 2 generic links.

Policy Arguments: Specific evidence is better. The debater who does more comparative analysis and weighing usually wins these rounds.

LD-I am a very traditional judge. I like VALUE/VC debate. Your contentions should support and link to your value. If you are not the 1AC, you should be attacking/countering things said from the previous speech(es). Otherwise, what's the point of debate?

I AM NOT A PROGRESSIVE LD JUDGE. No K's, CP's, or anything that belongs in CX.

I am ok with speed. I believe debate should be understandable and not an opportunity to cram so much information into 6 minutes that is not understandable and too much for an opponent to attack. With that said, I do like some speed, I just don't feel most people have been taught how to spread well. If I can't understand you, it doesn't get weighed into the round.

I tend to vote on who upheld their value the best and who dropped arguments. I also tend to vote on clash and providing counter evidence. Evidence can be read quickly, slow on taglines. WIN THE FLOW!

PF- I am a traditional PF judge. I should be able to have NO debate experience and walk in and judge a PF round. Treat your round as such despite my experience. This is not LD or CX, don't treat it as such. Persuade me. (Read more below)

For ALL-

I am flowing your debates, so I am aware of what has been said or not said in a round.

Jargon does not impress me.

Speaker points:

Being kind is also a thing for me. I always tell me debaters to "win kindly". You will be docked speaker points if you are using foul language and/or obviously treating your opponent poorly.

Speaker points are important! I should be able to clearly understand you when you speak. Again, I am fine with speed, but most people do not spread well. This is where you will get docket. Practice recording yourself and see if your cousin can understand you word for word.

I do not weigh CX time into who wins the round, but it can/does affect speaker points. CX time is your time to clarify and gather info. Anything you want weighed into the round from CX must be brought up in your next speech.

About me:

I have coached debate since 2004 and run two successful programs qualifying students for state and nationals yearly. Multiple teams have placed in finals at the state level in various events: LD, CX, WSD, Extemp, PF.... My degree is in Speech Comm.

If you have specific questions before the round, ask me! (Just don't ask what my qualifications are, that's offensive.)

I've been active in LD activity since 2001 with a few gaps. For example, I'm currently coaching a student while attending law school. As such, I have rarely judged during the last 2 years. Although arguments generally have not changed over time, the jargon used to express those arguments frequently have. Be cognizant of jargon and explain the argument rather than relying on jargon to ensure that we are on the same page.

I'm fine with K, Util, and Framework debates. Historically, I've competed and coached all three.

K/ROB: I'm extremely familiar with K literature, but not necessarily the literature that is currently in vogue (less knowledgeable on Deleuze as example). However, I can usually pick these arguments up quickly when explained. Things to be careful of when debating in front of me:

1) many K alts are shallow and are used as a means to bypass strong link chains. A K does not link to an AC merely because the alt is mutually exclusive and happens to solve a link chain.

2) ROB is theoretically a valid argument -- running a standard that is analogous to the K (minimize cap, black body, etc...) generally is not. ROB is generally sustained via critical pedagogy or epistemology links and no author who truly values knowledge production will limit knowledge to a single field without significant justification as to why. Merely saying a group is denied information isn't sufficient to then prioritize only a single piece of knowledge in all circumstances (created since the ROB is used to exclude other forms of knowledge and doesn't provide a weighing mechanism between competing structures). If you wish to establish that a particular form of knowledge production is critical, then you should be required to provide the actual justifications used by the author.

3) Try/Die arguments need to be explained. Merely stating it is "Try or Die" is not persuasive because the term has been diluted and used to justify every K approach. Try or Die means there is no alternative approach that could ever solve the injustice and therefore it is worthwhile to sacrifice your life to obtain the change -- this is how it gains weight. Merely stating it is "try or die" without explanation of how this is the ONLY method that will potentially resolve harms is meaningless.

Util debates: These debates tend to be straightforward. I have good understanding of how Util arguments fit together and play out. things to watch out for:

1) Extinction/Util args need solid link chains. For example, if you presume a nuclear terrorist impact you need to explain how terrorists A) want the weapons. B) have access to the material. C) have the capability to develop those weapons. A card that merely states X action -> nuclear terrorism is insufficient.

2) I'm less solid on politics -- I've evaluated many politics rounds, but never personally ran these arguments and have rarely coached students on them. As such, I will be less solid on the politics debate than other Util debates.

Framework debates: I've given lectures on how frameworks should be developed available on the web. If you're unsure whether you are addressing all of the necessary elements, refer to those lectures. Things to be aware of:

1) Skep triggers from one liners such as "the only motivation" don't make sense. This relies on winning the underlying claim that motivation is required which is generally contingent on other arguments. If you are winning those arguments, then skep wouldn't trigger. If you are losing those arguments, then your claim is false.

2) Framework philosophers used constantly shift. If you have a framework heavy case, I will likely call for cards early to ensure the round unfolds in context of the necessary framing and that I fully understand that framing. Do not be worried if this happens unless you do not plan to be held accountable to the theory.

General judging philosophy:

1) I will go off of my flow 1st and then call for cards later if deemed necessary. Since arguments require claim, warrant, impact to be valid -- I will look for these elements first before calling for a card. If the debate goes into nuances of a card, and I need to look beyond the text read in round to understand context of card, then I will call for the card to ensure I am accurately evaluating that nuanced debate. However, the basic elements of an argument will not be compensated for by calling for cards.

2) I'm fine with speed and will give cues to ensure debaters are within my threshold and are maintaining clarity.

3) I won't call for cards unless required. This means my flow may not be 100% accurate on author names. Signposting via author names exclusively may cause problems. If you reference the argument + author name, then no issues arise.

4) Taglines are irrelevant in my evaluation -- too often they do not match the analysis in the card. If the tagline doesn't match the analysis, then I will ignore the tagline. As such, be careful with extensions in which the tagline is being extended rather than the actual analysis.

5) Speaker points will be awarded based on clarity AND likelihood of success at tournament (higher speaker points for debaters who I'd expect to be in finals vs. quarters vs. breaking vs. 0-5).

6) Everything mentioned thus far is subject to how the round plays out. I will still go off of what both debaters tell me to do unless I'm morally opposed to such arguments (racism good, child molestation good, etc...). These are merely guidelines to help debaters understand my approach and provides a way for debaters to easily separate themselves from others.

Theory debates: I am convinced theory is a necessary evil. For the most part, debaters merely rehash arguments without truly understanding the context of those arguments (the actual abuse they were checking). Similarly, debaters establish rules without understanding what the implications of those rules are. Since the community has no good way to check theory without external help or judge interference, I am opting for the latter:

1) Topicality = theory... there is no difference. The fact that many debaters perceive a difference based on legitimacy illustrates my point that 99% of "theory" is illegitimate.

2) Threshold for theory will be: extreme abuse in which the opponent links but you don't. comparative worlds will not be evaluated. This works off of the real world: If you violated the law by stealing $500 and your opponent violated the law by stealing $600, both would go to jail/trigger the impact. If you can establish a bright line and separate the nature of abuse then I'll similarly listen to those arguments: stealing $100 is a misdemeanor whereas stealing $500+ is a felony. Both are forms of punishment but with different outcomes that may be valid (drop debater vs. drop argument). Since using this philosophy, i've voted for theory less than 5 times.

If you have any questions regarding the above judging philosophy or if you are uncertain if an approach will work, feel free to reach out.

I debated CX in high school in the mid-90s, coached for a few years, and now only judge once or twice a year. If you run a multitude of positions, make sure to collapse in the NR. Whatever the positions, I want to see a good debate with clash, clear explanations of warrants, and impact calculus. Most types of arguments are fine, including Ks. Note: I’ve rarely had theory as part of my RFD; abuse has to be clear. I don’t get it as a strategic argument and can’t follow it—just being honest.Email chain: pozza.amy@gmail.com

Background: 

Debated at Westwood 2008-2011. Debated at Gonzaga 2011-2013. Debated at NDT freshman year. Took time off from school 2013-2017 to work in politics & legal field. Currently finishing undergrad at Gonzaga. 

I was a 1a/2n, although I have experience in all speaker positions. I was a policy debater in high school and took a k turn my final year at Gonzaga, so while I've got some experience on both sides of the aisle I have far more experience actually debating the politics disad. That said, I seem to have judged a lot of k on k only debates over the last few years. I'm happy to hear your critical arguments - I just want to remind you that I may not be an expert in whatever your k of choice is. Keep that in mind and rely on well explained and well warranted arguments, not author names and taglines.

Meta Level: 

Honestly, I would rather hear you debate what you're good at than what you think I want to hear. What I want to hear is a good debate - make the choices most likely to give me that, rather than choosing a specific argument solely because you think I'll like it.

I am not going to call for every card/read the entire speech doc and just vote for whoever had the best cards. I don't think that's the point of this activity. I will only read the cards I think I absolutely have to read in order to make a decision. I am likely to also read any topicality/theory cards. Don't rely on me reading all the cards at the end of a round.

Topicality: 

- I tend to have a very high threshold for reasonability arguments on topicality, and will default to competing interps when evaluating the debate unless you tell me what I should do instead. I do quite like topicality debates but this is an area where I will be hyper-technical when looking at the flow, so please keep that in mind. 

K Debate: 

- I am tired of links of omission. If you aren't talking specifically about the aff, I'm not interested in hearing another regurgitation of a generic k that isn't actually engaging the aff. 

- I'm probably naturally inclined to lean towards a perm, so make sure you spend time there that is most fleshed out than repeating "the perm is a link though" several times. 

Counterplans:  

Generally, you're going to have a very hard time convincing me that the neg doesn't get to be conditional. I wouldn't suggest you sink a ton of time here. I will vote on theory arguments about the specific CP, but I will not vote for one tagline extension - it needs to be invested in just like any other argument. I tend to default to theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team, unless you tell me how you would prefer I reconcile those situations. 

Mostly importantly - just ask questions if you have them. Have fun!

Been involved with the game in some way since 2008, do as you wish and I shall evaluate it in the way that I feel requires the least interference from myself.

Put me on the chain please: debate.emails@gmail.com, for the most part I do not look at the documents other than some cursory glances during prep time if a card intrigues me. I still may ask for specific cards at the end of the debate so I do not need to sort through each document, I appreciate it in advance.

I believe that debate is a communication activity with an emphasis on persuasion. If you are not clear or have not extended all components of an argument (claim/warrant/implication) it will not factor into my decision.

I flow on paper, it is how I was taught and I think it helps me retain more information and be more present in debates. Given that I would appreciate yall slowing down and giving me pen time on counterplan texts and theory arguments (as well as permutations).

The most important thing in debates for me is to establish a framework for how (and why) I should evaluate impacts. I am often left with two distinct impacts/scenarios at the end of the debate without any instruction on how to assess their validity vis-à-vis one another or which one to prioritize. The team that sets this up early in the debate and filtering the rebuttals through it often gets my ballot. I believe that this is not just true of “clash” debates but is (if not even more) an important component of debates where terminal impacts are the same but their scenarios are not (ie two different pathways to nuclear war/extinction).

While I think that debate is best when the affirmative is interacting with the resolution in some way I have no sentiment about how this interaction need to happen nor a dogmatic stance that 1AC’s have a relation to the resolution. I have voted for procedural fairness and have also voted for the impact turns. Despite finding myself voting more and more for procedural fairness I am much more persuaded by fairness as an internal link rather than terminal impact. Affirmative’s often beat around the bush and have trouble deciding if they want to go for the impact turn or the middle ground, I think picking a strategy and going for it will serve you best. A lot of 2NRs squander very good block arguments by not spending enough time (or any) at the terminal impact level, please don’t be those people. I also feel as if most negative teams spend much time reading definitions in the 1NC and do not utilize them later in the debate even absent aff counter definitions which seems like wasted 1NC time. While it does not impact how I evaluate the flow I do reward teams with better speaker points when they have unique and substantive framework takes beyond the prewritten impact turn or clash good blocks that have proliferated the game (this is also something you should be doing to counter the blocktastic nature of modern framework debates).

It would behove many teams and debaters to extend their evidence by author name in the 2NR/2AR. I tend to not read a large amount of evidence and think the trend of sending out half the 1AC/1NC in the card document is robbing teams of a fair decision, so narrowing in and extending the truly relevant pieces of evidence by author name increases both my willingness to read those cards and my confidence that you have a solid piece of evidence for a claim rather than me being asked to piece together an argument from a multitude of different cards.

Prep time ends when the email has been sent (if for some reason you still use flash drives then when the drive leaves the computer). In the past few years so much time is being spent saving documents, gathering flows, setting up a stand etc. that it has become egregious and ultimately feel limits both decision time and my ability to deliver criticism after the round. Limited prep is a huge part of what makes the activity both enjoyable and competitive. I said in my old philosophy that policing this is difficult and I would not go out of my way to do it, however I will now take the extra time beyond roadmaps/speech time into account when I determine speaker points.

I find myself frustrated in debates where the final rebuttals are only about theory. I do not judge many of these debates and the ones I have feel like there is an inevitable modicum of judge intervention. While I have voted for conditonality bad several times, personally my thought on condo is "don't care get better."

Plan-text writing has become a lost art and should invite negative advocacy attrition and/or substantive topicality debates.

Feel free to email or ask any questions before or after the debate. Above all else enjoy the game you get to play and have fun.

-------------------

Experience:

Competitor-- Winston Churchill (2008-2012)

Assistant Coaching--

Past: Jenks (2012-2015) Reagan (2015-2017) Winston Churchill (2018-2023)

Currently: Texas (2017-present)

Debated policy for 3 years at Westwood HS

more DA CP style CX debater than K so take that as you will...
Ill vote for pretty much anything if you can make me understand it

T: default to competing interps. Neg should provide pretty good examples of real or potential abuse but its not 100% necessarcy

DA: probably my favorite type of arguement. Like to hear really good impact calc. If you go for this in the 2NR have good case takeouts or a sick CP

CP: like 'em. Not that great on super technical techincality CP's but I like to hear them and how they kinda "cheat" the aff. Not much to say here

K: here is where i would say im weakest. I have pretty minimal knowledge of most critical literature besides very generics like Cap Security and other core generics. I do not know much about identity so if that is the kind of debate you are going for I might not be your best judge. I have no biases against these arguements I just don't know much so I might not be the proper judge for these rounds. Again, I will vote for anything as long as you explain it to me

Framework: Debate can be anything if you argue for it. I don't really think affs need to have a plan, but they should have some form of stable advocacy. What that actually is can change from round to round. Saying "no plan is cheating and unfair" aint gonna really get you far

Other: if they drop something you dont have to reread the tag and the whole card to extend it. Quick warrant and move on. Speed is fine as long as you are clear. Prep ends when you are done editing the doc. If you take to long i will start to count it for flashing. I know computer stuff happens, happenend to me all the time. I am pretty lenient on it, but I still don't want to judge all day.

Ask any specific questions before the round. GLHF

I am best friends with Sai Pathuri.

Look at Varun Reddy Judgewiki      

I debated LD for Winston Churchill HS in San Antonio for 3 years with two state quals. I was a traditionalist in my approach to LD, although I experimented with policy argumentation. I have estranged myself from the world of debate since graduation so i am not 100% the debater I once was (which wasn't a whole lot tbh :P) so best bet is to assume you are better than I am and make your arguments simple to digest.

If you want good speaks, do/don't do this:

-Speak with clarity and articulation. (i can handle speed if you aren't mumbling, gasping, or just generally hard to understand)

- Be non-confrontational toward your opponent. (Basically don't be a sarcastic ass)

- Logical argument progression with good signposting, i don't want to have to flip back and forth flows or have to guess where you want me to flow your arguments.

- Don't extend arguments in diminutive, insignificant blips. Explain how or why your argument addresses your opponent's, because if I don't understand what the connection is, you might as well have just skipped the argument and saved the time.

- Don't make your strat an obvious attempt to gimp your opponent (EX: don't run multiple policy arguments agains every AFF just because you think they are edgy and hard to understand)

Things That I Will Straight Up Ask You To Stop Speaking And Then Drop You For:
-Sexism, racism, homophobia, and any general offensive comments or behavior
-Impact turning oppression arguments (I will never vote on oppression good. Sorry not sorry.)
-Doing anything explicit that makes your opponent, myself, or anyone else in the room feel unsafe

Theory/T:

- Not my favorite kind of round to arbitrate to be perfectly honest. Frivolous theory is among my greatest pet peeves. This is not to say that you can not run theory in front of me, especially if you and I notice obvious abuse from the opposing debater, but keep it relevant to the round and try not to just drop all substantive topic focused debate on a dime because theory was introduced.

Final note: If you consider yourself a skilled debater, or your strategy for debating is one that appeals to more complex rounds, air on the side of caution, and if it helps, treat me like a lay judge. Lets all remember that this is an activity that we engage in (hopefully) for enjoyment and enrichment, so don't debate like you have a chip on your shoulder. Relax and have FUN!

William P. Clements High School (Sugar Land, TX) 2006-2007 - Student
William B. Travis High School (Richmond, TX) 2008-2010 - Captain
Trinity University (San Antonio, TX) 2010-2012 - Student
Legacy of Educational Excellence (LEE) High School (San Antonio, TX) 2011-2012 - Assistant Coach
Texas State University (San Marcos, TX) 2013-2015 - Student/Coach
Westwood High School (Austin, TX) Spring 2016 - Consultant
George Ranch High School (Richmond, TX) Spring 2019 - Assistant Coach
Challenge Early College High School (Houston, TX) 2019-2020 - Interim Coach
Westbury High School (Houston, TX) 2021-2023 - Assistant Director/Coach
Lamar High School (Houston, TX) 2024-Present - Interim Head Coach
I list these because I think institutional affiliations inevitably inform pedagogical perspectives. I make an effort learn from every coach, teammate, and student I've ever been in association with.

Speaks range from 26-30, I'll only go further down if you're really unclear.

Debate is supposed to start off Tabula Rasa, so substantiate your a priori arguments and let them clash if they can. I'm not going to tell you how to debate and how to approach getting my ballot, because you should know how to win if you bothered looking this up. Do what you're comfortable doing. Go for winning arguments and be tactical with your ballot/flow strategy. I don't count flash for prep. Both sides generally should seek to engage in the discourse of the debate in front of them, not be overtly focused on reading prewritten extensions.

Speed - If it's not understandable, I'll yell clear. Otherwise, go as fast as you want (for L/D and C-X).

Theory - use it in accordance to the event. I won't mix L/D with C-X theory, etc. and as a result will invalidate the shell itself on the ballot unless you substantiate it with the standing of the current debate. I will take theory arguments substantiated on debate format, so be weary of being something the debate isn't meant for.

Kritiks - Make sure your link story is somewhat sound or you'll be disappointed with my RFD and what I gave your opponent the benefit of the doubt for. Have an alternative that is not just a default position and allows your opponent to interact with the discourse of the kritik. I won't assume any given ground, so unwarranted claims only hurt your own link-chain and its chances of getting upped.

Non-Round Voting Issues - I instruct my students to use self-created cards targeting invitational debaters, so I will only wash your argument if you fluff it up and attempt to run a nonsensical persuasive position when you know you can't actually win the argument. I can also never be repped out to look the other way. If you don't do your work in the round, I'll vote you down now matter what school you come from or how much winning has been a given for you. That being said, who your coach is or what school you come from has no impact on my ballot, so never think you've won my ballot based on the pairing.

Been asked to clarify what things are in my realm of nonsensical persuasive positions: disclosure, speed, tricks. You set the norms of this community by debating the way you want to debate, not consuming your speech time saying how you want to debate; there's a difference between this and substantive metadebate. Having said that, I don't care for the trend to willfully lie to your judge about ethical reality unless your framing allows for it just for me to draw a blippy arrow on the flow, so you could say I'm truth over tech because I actually want to see debate happen and not you reading the same thing no matter what the topic is without finding how you link to any of the ground.

L/D
The framework debate is a cop-out for most judges; I refuse to be one of those judges, but at the very least run a standard of some sort. If you win the impact analysis as a whole, you've won the debate...it's that simple. That being said, your storyline needs to stay consistent to follow your big picture or I'm not gonna buy what's inconsistent to your on-case. You can win the line-by-line, but it won't make any sense if you don't stick to your side's burdens and presumptions. Aff, Burden of Proof; Neg, Burden of Rejoined Clash; and both sides have a discourse burden. I presume the other way when these burdens aren't upheld/fulfilled, no matter how the debate boils down even in technical terms and theory nor will I care how many voters you decide to put out there. I spent a majority of my high school career in this format, so I want things done the right way regardless of if you're traditional or progressive; I, myself, self-identified as neotraditional. I dread definition debates, please don't make it one.

C-X
I will accept almost anything except blatant abuse. Fulfill your inherent burdens. Make an attempt to set up stock issues properly; it's fine if you don't, just make sure it's implied somewhere in the constructive that you have each covered in the constructive in some manner. Have a cogent storyline on-case that keeps to consistent stance or it's going to be difficult to know what to vote off of, most of your disads will link against the on-case anyways so it's not a huge concern. It's called Cross-Examination Debate, Cross-Examination is binding including flex prep. It helps to tell me how you want things weighed and what you think is important; there's so much content to evaluate and it makes the decision easier if I knew where your direction was going. Use your impact calculus and don't make it a line-by-line wash, the debate just gets dull and boring.

PF
This was the very first format that started me on my debate journey way back in 2006, so my paradigm feels oddly traditional to most competitors. Keep your debate stuff from other formats out of it; call crossfire by its name or just say cross, it's not cross-examination. Both sides have the same burdens. No Kritiks, No Plans, public forum is not the place for progressive style; I will not accept open crosses or flex prep, I will down you for spreading. I don't want to hear a definition/T debate; if your opponent is abusing framer's intent, call them out on it and substantiate it devoid of jargon so you can make it a ballot issue. Solvency deficits don't exist in the debate, you're fishing for terminal defense if you're making a solvency argument. I prefer Logical Analysis/Reasoning over cards because I want you to make your own argument, not someone else's. If you favor line-by-line too greatly, you will be disappointed with my ballot. Crossfire activity/decorum/momentum is my most common ballot tiebreaker. Funnel your arguments down as the debate goes into later stages. Be civil but entertaining and have fun. Just stick to what Public Forum Debate was originally supposed to be and you've fit my paradigm.

Congress
My rankings typically go: speech quality first, chamber command/involvement/knowledge second, C-X frequency/quality third. These do become more fluid when decorum gets messed with too much. The higher quality the room, the lower the PO will usually rank: POs have a relatively easy time getting through my prelim chambers if they know what they're doing but a much more difficult time not straddling the break line after. In speech quality, I look at content, fluency, structure all equally. I'm a relatively lax scorer or parliamentarian, but I value inclusivity in the chamber above gamifying whomever is in the chamber; if I sense favoritism of any kind, along school lines or not, my ballots WILL reflect how egregious it was: as much as you feel like you've gotten away with it in front of other judges, you won't with me.

WS
My love for this activity wasn't cultivated through this event, but this event, as well as other parliamentary formats, were by far what I was best at on the college level. As such, I have lost count of how many times I've been in your position as well as chaired rounds. I have personally represented the United States on a handful of occasions in this format, so I actively evaluate what I want to see from American debaters skill-set-wise to give us the best opportunity to win on international stages. This format is THE definitive way to debate outside of the United States, so I expect your rhetorical representation of the American perspective to be legitimately credible and well-founded if you were to debate anywhere else in the world. As such, you should check any communication mannerisms that convey ego at the door: this is format forces us Americans to take on rhetorical positions of humility, not brashness.
I will flow just as intensely as I do for any other debate, but I'm actively looking at the line-by-line to evaluate the least of any debate. Even though I lean towards the big picture in every style, I'm a tab judge through-and-through, even in this style. Your strategy score is determined by the skill in which you apply your content and how it's tactically used on your side of the aisle. The comprehensibility of the prop model is something I evaluate using a common sense / eyeball rule: don't come in with a full-blown policy implementation and expect that to make sense when this debate interrogates more of the why of a social action than the what or how.
I like teamwork and a consistent storyline down the bench. Generally speaking, you should enter the debate with conversational yet intellectually genuine rhetoric and implement strategy in a way the average academic could understand (avoid jargon in favor of adding more backing to a warrant). Cross-Application is great because the debate turns into mush without reaching across the table for resolutional dispositon; try to avoid introducing New Matter during 3rd speaker speeches unless it has a direct application to an argument across the aisle. I will enforce Rules of Order and will let you know if I feel you missed a trigger warning / did anything problematic during round. Final/reply speeches should aim for resolutionmore than voting issues.

***Rambling on the state of high school WSD***

There is something fundamentally broken about the way our conceptions of this event get warped into an American-schools debate by forcing a reward for taking such hard-lined positions to delineate offense that loses all semblance, meaning, and nuance in a lot of debate spaces making honest attempts at implementing post-resolutional analysis at a high level. Taking something at its highest ground has lost most meaning because it's normalized to teach students to utilize the phrase in the space without real application. In my view, it's to the extent most individuals born last century have fundamentally flawed judging habits they default to if their intercultural competency hinges on simplistic guidelines like "you can't be as America-focused" or "you have to explain to me why X ontological harm exists" (when said harm is intuitive to the motion). These types of binaries are what's turning this format into something disgusting and the reason why the international debate community jests us for our interpretation of how to do this style of debate. With all that in mind, I make a concerted effort to not be an old-head and meet you on the level you want frame your ground in, because mimicry into emulating majoritarian styles of debate is why this format has failed to catch on stateside until now to begin with [since it tends to be complicit towards an insidious sort of cultural stigmatization]. The subjectivity of this event should be guided through rhetoric, not mincing default evaluative tools from other formats. I scarcely see any evaluators whose background stays in other events actually get this right. My recognition and criticism of this factor ought to secure I try not to make those mistakes, but if you come from a program that encourages the race-to-the-bottom methodology which functionally values novelty on an intrinsic level as the modus operandi, I'll flow things the way you want me to but I'm not going to be happy about it. Predictability serves zero good for the debate if you're dancing around the spirit of the motion, but that's exactly how degenerative (as opposed to restorative) pedagogical perspectives on this debate manifest themselves which, sadly, is becoming the norm. I wasn't actually able to contextualize this take until I started to see my own students' ballots with written feedback containing coded language for political bias or xenophobia.

***rambling over***

Plats/Speaking
Speech cohesion is a huge thing that can push you over the top, floating attention-getting devices make your approach feel canned or ill-composed. I'm a stickler for structure and look heavily at time management. I hover around 7-11 sources as my ideal in most events. These events are about balancing on a tightrope between content density and entertainment value, your speech shouldn't have to tradeoff between the two if you put proper care into it.

Interp/Performance
Blocking & Spacing are the most objective measure for how refined your piece is, so I evaluate the choices you made with the piece moreso than the content you chose. There is a certain level of gesturing and facial control that can push you over the top, but those are minor details compared to how you're creating tone/mood with what you cut and the way you're delivering lines. Character shifts should be apparent but not jarring to how you've presented yourself. Don't let your theming emphasis be unclear to make a scene with more gravity hit harder, it feels really cheap.

You're supposed to debate because you enjoy it, keep that in mind and have some level sportsmanship.

Updated 04/28/2024

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. this is my 6th year coaching @ greenhill, and my second year as a full time debate teacher.

[current/past affiliations:

• i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
• team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-'22);
• program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
• full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
• director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com -would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

A note on the topic - after judging at hwl, i have realized that many of the policy debates I am seeing are too big, have too many moving parts, and are not being clearly synthesized by either the affirmative or the negative debaters. this leaves me liable to confusion in terms of what exactly the world of the aff / neg does, and increases how much i appreciate a comparative speech that explains the stakes of winning each argument clearly, and in relation to the other moving parts of the debate.

8 things to know:

• Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.

• i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.

• Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
• I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.

• please do not split your 2nrs! if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it, the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.

• Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.

• i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but has nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

• topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

• Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page

• IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.

• Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)

• Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature

• affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

Nikunj (Nik) Patel

nik.patel826@gmail.com

Third year out. I did four years of debate at Reagan High School. I did LD and FX all four years and did a few tournaments in CX near the end.

General

Please clarify before the round starts whether you are going to be flashing evidence or not, or creating an email chain just so we don’t have to worry about it during the round.

Don’t steal prep time, I’ve seen people do it from the other side of the desk for four years, so what makes you think that I won’t catch you now.

I am a judge who deeply evaluates arguments; however, speaking is a key factor. If I cannot understand you, then I cannot flow your argument. Even if your opponent concedes your argument, if I did not get it the first time, then I’m gonna try to draw some connection somewhere, all the while I am now missing your next argument. Basically, it is an endless cycle of lack of clarification. If an argument is important to you, than make it clear that it is, simple as that.

You need to understand that there are multiple levels to the debate, and you need to frame your rebuttals in that manner. If you do this, I can guarantee that it will help me make a decision during the round.

Framework

I don’t really care on this one. You can have a regular value and criterion or you can have a standard. I just need some weighing mechanism for the round.

Don’t run some BS theoretical pre-fiat framework that you don’t understand and simply use to just confuse your opponent. Also, don’t read it if it takes away from the actual debate either.

Preference for arguments

I am down with any arguments that you want to go for as long as it is not racist, sexist, ableist, etc.

I really like hearing many different and unique arguments. That being said, I really don’t want to push you to run anything that you don’t feel comfortable reading.

YOU DO YOU.

Policy-Making

I like them. Just make sure they are well structured. I read them and I enjoy seeing them in LD. Number one issue is being able to defend the parametricization of your plan text and why it is important that we take the debate to that topic area specifically.

Please be updated on your news before you decide to run an Elections DA.

Kritiks

I like them as well. I read them in high school and I am familiar with some of the literature. That being said, if you want me to vote for you on the K, you have to first make sure I understand what you are talking about. K's need to be articulated clearly in order for me to evaluate them.

Need to have a solid way for me to frame the round.

With generic Ks, I will evaluate them; however, I am growing tired of generic links that are just to the topic itself or links that require no work at all and are really just recycling of backfiles. Again, I will evaluate them and I will do my best to not be biased about them.

Theory

Aight, so when it comes to theory and topicality, there is one rule.

Do not run it unless there is actual abuse. I hate having to vote on theory that has “potential” abuse. Unless it is clear that it will make an actual impact on the debater or the round, I would not like to hear it.

Please be slow when reading through shells.

Theory is not an RVI especially if it is I-meet or defense on the shell. If you think it is wasting your time on the aff, read a position that you know won't cause your opponent to run it.

Miscellaneous

Do NOT read 4 off against a novice that is just trying to get experience and learn. There is no good in scaring off a novice just to make your ego bigger. I will dock speaks for this.

Please do not attempt to argue with me. I understand that you may have concerns but the best thing to do is just ask questions about how you could have done better/be better or how I evaluated certain arguments.

I really do not wish to have to ask for evidence after round unless I absolutely need to (i.e., you are banking your ballot on one piece of evidence, or there are opposing cards that are dealbreakers in the round). Thus, do your best to elucidate what the evidence says through your extensions so we don’t have to waste time doing that and I can make more time for the RFD and critiques.

Also, JUST BE NICE. Being civil in round sometimes matters a lot more to me than being a good debater. Sure, I will vote you up as a debater and you can go on to win tournaments, but I will vote you down as a person, and again I can do that with speaks.

Oh and yea, I knew you were just looking for this, so I put it at the very bottom

I’m good with speed. If you become unclear, I will yell “clear” once, after that I will put my pen down.

In terms of speaker points, (I like to think I am fairly generous), this is a general guideline of what I think about you as a debater

29.5 - 30: probably very late outrounds, winning it all maybe

29 - 29.4: will break

28 – 28.9: you are doing good so far, might break, but still much room for improvement

27 - 27.9: probably just starting out, which is completely fine, do not take it offensively. It was probably a lack of fluency during speeches and/or not enough clarity during the collection of arguments

26 - 26.9: too many filler words, hard to understand, could not keep track of arguments, did not make use of time well

Below 26: this was probably if you did one of those bad things in round listed previously

Email chain: richardsonmichael98@gmail.com

TL;DR. I’m cool with whatever you have to say in whatever format you would like to say it. I think that your arguments should interact with the topic in some way, though that doesn't necessitate having a plan text or defending the federal government. Assume you need to over-explain arguments and link stories, I like to refrain from doing work for the debater(s) - that has gone poorly for some folks I've judged in the past that assumed too much. I’ve lost some flowing proficiency since high school, but I will try my best to keep up.

Stuff about me:

I haven't debated for several years, so I’m not going to trick myself into thinking that I remember everything about every debate argument or that I'm still able to effectively flow at super high speeds. However, I vow that I will do everything in my power to be present and alert of what is happening in the round and be respectful of your time. I will also do my best to explain my thought process for every decision so that you understand why I voted a certain way if the tournament allows. If not, I will make myself available to you to provide my insight or comments if you wish.

I debated for 4 years at Ronald Reagan HS in San Antonio, TX (2012-2016) and I am a recent graduate of the University of Texas at Austin (hook'em). In my first three years, I did exclusively LD and Extemporaneous Speaking. I attended many national tournaments for LD, so I am very familiar with the argument types and strategies on the national circuit. I also attended UIL State for Informative Speaking. Policy debate, however, was the highlight of my senior year. As a 2A/1N, my partner and I attended elimination rounds at various national tournaments, was the top seed at TFA State where I was 5th overall speaker, was in late elims of NSDA Nationals, and attended the Tournament of Champions.

My advice to you: Do what you do best. That doesn’t mean that adaptation isn’t important. I’ve had to do my fair share and I know of its challenges and rewards. The big takeaway is that I am open to anything you have to say in any manner or format to which you would like to say it.

Some house-keeping items:

- Be Kind. Please.

- Prep stops when the email is sent/when the document is saved to the flash drive and is out of the computer.

- Speed is fine. Go slower on Theory/T Interpretations and CP Texts, as you should. I try to flow everything said in the round including the text of evidence and cross ex. Hopefully this isn’t anything new, but clarity is very important.

- I like reading evidence, and I'll call for it if it's pertinent to my thought process at the end of the round.

- Sure I'll be on the email chain: richardsonmichael98@gmail.com

Affs -- Read whatever you're comfortable with.

- I believe that affs should be a critical discussion of the topic. What that "critical discussion" entails is entirely up to the debaters. Heg/Econ scenarios, poetic performances, whatever you do best, do it. Though, I'm likely not going to be persuaded by an aff that I feel could be cross-applied to any other topic (I think you lose out too).

- In order of how much I've read them in HS (from the most to the least), it would go "middle-of-the-road" affs, K affs, then Policy affs. I do not have a proclivity towards any one of them: I've enjoyed reading them all.

- In LD, I do not have a preference as to what the aff should look like. You can do the traditional "definitions, framework, contentions," thing or you can switch it up and do it in reverse, I don't care. As long as the information is read.

Topicality -- I enjoy Topicality debates and have no qualms voting on a well-executed topicality shell.

- I default to competing interpretations if all things are equal - actually, I probably default to an offense/defense paradigm on most things.

- In HS, I rarely read any other standard than predictable limits; I intuitively think that both sides have reasonable ground for argumentation if they're smart enough, but I can be persuaded to vote for other standards. That being said, I generally think along the lines of "the caselist" in topicality debates, so doing your due diligence in these debates should be rewarded.

- I don’t think that RVI’s are a thing and I'm not sure why they ever were; I've yet to vote for an RVI argument I thought was persuasive. BUT, *shrugs* if it's conceded, then there's not much I can do about that, now can I?

Framework/T-USFG -- Go for it.

- As a 2A I've both defended and not defended a plan text, so I have experience with both sides of the framework debate. I've also read it quite a few times on the negative, so I'm familiar with how it ought to be executed.

- I don't think that FW is inherently violent, but that doesn't mean there aren't sweet impact turns to roleplaying/policy education.

- Carded topical versions of the aff are very persuasive for me.

LD Frameworks -- Do your thing.

- I don't have an expectation as to what the Framework should look like for the aff or neg. You can do the Value/Value-Criterion if you want. You can do a Standard if you want. You can read a Role of the Ballot/Judge interpretation if you want.

Theory -- With me, you should explain the violation more than normal if it's anything other than disclosure or condo.

- In all honesty, based on my skill level I'm probably not a good judge for you if your strategy is to spam 4 tricky theoretical violations and go for the undercovered ones.

- Except for conditionality and disclosure, I am not really experienced with the various types of theoretical violations floating out there, especially on the LD national circuit. In my HS experience, I'd never read anything on the affirmative that justified opponents making theory a 2NR position, so I rarely had to give a substantive 2AR on anything other than condo.

- If theory ends up being a "game-winning" 2NR/2AR strategy, I would implore you to please go slow and over-explain the argument. It’s not that I am incapable of understanding theory (I think I'm actually selling myself a little short), it's just an area of the argument spectrum that I don't have much personal experience with.

- I am more receptive to theory as a result of actual cheating, whatever that means for the debate.

- I don't think theory needs to be in a traditional "shell" format - as long as all the components are there, we should be good.

Counterplans -- Explain to me what they actually do.

- The only caveat I have with CPs is the quality of solvency advocate evidence; I'm just a sucker for evidence that actually says what you're claiming it says.

- An explanation as to what the counterplan actually does would really help me conceptualize how it interacts with and is different from the plan, especially if it deviates from being textually and functionally competitive.

- I don't have an expectation as to what the net benefit should be. Internal Net Benefits, DA's, on-case DA's. All fair game.

Disadvantages -- I'm game for anything you've got.

- I'm a stickler for strong, definitive pieces of evidence, especially on the uniqueness debate. Though, I'll probably give you the benefit of the doubt if you do a fair amount of explanation as to why that piece of evidence may be true.

- I've read politics, linear, and on-case DA's with extinction-level or structural violence impacts so I shouldn't be unfamiliar with whatever you decide to read.

- I've done my fair share of impact turning DA's on the affirmative (I am particularly familiar with dedev or "warming irreversible" arguments) and I think these can be particularly strategic.

Case debate -- Underrated, and that is a darn shame.

- I've had some 1NRs where I just extended the warrants of 1NC evidence, read 5 minutes of cards, or a mix of the two. I’ve got no qualms voting negative on presumption if the aff’s responses are lackluster.

- Some of my best and most fun 1NRs to give were impact turns to the aff (dedev and "warming irreversible" again).

"Critical" arguments/K Affs/The K -- Read whatever you want, but be smart.

- Out of anything on this page, the K is probably what I have the most experience reading in HS. K affs and one-off K strategies were the bread and butter of my senior year.

- Some authors/criticisms that I enjoyed reading and deploying in-round include: Anti-Blackness, Berlant, Oliver, Settler Colonialism (plus every Eve Tuck article, ever), Critical Asian Studies/Orientalism/Model Minority Myth, (Racialized) Capitalism, and the Academy K.

- I prefer the line-by-line to long-winded overviews (oftentimes, they are hard to reconcile).

- Big overarching theme: you do you. This also encapsulates different arguments characterized as “performance,” though I tend to think that how you choose to debate is a performance of sorts. If you need to play music, dance, scream, do your thing.

In conclusion, some parting words.

Since my paradigm page is part love-letter-to-debate, part diary, I would like to share a thought about my philosophy on judging that may be helpful for you to know. Reflecting on my experiences as both a debater and a judge, I am a firm believer that debate, while an educational activity, is also primarily a persuasive activity. I have become increasingly annoyed with debaters and judges that are disappointed with someone's skill level (particularly if they are a novice debater or judge) and verbally express those frustrations to the public or behind their backs. Yes, having an experienced judge gives you more options to deploy different arguments and strategies, and that can certainly make for a more entertaining and enjoyable debate. But the world is not full of debate hardos. The next time you have a "lay" judge in the back of your debate, consider this: if you lose, perhaps it has less to do with the judge missing something and more about your inability to persuade someone outside of the activity (i.e. 99.9999% of people). This academically elitist pedestal some debaters find themselves upon is incredibly insufferable. So don't vent to me about how your last round's judge was a random mom or pop, you will find the opposite of sympathy from me.

If there are any lingering questions about how I view the debate or argument types I haven't listed above, don’t hesitate to ask!

Thanks y’all. Happy debating, and good luck!

LD paradigm: I am a traditional LD debate judge. I like clash and argumentation throughout a round. I like to see value and criterion level debate carried out throughout the round. I also like sources presented to me in a manner that upholds the arguments you are using. I don’t want number and values just thrown out without some type of evidence of source to support it.

PF paradigm: I like to see a lot of clash throughout the round but do not want it to turn into cattiness. There should be no CX jargon brought into the round. PF was created for an average person to sit in on the round and understand what is going on, let’s do our best to keep it that way.

Extemp: I want your speech to be set up in a way that it flows. Give me an intro, your points, and a conclusion. I like sources to be used throughout in a way that supports your topic. If you want to provide me information on the number of immigrants who enter the country make sure to not just throw a number out but instead have a source that backs up the information you are providing.

Congress: Do your best to be active in the chamber. If you don’t have speeches to give during the round or don’t want to at least try to ask questions and participate. The number of speeches does not determine where you place in the round, the quality of your speech does. Give me sources to back up your information, provide clash with other speakers, and try your best to not repeat the same points others have gone over multiple times.

Interp: Do your best to draw me into your piece. Give me a hook in your intro that draws me in and makes me want to listen to what is coming next. Make sure your characters are well defined and distinguishable. Try to have good eye contact and don’t rush.

*****MOST IMPORTANTLY HAVE FUN! As long as you know you did your best and left it all in the room when you exit that’s honestly all I can ask for. Don’t get tied up in making sure you hit everyone of my paradigms because then you don’t focus on the fun you’re supposed to be having in your event! :)

[February 23, 2024] Quick update, more later: I have primarily judged Congress and World Schools for the past 8 years. I was preparing for a Congress event tomorrow. I will return after that to update my CX/Policy Paradigm and add paradigms for other formats.

Relatively speaking, I am a old school Policy judge-Stock Issues, Slower Presentation (if you are gulping for air, especially the double gulp, you are speaking far too fast) and most importantly Topicality (PLEASE debate the Resolution in its entirety, don't pick one of 2 words and head off to left field). CPs are welcome, Ks not so much (always interesting but MUST relate to the topic and ultimately result in a policy/solution. Closed CX please.

Update 2020: I haven't judged in a couple months! But hey there, I am college student who graduated from Flower Mound High School in 2015. While in school, I mainly competed in LD debate on the national circuit. Since high school, I've spent time coaching students all throughout the country and judging on the Austin circuit.

I will not vote on brackets theory especially if the implication is evidence ethics. Stop reading theory arguments for the sake of reading theory.

General Views: I am pretty familiar with progressive debate concepts, so there's probably nothing you can't read in front of me. I enjoy debates of all kinds so don't be afraid to pull out your theory shells and/or kritiks. That being said, feel free to ask me questions before the round. I want you to debate in your comfort zone, so if that means sitting down and debating, or debating without your shoes on, go for it! That being said, I feel like from personal experience debaters that stand up and read are clearer with their articulation. I tend to view the round under an offense/defense paradigm, so make it clear to me what offense you are going for and how it wins you the ballot.

Speed: Go as fast as you want and I'll say clear if needed.

Critical Arguments: While I don't really see these kind of arguments too often anymore, I did my fair share of reading into dense philosophy like DnG and Foucault. I still won't do any work for you, make sure you can properly explain all of your arguments no matter how complex.

Speaker Points: Strategic decision making, vocabulary, and quality of argumentation are all factors that go into determining your speaker points, but I honestly think of myself as a speaker point fairy. Also if I'm giving you a huge thumbs up in the 2AR you've already won the round, just end the speech asap and save us both some time. Winning quicker will get you better speaks, if you can win with more than a minute to spare I'll give you a 30!

Prefiat/Postfiat: I'm honestly very annoyed with the current trend in which debaters sketchily extend embedded evidence as prefiat reasons to vote a person up in a round. This is a cop out and often times doesn't even make sense. Additionally, it also frustrating when debaters turn clear postfiat defense/offense into "independent reasons to vote someone down". For example, I find it hard to justifiably vote a debater down just because they read Util and Util can justify oppression. That's simply an articulation of a flaw within Util not a prefiat reason to vote someone down. The only scenarios I feel justify voting someone down immediately is when debaters condone oppressive norms in general through their rhetoric or words. I am also now firmly against voting someone up for just happening to introduce the discussion of oppression in the round absent a justification as to why their performance and the ballot is key. Sketchily extending a one line "prefiat" justification is no different than sketchily extending a blippy theory argument, and from now on I will treat the 2 as the same. This does NOT apply to performance based positions that do a great job explaining the importance of their performance.

Updated 1/10 for Churchill Classic: I will boost speaks by .3 if you draw me a picture (you must present this at the start of the round). Control F to view noteworthy updates to my paradigm.

Disclaimer: I don't care where you sit, if you sit, whether you wear a jacket, whether you're going to use flex prep- just do it.

IMPORTANT UPDATE 1/11: If you are confident that you have won my ballot in your final speech then just stop there. Do not talk just to fill up the allotted time. I will reward you for your concise and strategic approach with higher speaks.

SPECIAL CHALLENGE-GUARANTEE 30 POINTS: If you win and end your final speech within half of your given time (IE 1:30 minutes for the 2ar and 3 minutes for the 2nr) I will give you an instant 30 speaks.

TL;DR: I'm not a great theory/t judge and have very specific expectations for these arguments (see below), I think DAs should be as reasonable/realistic as possible, but that extinction is usually a no-risk freebie that you should take advantage of (so do both), I really love ks- cap, discourse, ableism, decol, etc, but I'm not going to know your pomo stuff like the back of my hand so please take it easy on me (basically anything that is v philosophical and uses words that I won't know unless I just read the book) so I'll need explanation aside from the repetition of buzzwords (you can ask me before round about my knowledge of your specific authors so you'll know what degree to explain things). Speed should be fine. Ask for triggers before the round starts. Don't be #TheWorst.

Foreword: I feel like knowing who I am as a person is very important to understand how I judge and why I do some of the things that I do, so we're gonna have a little crash course. A v important thing to know about me is that I have aspergers. Debate wise, that means I take ableism really seriously and will always love to hear a good ableism discussion. In terms of how that affects other things, it means that sometimes eye contact is really uncomfortable for me, so I may not look at you during an RFD or during speeches. Sometimes the acoustics of a room will really bother me, which may affect how well I will understand you if you are quick or very loud. It also means that it takes me a little while longer to give you a very articulate RFD. With very close rounds, I often make a list of 'round facts', things which have definitively been lost or conceded, and then connect the dots to determine how these facts interact and what that means for the round- you will probably hear me scribbling furiously when this happens.

ALSO please read my paradigm carefully, I have some probably unpopular opinions about some arguments people make and I really do not want to have to explain that the reason you lost is because you went for something I have already articulated I do not understand or find acceptable.

when i say ask for triggers/give a content warning i am being super serious

UPDATE: Topic specific stuff: authoritarian something

-PLS GIVE ME AN AFF ABOUT THE US BEING AUTHORITARIAN AND SHUTTING DOWN THE MILITARY

-maybe don't use yemen as the neg probably

-I love seeing interesting takes on a resolution, so if you've got some wacky, not strictly topical (or completely nonT) aff, hit me with it.

-ur nebel t will make me hate my life but explain it and I'll give it to you

General Paradigm: Speed- Fine with it. I will repeatedly yell clear if I can’t understand you. I may ask you to flash me what you're reading just to be on the safe side/assume I want in on email chains. It’s msteve884@gmail.com. ***If I don't flow it, I'm not going to supplement your argument through the speech doc- be clear, I don't do work for y'all.

Update: Theory is slowly growing on me, but I’m very particular about shells (thanks @jason yang) Your theory checklist in front of me:

1. 1. Specific interps- I don’t mean, restate the resolution and the month and the tournament in your generic plans bad interp; I want theory that engages specific abuse and articulates the abuse story well.

2. 2. No one needs more than three standards. Honestly two is what makes the most sense to me, since they all get repetitive and cease to be unique or meaningful, but hey.

3. 3. If you’re devoting time to theory, I want well warranted standards and voters. Why does your standard matter? How have they violated it and how much? What is the effect on the ballot from that violation? Spell it out!

4. 4. If theory is a quick off, condense it- don’t read a whole slew of standards and voters- especially since everyone has education/fairness impacts memorized- I don’t need a card for fairness or education or to articulate why limits matter. And I don’t need 6 things to flow and have you waste speech time on.

5. 5. Again, cards in shells= overrated, don’t read to me telling me you’re missing out on spending time with your wife and kids.

6. 6. If your tricks are so well hidden that I don’t catch them, that’s just unlucky for you.

Biggest takeaway is that I hate generic interps because they produce boring rounds, I want good interaction between standards, and I need to be able to flow what you’re saying- that means rapid fire blips aren’t cool. I default reasonability, convince me otherwise if you want.

Topicality- I am very susceptible to arguments of why ks come before t. I think t can be really interesting (like, what IS a medical procedure?? we just don't know!!), but y'alls obsession with grammar is painful, so I'll be less eager to hear "this colon has x implication". Most of the time, t will not be the place where I sign my ballot.

Ks- yes pls. I understand stuff like cap and ableism, not so much DnG and whatever you kids are doing these days (if you're going to read Heidegger or other authors whose work I would have to have read several times pre-round in order to understand, you're going to need to do more work explaining that to me than you would "x is ableist and ableism is bad")
As a sidenote, I don’t really think discourse k’s need much of an alt aside from reject.
UPDATE: I love K’s but I also get really burnt out with them; if you read a role of the ballot in front of me, you better be prepared to explain what it means in the debate community or world at large, and how you can perform it- if it doesn’t come up in round, I’ll likely ask after I’ve made my decision because IT’S IMPORTANT. Y’all can’t hide behind Giroux forever and pat yourselves on the back for being intellectuals and revolutionaries. This ESPECIALLY goes for pre-fiat conversations about the debate community; I don’t want to hear that things need to get better, I want to know how you’re setting forth to MAKE them better.

UPDATE: policy args- I think CPs are hella fun and I really like rounds which include them. I think DAs are usually pretty bad unless you're going to articulate them through an oppression lens rather than some outrageous extinction scenario. *I’ve been won over to terminal impacts, but I’d still prefer that you include systemic ones as well rather than relying solely on extinction/low probability outcomes. @Willie Johnson convinced me that it’s always good to have extinction on the table as a fallback so go wild.

speaks- please don't call me judge, please don't shake my hand, don't call me by my first name

My speaks range:

<27: You said something that annoyed me, were rude, misrepresented an argument (without being called out), etc

27-27.5: I didn't find your performance very compelling, there was too little clash or weighing, etc

27.5-28.5: This was an average round. There's a lot of room to grow, but I believe you could have done really well with just a few changes to strat or performance.

28.5-29.5: Good decisions were made, I am generally pleased with this round: you were very funny, or strategic, or persuasive.

29.5-30: I will enthusiastically tell someone about this round. I think you should be in late outrounds and I will tell my kids to read your cases and give rebuttal redos of this round.

philosophy heavy rounds- Probably the only philosopher I ever got really acquainted with was Rawls, if your case is 4 minutes of deontology or ethics of care or something, I'm most likely not a great judge for you because where things don't make sense I will try to fill in gaps on my own and def misconstrue the argument.
PLEASE WEIGH BETWEEN LAYERS. ALSO JUST WEIGH IN GENERAL.

General stuff: Things I hate to listen to
UPDATE: *For personal reasons, I’m leery of pessimism arguments. Usually I only see this for queer pess, but I just don’t want to anymore. I especially don’t want to see any suicide alts- you will get zero speaks.

- Ableism is a huge nono for me. Even if you don’t think it’s a big deal, your opponent might, and I definitely will. So, calling something “dumb” “crazy” “lame” “stupid” etc will definitely hurt your speaks (less so if your opponent doesn’t say anything about it, moreso if they call you). A good standard: If you’re using a word which describes disability or impairment to ridicule something, don’t. Another tip: If something can be used as a synonym for the word ret*rded, don’t say it. (Instead of calling something stupid or whatever, say it ‘doesn’t make sense’ or ‘isn’t valid’ or is ‘ridiculous’, etc etc. Go to autistichoya.com for more alternatives if you want) (Also "stupid" absolutely is ableist, I don't care if you see in the dictionary that it means "in a stupor", in the same way that the f slur is also defined as burning sticks or cigarettes, the word "stupid" has multiple definitions and you are 99% definitely not using it to describe someone "in a stupor", so don't pull this)

-Same goes for racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, etc. NEVER dismiss any oppression because of util calc or any other factor (this is not to say “don’t run util”, this is to say “don’t make me relive the time someone told me gay people don’t matter because there are more str8s”). Stop co opting one form of oppression by saying ‘oh, racism isn’t really the problem!!! We gotta solve cap first lmao!!!’ I reserve the right to be offended by your discourse and/or proposal, and though it won’t probably be a voting issue unless your opponent makes it one (unless you just bite the bullet and go rape good!!!! Racism good!!!! Those, and things in that vein, are auto drops for me), my displeasure will show in speaks (even if I’m the only one who noticed/cared).

-Arguments that are like “I hate debate because it’s boring so instead of discussing this topic which might be super important to other people in this round, lets do x (like tell jokes all round)!” If you think debate is boring, don’t do it. If you want to tell jokes, do it out of round or be a friggin standup, I don’t care. This is distinct from critiquing the debate space for exclusion, those arguments have purpose aside from being a super edgy le troll lololol w0w!!! If you want to run stuff in front of me that says ‘this norm is bad let’s do y instead’, more power to you. If you want to goof off and make light of something that is important, save it for someone else. I will not vote you up for being bored and ridiculous.

*UPDATE: DISCLOSURE- for the love of lorde will yall prepped big schools who are prepped TF out stop reading disclosure against kids who literally don't know the wiki exists/don't have the access and experience w circuit norms you do?? I'm all for disclosure and I think it's a good norm but stop penalizing kids for not being able to be as engaged as you!**


I like positions that make me think, things that indict systems of power and privilege, things that make me interrogate my assumptions. I like rounds that have respectful interactions (IE you don’t tell your opponents that they “don’t understand English” or anything like that) while still being fast paced and fun. I’m a simple judge of simple means, if anything is unclear or seems unfair, talk to me before round and I’ll consider an exception (if you have a rEALLY good PAS aff, for instance, that is absolutely not ableist then argue with me to run it, I like seeing those advocacy skills put to good use)

I’m fine with speed and any level of complexity. K’s are fine, with or without an alt, as well as theory and any other strategy. I prefer truth testing to policy, but that’s just preference. I would discourage role of the ballot arguments unless they are articulated extremely well, as I personally think they don’t function. However, I’m fine with you running them as a voting issue, so long as you give sufficient reason that they are in fact terminal. Not a huge fan of blippy pre-fiat or apriori argument. However, I will judge anything and endeavour not to intervene. Give me enough weighing analysis to ensure that doesn’t happen.

First things first: If you are speed reading, do not raise your voice and yell your speeches at me. I will call out your tone in round and that will probably mess up your speech. Talking loudly does not make me understand your speed any better, and it will dock you on speaks. Use your inside voice.

Argumentation: I like bare bones clash and direct argumentation. I evaluate everything pretty fairly, but avoid topics that would clearly create distress and aren't relevant to the topic. Hate speech, homophobia, implicit or explicit racism, and being rude to other debaters are not tolerated in my rounds.

Presentation/Speed: An easy way to ensure you get your speaker points is to slow down on taglines, authors, and provide summaries of cards after you read them. I judge based on end of round voters and impact calculus. Your use of the sources is more important than the name tied to it. Additionally, I think playing the cards game is a waste of debate time. Engage with the content of the round and if there is a legitimate issue of false sources we can have a discussion in post.

Very important: ALWAYS SIGN POST. At the start of a new argumentation, when flipping between AFF and NEG, whenever you change to a new topic you need to tell me. Otherwise the flow gets messy on my end and it hurts my ability to judge you based off of all the wonderful ideas you're presenting. You'll get docked if I can't understand you.

How I vote:

For LD: Value Criterion. It may seem basic but it's how I judge. Drops count against you- so if you're running a K but don't address your opponents case, whats the point to the debate? In your last speech I need specific voters and specific links and very specific reasons for my vote. Be comparative, that means impacts. I have the nitty gritty details written on my page, but give me the big picture reason why you win.

For PF: Impact calculus and clash. Hit every single one of their points, then show how yours are better, and you win. I want to hear why your "world" is the more feasible and the more worthwhile.

My bark is much worse than my bite- just respect me, respect each other, and have fun with it. Good luck!

Table of contents:

1. My Background

2. Paradigm Overview

3. LD specifics

4. Policy specifics

5. World School specifics

6. Public Forum specifics

- My Background -

I have been coaching for 20+ years. Currently, I am the head debate coach at Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School in Dallas ISD, where my students primarily compete in World School, though they have also competed in LD and Policy. Before that, I was the head debate coach at the JBS Law Magnet in Dallas ISD, where I coached both LD and Policy on the Texas and national circuits. Over the years, I've also coached national circuit LD for University School (Florida) and, in Texas, at Westlake, Southlake, Marcus, and Anderson High Schools, as well as individual LDers attending high schools across the country. I have coached TFA champions in LD and Policy, as well as to elimination rounds at the TOC and NSDA Nationals.

Most of my coaching and judging experience is in LD, Policy, and World School; however, I've also coached and judged Public Forum, though to a much lesser extent.

I have a BA in Philosophy and Government from UT Austin, where I also earned a MA in Gender Studies.

I am a co-founder and Board Member of the Texas Debate Collective (TDC) and have taught at every TDC summer camp to debate. I also previously taught LD debate at NSD, VBI, NDF, and UTNIF camps. I have taught Policy and World School debate at camps hosted by the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.

- Paradigm overview -

Below I'll attempt to speak to some event-specific paradigms, but I'll start with an overview of how I tend to judge any debate event:

1. In my view, a judge should aspire to resolve issues/clash in the round based on what the debaters themselves have argued, as opposed to holding either side to the burden of debating the judge. In practice, this means that I am quite fine voting against my own beliefs and/or for arguments that I have good reasons (that were not raised in the round) for rejecting in real life. This also means that I tend to be pretty open to hearing a variety of arguments, strategies, and styles. MJPs frequently result in my judging so-called "clash of civilization" debates. Finally, this means that I think the debaters have the explanatory burden; just because you read something that I might be very familiar with, do not assume that I will fill in the gaps in your warrant and/or explanation of that philosophical theory because I will actively try my best to not give you credit for more than what you actually say.
2. I default to the view that the resolution (or, in WS, the "motion") is the stasis point for the debate. Meaning, the official topic divides ground, establishes burdens, and will basically serve as the thing being debated/clashed over by the opposing debaters/teams. (LD and Policy debaters: please note that I said, "default." I am fine with debaters shifting what that stasis point is. See the LD and Policy specific notes below).
3. I think all debaters have the burden of clear communication. For me, this doesn't dictate a particular speed or style of presentation---I'm open to many. However, it does mean that I expect to be able to flow the speeches and to use that flow to decide the round. I reject (or, at least, resist) using speech docs to fill in the gaps created by debaters' ineffective oral communication.
4. I aspire---as a judge, as a coach, as a person---to being humble, kind, respectful, open to the possibility that I am wrong, interested in learning, and more committed to becoming right, rather than being right. I expect debaters---and all people---to aspire to cultivate and exhibit those virtues as well. If you fail to do so---particularly in terms of how you relate to me, your opponent, and other people in the room---l will choose to address it in the ways that seem most appropriate and consistent with those virtues, including (but not limited to) reducing speaker points, talking to you at length after the round, and discussing it with your coach.

- LD -

Most of my experience judging and coaching has been in LD, across a wide-range of competitive styles and circuits. Below is a list of my defaults; however, please note that debater can (and often do) push me off of my defaults. Doing so requires that you make comparatively better arguments than your opponent---not that you have to defeat whatever arguments I personally have for those defaults. All that to say, feel free to argue that I should think about these issues in different---or even radically different---ways.

1. The Aff has the burden of proving the resolution true and the Neg has the burden of proving the resolution false. What that actually means, though, is determined by the winning interpretation of the resolution's meaning and other framework arguments (including the standard/criterion/role of the ballot) that establish the epistemic standards for what will qualify as having proved the resolution true or false. Again, if you want to run a non-topical (or creatively topical Aff), you are welcome and encouraged to argue that this would be the better stasis point for the debate and, if your opponent challenges this, then do a comparatively better job of arguing that your alternative stasis point will make for a better debate. I have voted for (and coached) a lot of non-topical Affs over the years.
2. On my own, I do not default/presume neg...unless the neg has made a default/presumption neg argument and the conditions for it applying have been met. In the absence of the neg making and winning such an argument, if I am in a round where neither debater has actually met their burdens, then I will vote for the debater that is closest to meeting that burden. In other words, I'll vote for the side that requires the least intervention in creating a coherent RFD.
3. On theory and topicality, I default to the paradigm of competing interpretations. I also default to the view that there is no RVI on either of these debates---unless a debater has made the argument that there is an RVI. I think there are very good reasons for an RVI, so feel free/encouraged to argue for one
4. If the Aff does not read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does not get ground to defend topical advocacies, including topical PICs or PIKs. However, if the Aff does read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does get topical PIC/PIK ground, so long as it is competitive with the Aff's plan.

- Policy -

When judging Policy debate, here are my defaults:

1. (Only in policy debate) I will default to the view that I am using a broad consequentialist decision calculus to filter and weigh impacts. I do this because that is already such a strong assumption/norm in the policy debate community; however, I think this practice is intellectually and strategically deficient. All that to say, I am always open to debaters arguing for narrower consequentialist or non-consequentialist decision calcs/roles of the ballot. If that occurs, I expect the AFF team to actually be able to defend the validity of consequentialism if they want that to remain the decision calc. Indeed, my background in LD and coaching K teams in policy makes me very open and eager to see teams contest the assumption of consequentialism.
2. I default to the view that the resolution is the stasis point for the debate. This means I default to the AFF having the burden of defending a topical advocacy; I default to the view that this requires defending the United States federal government should implement a public policy (i.e., the plan) and that the public policy is an example of the action described in the resolution. However, these are only defaults; I am completely open to AFF's making arguments to change either of these parameters. (Perhaps it's worth noting here that I have coached policy debaters across a fairly wide range of styles, including big-stick policy AFFs, topical AFF that are critical, and AFFs that are explicitly non-topical. Most of the AFFs I have helped my students create and run have leaned critical, ranging from so-called "soft-left" plans to K Affs that defend creatively-topical advocacies to K AFFs that are explicitly non-topical.) All that to say, if the AFF wants to affirm a strange/creative interpretation of the resolution or if the AFF wants to completely replace the resolution with some other stasis point for the round, the debaters will not be asked to meet some threshold I have; they need only do a comparatively better job than the negative in justifying that stasis point.
3. Relatedly, I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the explanatory burden you have to develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous arguments when you debate over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.
4. I am not going to flow/back-flow your speech based on a speech doc because I think the normalization of judges not actually listening to speeches and just flowing off of speech docs has resulted in worse debates and engagements with issues, and judges who simply miss thoughtful and intelligent analytics. If your articulation, volume, and/or signposting are not clear---especially after I verbally indicate that you need to be clearer, louder, etc---that's on you.
5. Arguments need warrants. Warrants could be, but do not have to be, cards. The belief that an analytic is categorically weaker/insufficient as a warrant is an intellectually dishonest and, quite simply, ridiculous view of knowledge that some corners of policy debate have proliferated to the detriment of our intellects. Whether a claim needs to be warranted by empirical evidence, let alone carded evidence, is mostly a feature of the specific claim being advanced. Of course, in some cases, the claim is about the empirical world and only empirical evidence will suffice, but this is not true of every claim debaters might make.
6. Theory and topicality: I default to theory and topicality both being issues of competing interpretations; though, I'm entirely open to a debater making arguments to shift that to reasonability (or some other paradigm). I also default to the view that there are no RVIS; I am open to that being contested in the round too, particularly if the 2NR goes for theory or topicality. As a generalization, I have found the theory and topicality debates in policy rounds to be abysmal --- both shells and line-by-line arguments that suffer from impoverished warranting and implicating. In my estimation, there is far too much implicit (and sometimes explicit) appeal to some supposedly settled norm, when the debaters themselves do not appear capable of critically analyzing, let alone sufficiently, defending that norm. I will always prefer to see fleshed out warrants. In the end, I'll resolve any theory and topicality debates via the clash produced by the arguments made by the debaters. I resist the idea that my role is to enforce a norm of policy simply because it has inertia.

- World School -

When judging world school, I try to adapt to the event by doing my best to follow the international norms for world school debate. With that in mind, I'll speak to a few issues that I've noticed WS students may need to be reminded of, as well as some issues that involve the biggest shift from how I evaluate other debate events:

1. Don't go fast. Even though I'll be able to flow it, you should aspire to keep your speed close to conversational because that's part of the conventions that make WS unique. If your rate of delivery is quicker than that, I'll likely not score you as high on "style."
2. Unless the topic is explicitly about one nation, you should provide examples and analysis of the motion that applies beyond the US as the context.
3. You should aim to take 1-2 POIs each speech, excluding (of course) the reply speech. Taking more signals to me that you can't fill up your time; taking fewer signals that you're afraid to be taken off your script. Either of those will result in fewer "strategy" and/or "content" points.
4. Countermodels cannot be topical; Opp's burden is to reject the motion, even if Prop has provided a model. Opp teams need to make sure that their countermodels are not simply a different way of doing the motion, which is Prop's ground in the debate.
5. Make sure you are carrying down the bench any arguments you want to keep alive in the debate. If Prop 2 doesn't extend/carry an argument down that Prop 3/Reply ends up using in their own speech, I'll be less persuaded. In the least, Prop 2 won't have earned as many "strategy" points as they could have.

- Public Forum -

I view the resolution as the stasis point for the debate. I'm fine with Pro defending the resolution as a general principle or further specifying an advocacy that is an instance of the resolution. (My default is that the Pro has the burden of defending a topical advocacy; however, I'm also equally open to the Pro defending arguments that justify they are not bound by the resolution.) If the Pro side further specifies an advocacy (for example, by defending a specific plan), then the stasis point for the debate shifts to being that advocacy statement. In the context of the arguments made in the debate, I vote Pro if I'm convinced that the arguments being won in the debate justify the truth of the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement). I vote Con if I'm convinced that the arguments being won justify that the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement) are false. The specific burdens (including the truth conditions of the resolution or advocacy statement) that must be met to vote Pro or Con are determined by the debaters: I am open to those burdens being established through an analysis of the truth conditions of the stasis point (i.e., what is logically required to prove that statement true or false) OR by appeal to debate theoretical arguments (i.e., arguments concerning what burdens structures would produce a fair and/or educational debate).

I tend to think that Public Forum debate times are not conducive to full-blown theory debates and, consequently, PF debaters would be wise to avoid initiating them because, for structural reasons, they are likely to be rather superficial and difficult to resolve entirely on the flow; however, I do not paradigmatically exclude theory arguments in PF. I'm just skeptical that it can be done well, which is why I suspect that in nearly any PF round the more decisive refutational strategy will involve "substantive" responses to supposedly "unfair" arguments from the opponent.

I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the limitations and constraints that PF time-limits create for develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous debates over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.