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.

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.

Austin Johnson

Trinity Valley School

Head Coach/Program Director

Debating experience

Debate coach for four years. Took kids to TOC and NSDA Nats.

Role of the Judge

I’m willing to evaluate any and all roles-of-the-judge you put forward. It’s the judge’s job to weigh the round under the criteria you give. That is, the judge is a referee who makes decisions about a game whose rules are determined by its players over the course of each round.

Email Chain

If you're going to spread, I want to be on it. I'll give my e-mail at the time of the round.

CX

I do not flow CX.

Logistics

Track your own prep. I’m okay with flex prep. Flashing is not prep.

Speed

Speak as quickly as you are comfortable. However, if you’re going to spread, please be sure to include me on the e-mail chain.

Theory

The primary thing, in my opinion, that leads to worse debate is spending a lot of time explaining your opponent's model leads to worse debate. I've tried to be gentle about this. It is apparently time to be clear: I do not want to hear a theory argument. I hate them.

I’ll weigh theory if I must. But I would prefer to vote on literally anything else. If something genuinely abusive (not even in the direction of the topic, undisclosed, etc.) happens in the round, then you should call it out. Otherwise, don’t waste time on. If the only reason you’re winning a debate is because you’re manipulating the rules of debate, you’re not winning a debate.

Additionally, don't run Theory just to suck up time. The only thing worse than winning a round because you're just manipulating the rules is winning a round because you're wasting time talking about manipulating the rules and then not manipulating the rules, because that means I had to listen to your crappy theory non-argument which you then did nothing with!

Plans

I’m cool with plans. Just remember that reading a plan in LD means taking on a heavier burden of proof than defending the resolution as-written.

DA/CP

If I’m letting Aff run plans, I should probably let Neg run DAs and CPs. So I do.

Performance Ks

Performance is cool. I buy in-round solvency and pre-fiat alts.

Kritiks

The K is the reason I’m a debate coach. I’m a Ph.D. in English lit who got his degree after 2000, which means I had to be conversant in a loooooot of critical literature. I like materialist or semiotic approaches; psychoanalysis Ks are very slippery and I don’t generally enjoy them.

K Affs

K Affs are fine, but you need to be prepared for a protracted debate about framing that you can actually win.

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)

--Congress--

Competitors should speak at a conversational rate, prioritizing analysis and development over number of arguments delivered. Students should use a variety of nonbiased evidenciary sources in their speeches. Industry publications and think tanks will be weighted over news sources and periodicals. Speehes should include roughly half new material demonstrating original thought and half in response to a previous speech or sentiment. Presiding officers should demonstrate mastery of parliamentary procedure and should be fair and transparent in their conduct.

--Speech--

Extemp: Competitors should speak at a conversational rate, prioritizing analysis and development of thoughts. Students should use a variety of nonbiased evidenciary sources in their speeches. Industry publications and think tanks will be weighted over news sources and periodicals. Speech should not be stilted or overly formal. Smooth transitions and incorporation of source material are key to seemless flow of the speech. Bonus points for incorporation of appropriate humor. I prefer speakers to stand. Speakers who are obviously reading from their screen will be penalized.

Prepared Speaking: Competitors should maintain credibility and professionalism while being engaging and entertaining. I prefer thorough explanation and analysis of a smaller number of sources over superficial exploration of many. Delivery should be done in a standing position if possible.

Interp: Pieces should domonstrate historic and contemporary relevence. Teasers and introductions should set up the piece and should tell me how the piece is unique to the performer, our time and all relevent stakeholders. Bonus points for carefully considered blocking and movement in the virtual world. Thorough character development and originality in blocking are appreciated.

I’m an Ex-Churchill policy debater and an IR major at American University.

My main rule is to do what you know how to do and do it well. I’m generally cool with most arguments- (barring overt sexism/racism/ableism/etc).

I’m really not a fan of narrative debate as I feel like it turns into monologues on personal oppression rather than adding to clash and education. You can run a narrative, but I'll probably be pretty hard on it.

Yes, I will vote on T, but do not run T just to run T. That's lazy and I won't vote on it if I feel you threw in it without a real reason.

I do enjoy a well-executed K, but again it has to link well and follow through on the flow.

I’m cool with speed and prompting. Also if your opponents are okay with it you can open CX.

It's been a while since I was en-round, so please slow down on tags. As far as speaks go I average at 27 and go up and down as I see fit. If I can’t understand you I’ll call clear, and you’ll get a warning. I try not to be too stingy on clarity, and I’m more likely to deduct you for disorganization/offensive speech over just tripping over your words.

Also, my email is emily.r.malik@gmail.com add me to your email chain

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 vote for the team that wins. The following are things that I believe:

1) 2nr with only framework is an aff ballot. You still need a reason to reject the aff policy or advocacy.

2) a kritik needs an alternative. Reject the aff is not an alternative. If you do not have a competition advocacy I cannot vote for your non-unique disadvantage.

3) the affirmative must be topical.

4) debate should be fun. We're not here to strangle each other. Be nice, enjoy yourself, and let your opponents enjoy themselves too.

Debate Experience - I have previously debate for Trinity University and in high school for Clear Lake High School.
Disclaimer: These are just general preferences and can be changed based on arguments made in round.

• Debate however you want to, I am receptive to most if not all arguments (this doesn't mean I won't vote on framework, I just won't automatically presume against an aff that doesn't defend the topic).
• I think debate is first and foremost an educational activity, so be cordial to your opponents.
• The most important question of the debate in many instances is what is the role of my ballot/ what does each side hope to accomplish, so I think you should spend a lot of time on these questions and make sure they are fleshed out, or I will find it hard to vote for you.
• My ideal 2NR is probably a smart CP with a DA and/or case turns
• I really like creative and case specific arguments (whether policy or otherwise)
• I generally do not think it is possible to win a debate without any offense (i.e. no such thing as "zero risk") but I could be swayed depending on arguments made in round.
• A good 1NC usually has multiple possible 2NR options, tunnel vision-ing on your most familiar or favorite argument is an easy trap to fall into, try to avoid it.
• Debate is still a communicative activity, so persuasion is important.
• Jokes are appreciated.

Types of affirmatives - As stated above, I am receptive to any sort of affirmative, whether it is more traditional/policy or performative/ based in the lived experience of the affirmative team to anything in between. I am willing to vote either way on framework, but I generally believe the best arguments against these affs are specific K's.

T/ Theory/ FW - I default to competing interpretations on these questions. I have a pretty high threshold for pulling the trigger on blippy/ bad theory arguments (like making a severance perm is a voter) so unless it is dropped and has really good analysis, I probably won't vote on it. Otherwise, for most theory arguments, the debates can be fun, just make sure not to read blocks at each other and actually debate it.
On questions of conditionality, I can go either way, I think a clear counter interpretation is necessary. The interpretations function as a kind of plan/ counterplan debate, so the offense should be DA's specific to each other's interpretations. These debates often come down to the question of "why is 2 worse than 3" or something similar, so having your arguments tailored to your specific number of advocacies under your interpretation goes a long way

I like T debates, I think T is sometimes underutilized by teams against borderline topical affirmatives. I generally do not think in-round abuse matters, the debate is about setting a precedent/ framework under which all debates should be analyzed, not necessarily this specific debate, but examples of in-round abuse can be useful from a more rhetorical perspective.

On questions of framework, some of the more old-school arguments can be unpersuasive (i.e. saying all k's are cheating) but these can be good debates as well.

Remember to SLOW DOWN on these debates, pen time is needed most on these args compared to others.

DA's - They exist. Sometimes they are good, often they are bad. The thing I look for in DA debates is a clear internal link chain, lots of impact comparison/ DA turns case analysis, and I think it can often be very difficult to win a DA by itself without case defense (and that goes for most policy arguments, there needs to be case defense in the 1NC). The more case specific, the better, clever DA's/ clever strats in general are rewarded with high speaks.

CP's - Also a thing. A lot of the DA stuff applies here as well, I like specific counterplans or less specific advantage-counterplans. These paired with case defense and a DA can be killer. Some of the more theoretically suspect counterplans (like consult, delay, word PICs, counterplans with conditional planks) need a robust theoretical defense in the block.

Kritiks - These can be the most fun debates of all to judge, but are often the worst. I am pretty familiar with most mainstream K's, but if your kritik is more obscure, clear analysis/ overviews giving the general story of the argument is important. That being said, I like learning new things, so if you have an off-the-wall K, don't be afraid to read it. I think the weakest part of a K is almost always alt solvency and in my experience is also one of the least talked about parts of the K, so affs should focus in here. K's can be very strategic and have a lot of little tricks, utilize them if you are good at them. If you are unfamiliar with the lit base, the debate can be painful to judge, so make sure you're pretty familiar with an argument before you try to go for it. Specific, rather than generic K's, are I think one of the most devastating arguments in debate.