For judging I am incredibly easy when it comes to judging.  I like good debate that is clear and easy to follow.  I'm not a huge fan of spreading.  Especially in debate formats that it isn't meant for.  I will pretty much flow anything in the round with in reason.   If you stretch too radical then I'm not inclined to buy into your thoughts.  I've been judging world schools the last 9 years so prefer to stick to the ideals of world schools.  Definitions should be clean and easy to follow, nothing squirrely.

 I'm a former Public Forum, Policy, and Congress debater , so I'll evaluate any argument that you present to me as long it is well analyzed.

I only weigh impacts that you explain in detail how they will happen. That includes kritiks, which means that if you want me to evaluate a critical impact, you're going to have to spend a lot of effort thoroughly explaining your argument and how the impacts happen. I don't like seeing a debate where argument after argument is made and going for whatever sticks.

I want a well thought out and detailed analysis of what you're saying. I also value good rebuttals. Don't just tell me that your opponent's argument is bad, tell me WHY.

I want debaters to be respectful of one another and have a professional demeanor. I value a good and wholesome debate.

update: toc 23'

Email chain: chris@alterethosdebate.com

TLDR

Debaters ought to determine the procedural limits and educational value of each topic by defending their interpretations in the round. I ought to vote for the team that does the best job of that in the debate.

I mostly care about warranting arguments and engaging with opponent's through analysis and impact comparison. The team that does the better job justifying my vote at the end of the debate will win.

Debaters should not do any of the following:

Clip cards

Steal prep

Ignore reasonable things like showing up on time and maintaining speech times and speaking order.

Disregard reasonable personal request of their opponents. If you don’t wish to comply with opponent requests, you ought to have a good reason why.

Misgender folks

Say or do racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist things.

Read pessimism args from identities they don't identify as.

Argumentative Preferences

WARRANTS & EXPLANATIONS over blippiness.

Education > Fairness

Breadth = Depth ---> both are important please make warrants here.

K’s don’t need to win an alt to win.

Reasonable disclosure practices should be followed.

Analytic > Low quality evidence

Specific Stuff

Theory

Disclosing before the round is a reasonable thing to do. That being said, I come in with a slight bias against theory arguments in LD. Lots of frivolity in this space right now.

To adapt for this bias teams can read theory that actually has the potential to improve debates or read shells that will have clear and significant violations. Running theory as an exploit of tech judges makes debates less enjoyable for me and I am inclined to vote against them at the smallest of responses. Affirmative teams should feel comfortable reading fewer spikes and more substance.

t/framework

Neg teams ought to engage with plan free or non-topical affirmatives. Affirmative teams should advocate for some departure from the status quo within the context of the topic. The more an aff is steeped in topic literature, the less likely I am to vote against it as a procedural issues, so strong topic links are crucial. I generally think education is a more important element of debate than fairness and that an inability to prepare against an argument doesn't inherently mean that argument is unfair.

Topicality

I default to reasonability because I think it incentivizes innovative research by the aff and expands the limits of the topic in a good way.

Perf Con.

I'm good with multiple worlds but think perf cons make for less enjoyable debates and I am inclined to vote against 1NC's that read cap and the econ da in the same speech.

Counter Plans

If you have a solvency advocate, its legit.

PIC’s are generally good because they force the affirmative to more deeply examine their advocacy, I want them to be excluding something substantial and to have a solvency advocate of some kind.

Conditionality

Neg definitely gets to be conditional. Limited conditionality is the most reasonable interp.

DA's

I like topic DA's, and find most politics and econ based internal links implausible. But, I won't vote against them on face, I let your opponent make those arguments.

Presumption

Neg walks in with presumption. Neg teams should still make presumption analysis in the round though.

*If I haven't mentioned it here, ask me. It has been a minute since I've judged.

Background

First, and most importantly, I am a Black man. I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018 and the Criminal Justice paper in 2019) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way. I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge. Summer '22 I chaired the Wording Committee for NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection; do with this information what you want.

Include me on all email chains, at bothcgdebate1906@gmail.comandlrchdebatedocs@gmail.com,please and thank you

Randoms

I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole

I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just run them.

I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim. I flow on a computer so I need typing time. Your speed will always outpace my ability to type; please be conscious of this.

Intentionally saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me. That being said, I’m sure most people would prefer to win straight up and not because a person was rhetorically problematic, in round.

Update for Online Debate

Asking "is anyone not ready" before an online speech an excise in futility; if someone's computer is glitching they have no way of telling you they aren’t ready. Wait for verbal/nonverbal confirmation that all individuals are ready before beginning your speech, please. If my camera is off, I am not ready for your speech. Online debate makes speed a problem for all of us. Anything above 75% of your top speed ensures I will miss something; govern yourselves accordingly.

Please make sure I can see your face/mouth when you are speaking if at all possible. I would really prefer that you kept your camera on. I understand how invasive of an ask this is. If you CANNOT for reasons (tech, personal reasons, etc.) I am completely ok with going on with the camera off. Debate is inherently an exclusive activity, if the camera on is a problem I would rather not even broach the issue.

I would strongly suggest recording your own speeches in case someone's internet cuts out. When this issue arises, a local recording is a life saver. Do not record other people's speeches without their consent; that is a quick way to earn a one-way trip to L town sponsored by my ballot.

Lastly, if the round is scheduled to start at 2, don’t show up to the room asking for my email at 1:58. Be in the room by tech time (it’s there for a reason) so that you can take care of everything in preparation for the round. 2 o’clock start time means the 1ac is being read at 2, not the email chain being set up at 2. Timeliness, or lack thereof, is one of my BIGGEST pet peeves. Too often debaters are too cavalier with time. Two things to keep in mind: 1) it shortens my decision time and 2) it’s a quick way to short yourself on speaks (I’m real get-off-my-lawn about this).

Short Version

My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated, I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author(s) use.

I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.

T-USfg

Yes I coach primarily K teams but I have voted for T/framework quite often; win the argument and you have won my ballot. Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.

I am less and less persuaded by fairness arguments; I think fairness is more of an internal link to a more concrete impact (e.g., truth testing, argument refinement). Affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.

When aff teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they neglect to articulate why the claims they make in the 1ac implicate/inform the neg’s interp and impacts here. A lot of times they go for a poorly explained, barely extended impact turn without doing the necessary work of using the aff to implicate the neg’s standards.

When neg teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they don’t engage the aff. Often times, I find myself having a low bar for presumption when the aff is poorly explained (both in speeches and CX) yet neg teams rarely use this to their advantage. A good framework-centered 2NR versus most k affs involves some type of engagement on case (solvency deficit, presumption, case turn, etc.) and your framework claims; I think too often the neg gives the aff full risk of their aff and solvency which gives them more weight on impact turns than they should have. If you don’t answer the aff AT ALL in the 2NR I will have a hard time voting for you; 2AR’s would be smart to point this out and leverage this on the impact debate.

If you want toread a kritik of debate,I have no problems with that. While, in a vacuum, I think debate is an intrinsic good, we too often forget we exist in a bubble. We must be introspective (as an activity) about the part(s) we like and the part(s) we don't like; if that starts with this prelim round or elim debate then so be it. As structured, debate is super exclusionary if we don't allow internal criticism, we risk extinction in such a fragile world.

LD

If you don't read a "plan" then all the neg has to do is win a link to the resolution. For instance, if you read an aff that's 6 minutes of “whole rez” but you don't defend a specific action then the neg just needs to win a link based on the resolution OR your impact scenario(s). If you don't like it then write better affs that FORCE the neg to get more creative on the link debate.

If theory is your go-to strategy, on either side, please strike me. I am sick and tired debaters refusing to engage substance and only read frivolous theory arguments you barely understand. If you spend your time in the 1AR going for theory don’t you dare fix your lips to go for substance over theory and expect my ballot in the 2AR. LD, in its current state, is violent, racist, and upholds white supremacy; if you disagree do us both a favor and strike me (see above). Always expecting people to open source disclose is what is driving a lot of non-white people from the activity. I spend most of my time judging policy so an LD round that mimics a policy debate is what I would prefer to hear.

I’m sick of debaters not flowing then thinking they can ask what was read “before” CX starts. Once you start asking questions, THAT IS CX TIME. I have gotten to the point that I WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS if you do this; I keep an exceptional flow and you should as well. If you go over time, I will stop you and your opponent will not be required to answer questions. You are eating into decision time but not only that it shows a blatant lack of respect for the "rules" of activity. If this happens and you go for some kind of "fairness good" claim I'm not voting for it; enjoy your Hot L (shoutout to Chris Randall and Shunta Jordan). Lastly, most of these philosophers y’all love quoting were violently racist to minorities. If you want me (a black man) to pick you up while you defend a racist you be better be very compelling and leave no room for misunderstandings.

Parting Thoughts

I came into this activity as a fierce competitor, at this juncture in my life I’m in it solely for the education of the debaters involved; I am less concerned with who I am judging and more concerned with the content of what I debate. I am an educator and a lover of learning things; what I say is how I view debate and not a roadmap to my ballot. Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.

Last Updated 12/5/2021

Ishmael Kissinger
Experience: 3.5 yrs for The University of Central Oklahoma 02-05 (Nov/JV & Open)
14 yrs as Coach @ Moore High School, OK
Policy Rounds Judged: Local ~10
Policy National/Toc - 2
LD Rounds Judged Local: 0
LD National/TOC - 0

PFD - Local = 0

PFD Nat Circuit - 0

Email Chain: PLEASE ASK IN ROUND - I cannot access my personal email at school.

*Note: I do not follow along with the word doc. I just want to be on the chain so that I can see the evidence at the end of the round if necessary. I will only flow what I hear.

LD -

Just because I am primarily a policy judge does not mean that I think LD should be like 1 person policy. Small rant: I am tired of us making new debate events and then having them turn into policy... If you are constructing your case to be "Life & Util" and then a bunch of Dis-Ads you probably don't want me as your judge. If you are going for an RVI on T in the 1AR you probably don't want me as a judge. I don't think that LD affs should have plan texts. If I were to put this in policy terms: "You need to be (T)-Whole Res."

Affirmatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their Criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that affirm the whole resolution.

Negatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that negate the whole resolution.

CX

I tend to consider myself a flow oriented judge that tries to be as tab as any one person can be. Absent a framework argument made, I will default to a policy-maker/game-theorist judge. I view debate in an offense-defense paradigm, this means that even if you get a 100% risk of no solvency against the aff, but they are still able to win an advantage (or a turned DA) then you are probably going to lose. You MUST have offense to weight against case.

Generic Information:

Speed is not a problem *Edit for the digital age: Sometimes really fast debaters are harder for me to understand on these cheap computer speakers.

T & Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse. As the debate season goes on I tend to err more toward reasonability than I do at the beginning of the year. This is usually because as the debate year goes on I expect Negative teams to be more prepared for less topical arguments. This is generally how much judges operate, they just don't say it. I typically don't vote on potential abuse, you should couch your impacts on potential abuse in very real-world examples.

Please make impact calculus earlier in the debate rather than just making it in the 2nr/2ar

Kritiks are not a problem, but I am not really deep into any one literature base. This may put you at a disadvantage if you assume I know/understand the nuances between two similar (from my point of view) authors. **If you are going for a K or an Alt in the 2NR but are unsure if the aff is going to win the Perm debate and you want me to "kick the alt" and just have me vote on some epistemic turn you're only explaining in the overview of the 2NR you are not going to enjoy the RFD. If you think it's good enough to win the debate on with only a :30 explanation in the overview, you should probably just make the decision to go for it in the 2nr and kick the alt yourself.

When addressing a kritikal aff/neg I will hold you to a higher threshold than just Util & Cede the political, I'll expect you to have specific literature that engages the K. If this is your strategy to answering K teams I am probably not your "1."

I don't have a problem with multiple conditional arguments, although I am more sympathetic to condo bad in a really close theory debate.

CPs are legit. Just like judges prefer specific links on a Dis-Ads I also prefer specific Counter-Plans. But I will evaluate generic states/int'l actor CPs as well.

Dispo = Means you can kick out of it unless you straight turn it, defensive arguments include Perms and theory. (My interp, but if you define it differently in a speech and they don't argue it, then your interp stands)

DAs are cool - the more specific the link the better, but I will still evaluate generic links.

Case args are sweet, especially on this year's (2019) topic.



Personal Preferences:

Really I have only one personal pref. If you are in a debate round - never be a jerk to the opposing team &/or your partner. I believe that our community has suffered enough at the hands of debating for the "win," and although I don't mind that in context of the argumentation you make in the round, I do not believe that it is necessary to demean or belittle your opponent. If you are in the position to be facing someone drastically less experienced than yourself; keep in mind that it should be a learning process for them, even if it is not one for you. It will NOT earn you speaker points to crush them into little pieces and destroy their experience in this activity. If you want to demonstrate to me that you are the "better debater(s)," and receive that glorious 29 or maybe even 30 it will most likely necessitate you: slowing down (a little), thoroughly explaining your impact calc, clearly extending a position, then sitting down without repeating yourself in 5 different ways. If you opt to crush them you will prob. win the round, but not many speaker points (or pol cap) with me.

**taylor99minton@gmail.com**

Taylor Minton

University of Arkansas '21

-- full disclosure, I'm a 4yr high school policy debater. Went to Nats twice and am now on the collegiate level. I'm a heavy-flow judge so be prepared --

Stock Issues

I'm gonna pref stock debates. Stock issues matter a lot to me in policy and args surrounding those issues are going to grab my attention more than anything. Saying that, I also expect specific case args. Generic cards don't hold much weight for the neg when reading them against the aff, so make sure to have case specific evid when hitting case and mentioning stocks. 

Kritiks

If you wanna turn it into a K debate that's fine, just make sure the link is strong and that the alt isn't generic. The worst thing you can do for me is run a K with a weak link and present it with an alt that advocates for the judge to vote aff (that happens a lot when teams run generics in kritiks). 

Topicality

T is a voter, but you need good definitions and the ability to explain it well. Don't just spend 20secs on T telling me they're untopical because of _______ and then immediately move on. If you decide to run it and want to claim it as a voter, make it one.

Counterplans 

CPs are fine as long as you solve for every one of the aff's advs. Your duty as the neg running a CP is to ensure that by voting for the counterplan I'd get the same advs as if I voted aff. You lose presumption by running this arg and admitting there's a fault in the status quo, so just make sure you have solvency down. 

Theory

Theory debates are also okay, just as long as you don't become repetitive and use the SAME authors over and over again. Try to have a variety if you really want to run this as an effective arg in the round.

General Expectations/ Understandings

Don't be a jerk in the debate. That's gross and no one enjoys hate-debates. I will NEVER vote on any racist, sexist, homophobic, or generally offensive argument. Speed is okay with me (im a college debater so I totally get it) but don't try spreading if you can't speak well normally. That will be a wreck for everyone involved. I WILL ask for a flash of the 1AC before the round begins so I can read what the case. I'll ask for cards at the end of the round if the debate has become an evid-battle. 

keep it civil, concise, and intelligent. that's all I ask. Good luck and have fun! 

**taylor99minton@gmail.com**

Hey, my name is Gaurav Ohol (G-O-R-UH-V). I have debated Lincoln-Douglas and Public-Form, at Bentonville High School. I am currently studying at the University of Arkansas, double majoring in Biomedical Engineering and Computer Science. If you care about my qualifications; I was one of the 2017 national qualifiers in Lincoln Douglas debate from Arkansas, I placed 2nd at Arkansas Tournament of Champions (ATOC), etc.

****UPDATED FOR TIGERS EYE 2017****

Formalities in the round:

These are just some general formalities within the round that I expect and some preferences.

§ I am lenient when it comes to spreading in different styles of debate. Specifically, in terms of LD and PF, I do not mind if you spread, just note that if you do, I need a copy of your case on a flash drive, or email chain. (flashing or emailing will not be taken out of prep)

*** NOTE THAT IF I CAN'T UNDERSTAND YOU, I WILL SAY CLEAR ONCE AND AFTER THAT IF IT CONTINUES I WILL NOT FLOW YOUR SPEECH***

§ Cross Examination is binding. I will not flow it, however, if it becomes offense in the round I need specifics on why its paramount and how I should evaluate it.

§ Voters are great. Give me reasons to vote for in each AR or NR, clear and concise voting issues would be great so that way evaluating the round doesn’t have to be as confusing. When it comes down to it, voters are a massive part of the debate and not giving voters will cost you speaker points (if you care).

§ Debate Jargon is fine with me, I understand it all --- doesn’t increase or decrease speaker points in anyway.

§ In terms of Argumentation and types of argumentation: I consider myself to be a tab judge, meaning I will evaluate any argument that is brought forth. Personally, I love philosophical/critical argumentation. If it comes to abusive arguments, I will evaluate the claim and determine if there is any warrant to the argument. If you try and champion an argument in the round (racism, feminism, etc.) be curious to your opponent, and make sure you have evidence to back up everything you say. Don’t make points in the AR and NR that you don’t use evidence for, if you bring something up that is contemporary, that’s cool, if you bring up a claim and have no warrant, then there will be reasons to drop you.

§ ***PLEASE ROAD MAP BEFORE YOU BEGIN REBUTTALS*** If I cannot follow your speeches in an orderly fashion, it will become harder and harder to vote for you and WILL cost you speaker points. I consider road mapping to be an essential part in any form of debate and not doing so it only to your disadvantage. In the same category, make sure you give indicators when you move from argument to argument so the speeches become smoother.

§ In terms of interactions within the round, DO NOT BE RUDE, rudeness will not be tolerated in round, I understand if you are passionate about an argument and such, however, there is a fine line between passion and rudeness. I will drop your speaks for this.

Policy

I have never debated policy; however, I am very familiar with it and the mechanics.

In this form of debate, I will take it how it comes, I have no preferences in context, critical argumentation is awesome, if you can’t understand/relay the information in your own words and you read it, there will probably be a negative correlation.

As long as you know what you are doing and I can understand what you are doing, it should make for a solid round.

LD

So here is where all my preferences will be. I was the 2017 national qualifier in LD, so I have preferences and experience in this debate. I am fine with both traditional and progressive forms of LD, prefer progressive argumentation. (if you are novice, I understand that you might not follow all these preferences so that fine, because its novice I won’t deduct speaker points.) If you are mismatched (meaning progressive v. traditional) the progressive debater must be able to “dumb down” their arguments for the other debater. If there is an attempt to overwhelm your opponent or screw them over with your argumentation style, speed, etc. you speaks will drop dramatically.

Framework is critical in the round, I will vote on that just the same as every other argument, its LD so yeah, have a framework.

PF

I have done PF debate numerous times. I have seen both speaking fast and flow paced debates. I am fine with whichever, I will evaluate whatever you tell me do to and vote on what you say. Presentation doesn’t factor much into the voters, however, dilvery and passion can only help your case.

If you have any further questions, please ask me before the round starts.

Good luck and have fun!

I am a freshman Political Science and Socilology major at the University of Arkansas. I debated in High School for 3 years and am currently on the U of A policy team 

TL;DR do what you do and do it well and I'll evaluate you and your arguments against the other team. If I can't understand what you're saying because of your speed/clarity spreading, I won't write it down. Don't be a bigot. 

I've done a little bit of everything in my debate career. I spend the begining of high school as the CP/DA debater usually running politics, then transitioned to K debate my senior year and into college. I'll give a short run down of how I feel about each argument but really, as long as you know what you are talking about and are debating it well I will do my best to keep up and vote the correct way at the end of the round. However, if you are being blatantly homo/bi/transphobic, racist, sexist, or something else to that nature I'll dock the hell out of your speaker points, and it gives the other team a really easy way to win the round, that sort of discourse has no place in debate. to quote my old coach's wiki "Read a plan, don’t read a plan, read poetry, play music, be hella policy, be hella anti-policy—do you."

Arguement run down 

T- T sort of functions as a disad for me, but the voters are the "impacts." Make sure you do clear work on why they are untopical and what that does for debate as a whole. Probably won't ever vote on T as an RVI, but T can be damning if done very well. claiming you have nothing prepared for their aff wont get you very far. 

K- I love K's, I run them every neg round and I'm totally down to vote on a K aff if you can defend why K affs are good for/in debate. I'm decent with Cap, Hiedegger, anthro, and biopolitics of most sorts. I'm not going to claim to be an expert on things like anti blackness or queer theory, but I can keep up. If you specialize and are planning on running DnG or Lacan, be warned I may not be the judge you want picking up your ballot. Links need to be there and not constructed in the 2nr. dont spread through tags that are a paragraph long, and if you can't pronounce the author's name, dont run it. 

DA/CP- I dont think they're utilized enough in highschool. a good politics debater can use the block to give the 1AR hell. and a counterplan that solves the case can be extremely strategic. Dont blow through a 5 plank counter plan. likewise don't spread through an intricate perm. 

theory- depends on the arg, but I will generally have a high threshold on theory arguments unless its very blatant, like running 9 off and kicking 6 of them in the block.  

Framework- sell your story of why your mode of debate is bettter than the other team's. I don't lean one way or another on framework really, I've voted for and against K's and K affs almost equaly. clearly articulate your points and tell me why the other side is problematic or why your mode solves impacts better. Arguements/role of the ballot's that are self serving and inaccessable by one team are very unconvincing. my ballot (usually) means I am endorisng either the aff or neg advocacy, but if otherwise I'll clarify.

Cross ex- probably the most fun part of the round from a judging perspective. I dont flow cross ex, but I do think it is binding. if something happens in crossex that is important bring it up in the next speech. I may be checking the score of a game or responding to a text, but I am listening. 

Jay Rye - Head Coach - Montgomery Academy

Experience- I have been involved with L/D debate since 1985 as a former L/D debater, judge, and coach. I have been involved with Policy debate since 1998. I have coached Public Forum debate since it began in 2002. While at many tournaments I serve in the role as tournament administrator running tournaments from coast to coast, every year I intentionally put myself into the judge pool to remain up to date on the topics as well as with the direction and evolving styles of debate. I have worked at summer camps since 2003 - I understand debate.

Philosophy

I would identify myself as what is commonly called a traditional L/D judge. Both sides have the burden to present and weigh the values and/or the central arguments as they emerge during the course of the round. I try to never allow my personal views on the topic to enter into my decision, and, because I won't intervene, the arguments that I evaluate are the ones brought into the round - I won't make assumptions as to what I "think" you mean. I am actually open to a lot of arguments - traditional and progressive - a good debater is a good debater and an average debater is just that - average.

While for the most part I am a "tabula rasa" judge, I do have a few things that I dislike and will bias me against you during the course of the round either as it relates to speaker points or an actual decision. Here they are:

1) I believe that proper decorum during the round is a must. Do not be rude or insulting to your opponent or to me and the other judges in the room. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with that approach to debate.

2) Both sides must tell me why to vote "for" them as opposed to simply why I should vote "against" their opponent. In your final speech, tell me why I should vote for you - some call this "crystallization" while others call it "voting issues" and still others just say, "here is why I win" - whatever you call it, I call it letting your judge know why you did the better job in the round.

3) I am not a big fan of speed. You are more than welcome to go as fast as you want, but if it is not on my flow, then it was not stated, so speed at your own risk. Let me say that to the back of the room - SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK! If you have a need for speed, at the very least slow down on the tag lines as well as when you first begin your speech so that my ears can adjust to your vocal quality and tone.

4) I am not a big fan of "debate speak: Don't just say, cross-apply, drop, non-unique, or other phrases without telling me why it is important. This activity is supposed to teach you how to make convincing arguments in the real world and the phrase "cross-apply my card to my opponents dropped argument which is non-unique" - this means nothing. In other words, avoid being busy saying nothing.

5) Realizing that many debaters have decided to rely on the Wiki, an email chain, and other platforms to exchange the written word, in a debate round you use your verbal and non-verbal skills to convince me as your judge why you win the round. I rarely call for evidence and I do not ask to be on any email chain.

Spencer Shaw Paradigms

Hey. My name is Spencer. Call me Spencer. Cool? Cool. I have debated all 3 main styles of debate, at Bentonville High School, in Arkansas, at a reasonably high level for 3 years. I'm currently a U of A Sophomore studying Criminal Justice, Sociology, and Psychology. I won some awards over the years, I was an officer on my team, etc. Pronouns are He/Him. If your case has a significant reliance on arguments that include sexual assault, please say that before hand.

Formalities out of the way;

I think each style is different enough to warrant it's own section, but the general rules are:

• Spreading is only for CX. Not LD, and certainly not PF. Don't spread if you can't spread well.
• I absolutely must be able to see your case. Email me, use a flash drive, I don't care- get me your case. i will ask for any evidence you wish to present throughout the round and before each speech. because of that, flashing/emailing/otherwise communicating your files/ev is not prep time
• Cross Examination is binding, but I don't flow it. If you want to make an argument based off of Cross Ex, tell me specifically why it's important and why i should evaluate it on the flow.
• Tell me what to vote for. Good God, tell me what I'm doing here. When left to my own devices, although I try and be the most tabula rasa judge I know how to be, I have a preference for conservative politics and for affirmative presumption in LD/CX, and no presumption for PF.
• Debate, though technically what you make it, is a place for change. If you feel like you have to rap or perform or blow up a kiddie pool during your speech to make whatever God-forsaken point you feel is that important, do it. But be ready to have some seriously credible stuff to back it up or I will drop you. My least favorite thing in debate is where debaters try and champion a cause (racism, the feminist movement, etc.) and use it to win without really believing it- Now, obviously, I probably don't know your story or know how much you believe in what you're saying, but I also have a really strong BS meter. If you can't answer questions, I get suspicious. Arguments that target a people group are probably not good.
• I will evaluate abuse. Full stop. I firmly believe that there is the potential for abusive argumentation, questioning, or behavior in a debate round. Trying to make the debate unfair for your opponent is bad form. You can win without unfairly restricting your opponent, if you deserve to win at all. I am a "reject the arg" guy on abuse, not a "reject the debater" guy.

Policy

I debated Oceans, Surveillance, and China. I'm very familiar with the aff cases for these topics. Education is easily my favorite topic by far, so expect me to learn a lot about it.

1AC's/Plans/Advocacies

In novice policy, with extremely limited exceptions, the 1AC should be a plan.

In varsity, do your thing. I don't care. You MUST BE TOPICAL- yes, even in varsity policy, and yes, k affs can be topical, but you need to prove that you are. I will always evaluate Topicality, especially against K Affs or Affs with no plantext.

definitions debate isnt meant to a way to limit your opponent. it is a way to have a baseline so that you dont argue but then figure out you meant the same things. i believe this has been super twisted by all forms of debate.

Impacts

have them, please. every case needs good impacts.

Kritiks

I debated K's for my entire career, K's are chill with me. Make a clear alt, and a clear link. If ever curious, ask me if I've read your authors.

DA/CP

Link hard. Link often. Link well. Impact it out. Make good analysis.

THEORY.

My favorite thing about debate is theory and framework. Read anything under the sun and I will listen to you. Creativity is awesome. Also, Antonio 95 is not a framework argument without analysis.

Speed

I need your case. I will say clear twice and stop flowing. Even if I'm reading your speech as you're saying it, you better actually enunciate.

LD

LD was my favorite style of debate in high school. I debated in Arkansas and Oklahoma, so I have experience with both traditional and progressive debate.

K's in traditional are still cool. Plans are not. CP's are not. Framework is the most important thing in any LD round, progressive or traditonal.

If there is ever a mismatch between you and your opponent's circuit type (e.g traditional AFF vs. progressive NEG), the progressive debater MUST "debate down" to your opponent in order to get full speaks. If you knowingly and purposely (at least by my judgement) attempt to confuse or screw over your opponent via speed or argumentation style, you will get your speaks basically nuked.

PF

I debated PF at the Arkansas TOC 2017. Don't have a plan. Don't have a [pseudo] plan. Don't have anything vaguely similar to a plan. Sit down during crossfire. Be nice, especially in PF.

BQ

Be topical.

sidequest: make a league of legends reference for .5 extra speaks, unless you're at 30 already

sidequest 2: reference any of Brandon Sanderson's novels for the same point value

-Director of Debate at Little Rock Central High School
-Yes, email chain and sure, questions. Please put BOTH of these on chains: rosalia.n.valdez@gmail.com and lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com.

Virtual Debate Updates:

I am almost always using two computers so I can watch you speak and flow/look at docs. I would prefer that you debate with your camera on so that I can watch you speak, but PLEASE do feel free to turn it off if doing so stabilizes your audio.

Do NOT start at top speed. You should start a little slower anyway to allow judges to get acclimated to your speaking style, but I think this is especially important in virtual debate.

Do I understand why you don't want to flash theory/overviews/analytics? Of course. Do you have to do it? No. Will I be mad at you if you don't? Of course not. Would it help me flow better in many virtual debates? YES.

TL;DR

Do what you do and do it well. I will vote for who wins. Over-adaptation is exhausting and I can smell your soft-left add-ons a mile away. My voting record is a pretty clear indication that I judge a wide variety of debates. Who/what I coach(ed) are generally good indications of what I am about. Update: I've found myself recently in some seven off rounds. I really hate to say I am bad for any kind of debate, but I am bad for these rounds. Late-breaking debates make me tired and grumpy, and I find myself having to do way too much work in these debates to resolve them. If seven off is your thing, and I am your judge, do what you do I guess, but know this is probably the only explicit "don't pref me" in this whole paradigm.

Evidence/Argumentation/General

I care a lot about quality of evidence. I would much rather hear you read a few well-warranted cards than a wave of under-highlighted evidence. Same goes for redundant evidence; if you need six cards that “prove” your claim with the same words interchanged in the tag, your claim is probably pretty weak. Evidence does not (alone) a (winning) argument make.

I think I flow pretty throughly. I often flow in direct quotes. I do this for me, but I feel like it helps teams understand my decision as we talk after a round. I reward organized speakers and meaningful overviews. I am easily frustrated by a messy card doc.

I listen closely to cross-ex.

Ks

Neg teams lose when they don’t demonstrate how their arguments interact with the 1AC. Winning that the affirmative is “flawed” or “problematic” does not guarantee a neg ballot. In my mind, there are two ways to win the k versus a policy aff: either win that the effects of the plan make the world significantly worse OR win framework and go for epistemology/ontology links. Know when framework is important and when it’s not. Give analysis as to how your links implicate the world of the aff. This is where case mitigation and offense on why voting affirmative is undesirable is helpful. These debates are significantly lacking in impact calculus. Also - the alt needs to solve the links, not the aff - but if it does, great! If you win framework, this burden is lessened. Don’t spread through link explanations. I am seeing more debates where teams kick the alt and go for the links as disads to the aff. This is fine, but be wary of this strategy when the alt is what provides uniqueness to the link debate.

Conversely, affs typically lose these debates when there is little press on what the alternative does and little analysis of perm functions. However, some teams focus on the alt too much and leave much to be desired on the link debate (especially important for soft-left affs). Defend your reps. Your framework shell should also include a robust defense of policymaking, not just procedural fairness. The 1AR should actually answer the block’s framework answers. More impact turning rather than defensive, no-link arguments.

Also, running to the middle will not save you. Some Ks are going to get a link no matter what, and tacking on a structural impact to your otherwise straight policy aff will likely only supercharge the link. So. Read the aff you'd read in front of anybody in front of me. You're probably better at that version anyway.

K Affs vs. FW

For affs: I’m good for these although I do think that oftentimes the method is very poorly explained. Neg teams should really press on this and even consider going for presumption. Side note: I absolutely do not think that critical affs should have to win that the ballot is key for their method. Against framework, I most frequently vote aff when the aff wins impact turns that outweigh the neg’s impacts and have a counter-interp that resolves the majority of their offense. I can still vote for you if you don’t have a counter-interp in the 2AR but only if the impact work is exceptional. I prefer affs that argue that the skills and methods produced under their model inculcate more ethical subjectivities than the negative’s. The best aff teams I’ve seen are good at contextualizing their arguments, framing, and justifying why their model and not their aff is uniquely good. I am most frequently preffed for K v K debates. Judge instruction is extremely important I would rather evaluate those rounds based on whose method is most relevant to the debate rather than k tricks.

For neg teams: I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in debate” is not the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” (fun fact: I read a lot of judges' paradigms/preferences..."debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game, and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad). I prefer more deliberation & skills-based framework arguments rather than procedural fairness, but I will vote on either as long as you have warrants and comparative impact analysis. If going for skills & research impacts, the internal link debate is most important. TVAs are great as defense against the aff’s impact turns. They do not have to solve the aff but should address its central controversy.

I feel similarly about theory debates in that they should focus on good/undesirable pedagogical practices. Arguments that explain the role of the ballot should not be self-serving and completely inaccessible by a particular team.

Topicality

Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. T debates are won and lost on the standards level. If the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact of topicality, then I see no reason to vote negative. Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

No real issues here. Specific links to case obviously preferred to generic arguments. Give me good impact analysis. As a debater, counterplans weren’t really my jam. As a judge, I can’t say that I get to vote on CPs often because they are typically kicked or are not competitive enough to survive an affirmative team well-versed in permutations. A CP should be something to which I can give thoughtful consideration. Don’t blow through a really complicated (or long) CP text. Likewise, if the permutation(s) is intricate, slow down. Pretty sure you want me to get these arguments down as you read them, not as I reconstruct them in cross. I vote for theory as much as I don’t vote for theory. No real theoretical dispositions.

Arkansas Circuit

1. I’m not going to bump your speaks for thanking me and taking forever to start the round because you’re asking “opponent ready? judge ready? partner ready? observers ready?” for the first 20 minutes.
2. If you do not take notes during my RFD, I will leave.
3. Don’t clip. Why do debaters in Arkansas clip so much? Answer: Because I don’t judge very much in Arkansas.
4. Keep your own time.