*Fall 2021 Update: I haven't judged since Covid hit so I'm a little rusty. Go a lil slower than normal. I'm also not super familiar with this year's CX topic yet so make sure you slow down on tags and advocacies*

About Me:

Conflicts: Prosper HS, Lovejoy HS

Email: antonakakisas@gmail.com (I'd like to be on the email chain, but I probably won't look at the doc unless evidence and intricate warrants become an issue). I also have a more extensive record of my judging history under another email.

Pronouns: She/Her

Graduated from Prosper High School in 2019 (I did LD for four years, did PF once, and did extemp throughout the four years occasionally.) I debated on the national circuit, TFA, NSDA, and UIL. I was a student at the University of North Texas from fall 2019 to spring 2020 and now I'm attending the University of Texas at Austin since fall 2020.

I mostly went for ks, particularly regarding post-modernism, post-structuralism, anarchism, security/militarism, and reps, but I also really like good case debate and phil/framework.

A few important things:

-If you're familiar with Blake Andrews' paradigm that's probably quite a similar way in which I view debate (given that he was my coach).

-Give me a clear framework to evaluate the round under, the warranted offense you have to leverage under it, and weigh your offense against your opponent.

I'm inclined to err on reasonability. If there isn't any real abuse going on in the round I probably won't vote on theory.

If I think you're being toxic, offensive, or anything related to this then your speaks will drop and you could lose the round for it as well. I've done it before and I'll do it again.

Make clear, WARRANTED extensions, if you dont i wont evaluate it.

I am NOT the judge for intense theory debates. This means if you go for it I'll do my best to give a good adjudication, but don't be surprised if it's not top notch.

I won't vote on arguments I deem offensive, which is like most judges, however, this extends to arguments that cap is good, heg good, Hobbes, and libertarianism (yeah, I dont respect property rights).

Also, I'm not the fastest judge when it comes to flowing, i.e. don't go full speed. If I had to quantify it maybe my speed is a 7.5/10. I'll say clear 3 times if you're too fast or unclear, after that I'll stop flowing your arguments until you decide to clear up. This will affect your speaks.

Preferences:

K: 1

Theory: 4

Topicality: 4

Policy: 2

Framework: 1

Tricks: 3

Performance: 1

Extra Things I Like:

-Impact Turns: I think these are underutilized in debate, but keep in mind I don't mean impact turning racism bad and that sorta thing.

-Creative Strategies

-Concise crystallization and voters

-Kind and wholesome humor that isn't snarky

-Tell me when to clearly flow on a new piece of paper for overviews or counter interps.

-Clear signposting.

Extra Things I Don't Like:

-Recycled strategies and frameworks

-Rudeness or hostility. Here, I reserve the right to drop you or tank speaks as I see fit. This also applies to very rude or overly-critical post-rounding.

-Not a fan of blippy arguments and spikes

-When debaters who are objectively more experienced and skilled slaughter their opponent. You can clearly win a round, but be easy and constructive.

-Frivolous/Time Suck Theory Strats (I won't down you for it. but I'm not gonna be thrilled and your speaks will reflect this.)

I'm a parent judge, put me on the chain if you want to spread.

speaks are based on posture and clarity.

K, T, theory, and Phil still go over my head, but if you can connect the dots, I'll vote on it.

LD Paradigm- I compete in nfald currently so I like to encourage kids to have fun and do what you like in round all that I ask is that you're nice and please extend~~~

PF Paradigm- I currently coach Public Forum at the middle school level, and I'm the most familiar with this event because I competed in it the longest in High school and have consistently been in public forum judge pools since 2017. I don't really care what you go for in round especially at the varsity level, I just don't want progressive arguments being ran strategically so that your opponent doesn't understand what you're doing and making the debate a wash especially whenever they're done poorly, so please be willing to be flexible and make rounds as simple or complicated as they need to be. That being said I try and keep my voting reserved to whatever the is established in the round regardless of my own opinions. Don't make me do any work in terms of judging the competitors should be telling me how I need to vote.

Congress paradigm- I want chambers to be run by the debators as much as possible I don't care about much as long as you dont go over alotted time I'm very flexible on augmenting nit picky things for the sake of convenience just dont spend 20 minutes going over things. Typically I recommend just defaulting to the rules but settling things quickly via majority vote is also okay as long as the ruling is fair.

I did Lincoln Douglas debate all throughout high school (graduated from Lovejoy in 2017) and competed mostly at locals, TFA state, UIL, and competed my senior year at the NSDA national tournament. I ended up with 56 state points my senior year, but did not get the opportunity to compete much on the national circuit.

I am good with speed as long as you are clear but I would love a copy of your case (flash, email etc.).

I don't judge much so I am not familiar with some of the newer arguments but am willing to vote on anything when it is well-argued. I won't be impressed if you don't make good arguments no matter how good you sound, and I won't assume you are right if you are over-using jargon, big words, and fail to adequately communicate. If you can't explain your arguments then you can't defend them and certainly can't win on them. Please make sure your evidence says what you are saying it says- I will happily look at evidence after the round if needed. I love to see a debate where the debaters know their arguments well and their evidence is sound.

My general philosophy is that I am open to anything you want to do-just make a case for yourself and your arguments and if you win those arguments then that's how I will judge the round. I don't have a ton of pre-conceived ideas on how a debate round has to be, and if I did, I wouldn't incorporate them into my decisions. This is your round and these are your arguments.

Unless you successfully argue otherwise, I judge a round through the winning framework and evaluate the relevant arguments through that lens. That's my default Lincoln Douglas evaluation and it's how the round will be judged unless you give me a new method. If you want to win, just tell me which arguments you won and why that means you win the round.

I don't really like to listen to a theory debate, but I will. Be warned, though, it's not my strength and I don't like it. If you argue well and the flow is clear, I will vote on it. You may want to use less jargon here as I am not very experienced in this kind of debate. I just always hated it. You also need to make sure you tell me how to evaluate it based on the arguments left on the flow. Tell me why you won.

Feel free to ask any questions.

Consider myself a tab judge, but lean more towards policy making style.

Fine with all arguments presented, but find that Kritiks/CPs can be easily lost in the round if you don't do enough work explaining/proving your case. As a result I have a high threshold for these (Ks and CPs)

Please slow down on tags/authors/dates

Fine with speed, but be careful that it doesn't hinder communication. If I miss a tag because you're going too fast it won't make it to my flow.

**For LD Debate, would appreciate slower speed (don't want to miss criterion/values/etc)**

Impact Calc/Framework goes a long way; if you're not telling me how to vote I will end up choosing based on my preferences of the round.

If you have anymore questions, please do not hesitate to ask in round before beginning.

I'm good with policy arguments in the debate round, but I love to see impact calculus. Speed is not an issue for me neither. After that anything goes for me.

I am a coach of all forms of speech and debate events. I competed at the high school and collegiate level in interp, speech and debate.

Debate:

I would consider myself tab with a default to policymaker. I would prefer debaters establish what I should vote on and how to weigh the round. I believe it is important for the debaters to tell me why arguments are important and why they are winning it. I will vote on anything and I will not vote on anything all at the same time. It's important for you to tell me where to vote. I do not like hearing arguments that are completely squirrel of the topic at hand (ie: scream K). Feel me to ask questions if you have concerns or questions. I would prefer speakers be slow down and be very clear on the tag lines, dates and theory arguments. Speed is fine and I can flow it. I will yell "clear" if you are not.

Speech:

Organization & Clarity with supporting documentation is key. When I am judging these events, I am looking for clear justification for the topic you chose. I am looking for you to be clear in your overall organization, but the internal thesis of your ideas need to be developed and organized also. I believe ethos, logos and pathos need to be developed and deployed each and every time you speak.

Interp:

I am looking for originality. I am looking at individuals to create clear and distinct characters. I need to see you develop strong, believable characters. Tell your story.

Clarity:

If you have questions, please feel free to ask.

I judge LD, PFD, Congress, I.E.'s. Coached for 14 years and participated in more of the interp stuff when I was in high school, but that was a long time ago so don't hold it against me.

I am big picture for LD/PFD. I try to keep a tidy flow. I like solvency but don't necessarily need to vote on it if the resolution doesn't call for offense. I will vote on progressive or theory if steps are clearly defined throughout. I dislike spreading as it's not necessary. I frown upon evaluating specific cards as RFD because I don't know the authors' mindsets most of the time. I'm cool with Disads and CPs in PFD at TFA tournaments but avoid them for NSDA. In PFD, you should prefer using weighing mechanisms for your actual case instead of frontlining responses to your opponent. Students who use "kick the case and focus on responses" in PFD should probably just switch to LD or CX if they want to debate long-term. For speaker points, I typically start everyone out at the max and deduct from there, but because of their arbitrary nature, I don't have huge variances or decimals.

Congress: know your parliamentary procedure and role in the chamber. At TFA tournaments, I typically give 3's for decent attempts at a speech with some sources and some reading. 6's are very rare for me. I know that's tougher than other judges, but it doesn't affect ranks. Another thing to consider for Congress is your role of politicking. I think Congress should be treated as a competition in which the participants are able to speak on either side of legislation without regard to what other competitors are able to/going to do. That means you can "steal" a speech from someone who was waiting for their turn as part of the round, and I won't rank you down if you do a good job. Direct questioning should be concise and meaningful, not just an attempt to throw your own 2 cents in. Presiding officers don't auto-break from prelims; you need to be outstanding and any flubs or parliamentary procedure errors will result in lower hourly scores.

World Schools: I'm new to it but I tend to treat it sort of like my speaker points for PFD and LD. I start everyone out high and then work my way down. I'm less attentive about POI's because I'm usually listening/writing, so I don't mind if you're trying more than 10 times to request them.

Public Speaking: Conversational delivery necessary. I'm more of an "appeal to logos" guy than "appeal to pathos" in Extemp, so save the emotional pleas for things like Oratory instead. I will rank down if you're trying to push the grace period as part of the speech in general. I don't mind canned intros in Extemp, but at least connect to the prompt. Oratory should follow a clear format like "problem, effects, solutions" and not be a personal venting session. Informative speeches MUST have visual aids; considering it's the only real event that showcases one's ability to inform in this manner, I think you should prioritize all types of measures to inform the audience.

Interp: Teasers and/or cold opens are necessary and the prepared intro should follow a format that gets the audience to understand WHY you chose the piece. Characterizations must be consistent. Be cautious and selective about how you employ accents around me (i.e. not everyone is southern or from Long Island). I frustrate during thematic pieces like poetry or POI if I can't tell which selection you're on. Build upon the theme in the prepared intro and fully list the authors and selections instead of just saying "a program."

OFFICIALLY RETIRED

nickhernandzz@gmail.com (she/her)

my email: gusjones33@gmail.com

LD:

speed: I'm cool with any speed, as long as I have what you're reading.

Kritiks: I didn't really read much k-lit during LD so it needs to be well explained. I really dislike K-Aff's so please justify them well.

Theory: I also dislike theory, absolutely do not read this unless there is a clear abuse within the round. If you read unjustified theory I will vote you down.

Any other form of progressive argumentation is encouraged. Just remember LD is a moral debate, and that just because your evidence says you're right, it doesn't mean your case wins. Make your cards support your arguments, don't let them be your stance.

Any other questions feel free to ask

PF/LD: I will normally judge based off of the round. Okay with speed. Prefer it if you don't run theory arguments.

Interp: I will take piece selection into account. Prefer more versatile pieces that display a wider range of skill and talent.

Speaking Events: I will count evidence and fluency breaks. I will also keep track of how evenly your time is distributed. I would also appreciate some humor - more in Original Oratory, less in extemporaneous speaking events.

School Affiliation: Coach at The Episcopal School of Dallas

Coaching & Judging Experience: I have been coaching teams and judging tournaments since 2006. This includes LD, PF, Congress, CX and IEs at different schools in Virginia and Texas. I have had debaters qualify for NCFL and NSDA on multiple occasions which are both considered traditional tournaments.

Speed: Although I am personally not a fan of it, please make sure your spreading is clear and coherent. If I can't understand you, I probably will not flow it. If you see me stop flowing for an extended period of time then it would be in your best interest to slow down. I also heavily prefer if you go slow on your taglines, analytics and any theory arguments, especially during your rebuttals.

Types of Arguments: Although I prefer framework heavy debates, a lot of clash in the round, and good crystallization and overviews in your final rebuttal, I will still vote on topicality, counterplans, some theory arguments at times and kritiks if they are explained well by the debater. I am not a fan of non-topical Affs as I tend to favor whole resolution ACs. Make sure when you run T, that you are linking your violation to your standards/voting issues and that when you run a CP, you explain your net benefits and how it's competitive.

Theory Argument: If you run any disclosure theory or new affs bad arguments, make sure you thoroughly break down the reasons to prefer. Although I have never really been a fan of these types of arguments, I am willing to consider them if you can show the impacts of the abuse committed by your opponent and how this outweighs. Please make sure that whatever theory shells you plan on running are presented at a slower rate of speed.

Kritiks: Run at your own risk because I'm not really a fan of complicated philosophical arguments that have nothing to do with the actual resolution that should be debated upon. I'm not saying you can't win if you run them, but I might look at you funny and simply not flow the argument depending on the complexity of the K.

Speaks: Clarity over speed is prefered. If your spreading is incomprehensible, this will reflect on your speaker points. Any acts of rudeness or displays of an unprofessional demeanor towards your opponent will also be taken into account. If you go against an inexperienced debater or a traditional style opponent, it would be in your best interest to accommodate their format and invest some time clashing with or turning their value, criterion and contentions. Also, please do not ask me if I disclose speaker points. It's not going to happen. In addition, please do not use profanity at all during the round. It will impact your speaks and could also impact my decision so don't do it. Lastly, please refrain from attacking the character of any political figures or political parties as a whole. It's okay to discuss policies of the USFG but please avoid bashing politicians or parties that you may dislike as I consider that type of tactic in a debate to be very unprofessional and offensive. Debaters have lost my ballot over this in the past.

Tricks: Please don't.

Overview: Debate the resolution, clash with your opponent's arguments, provide framework, slow down during tags and analytics, throw in some voters at the end.

Email Chain: If and only if both debaters are sharing files, please include my email as well: kesslert@esdallas.org

Update for the TOC 2023: I am not well versed with kritik literature, so if you primarily run kritiks or k affs then I may not be the best judge for you. The same can be said about theory, I mostly judge small town tournaments in Texas, so I am not at all familiar with advanced theory that you may run at your national circuit/bid tournaments. I am a tab judge, so I will still try to evaluate theory/k's as fairly as possible, but if your case relies on my knowledge of these things you are likely putting yourself at a disadvantage. Aside from that, read whatever DA's, CP's, K's, or Theory you want as fast as you want. Will not vote off of racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, or any other ignorant arguments you make just to win the round. Please signpost and slow down for taglines and analytics

Add me to the email chain: cmm2001@gmail.com (pronouns He/Him)

Background: I did LD and a little bit of policy at Princeton High School. I qualified to UIL and TFA state as well NSDA a few times. I know a decent amount about policy, but I am more comfortable with LD. I do not mind a traditional round with no spreading, but I will also listen to very progressive rounds. It is up to the debaters to set the pace and to tell me why and who I am voting for. For some more about me, I am an Astronomer studying low-mass galaxies using the Hubble Space Telescope and received my B.S. in Astronomy at UT Austin.

K: I never ran K's in high school, but I have had a few ran against me, so I know some basic one's (Nietzsche, Set Col, Cap) but if you are running anything more progressive or any lesser known K's I only ask that you make sure you know what you are running and that you are not running it just to confuse me and your opponents. If I cannot understand the reasoning behind what you are saying I will have a hard time voting on it. This also goes for K affs, run them and if they are well constructed and you defend it well I will vote off anything

CP: Read away! If you say the CP is either conditional or non conditional in CX I will hold you to it.

DA: Run whatever, I will buy any link chain that makes sense in both LD and CX.

Theory: I have a high threshold for how well you prove abuse. There has to be some sort of in round and potential abuse. I will not vote for theory just because you ran it (of course, if it goes clean dropped by your opponent I will vote for it, but that should be assumed about any argument).

FW: Util unless otherwise told

Speaker Points:

30: reserved for exceptional speakers. I am not afraid to give 30 speaks if you do just an all around breathtaking job.

28-29: Amazing speaker with great organization and structure. Seamless transitions, signposting, and slowed down for taglines. An almost theatrical feeling where I want to stop flowing and just listen to the speech (I won't do this, it is just an example)

27-28: good speaker with organization and structure. Did not have to stumble or spend much time flipping or scrolling between pages in your speech. Slowed down for taglines, and analytics. I had to say clear once at the most

26-27: some organization and structure, but still hard to follow speeches, I had to say clear once or twice to get you to slow down

25-26:arguments/speaking lacked structure and organization. Little to no roadmap, or inability to follow speaker because no signposting or slowing down for taglines. I may have had to say clear multiple times to get you to slow down. This also includes poor evidence ethics, but not something for which you can be disqualified for. If you are maliciously or intentionally misrepresenting your evidence (as opposed to just being unfamiliar with the norms of debate) I have no problem reporting you to the tournament director (although I would rather not have to do this).

20:Racist/sexist/other biggoted statements

All that being said, please be kind and respectful of both your opponent and myself/your other judges. Debate is an educational activity, nobody needs to feel excluded of this community.

I competed in Public Forum Debate for 4 years and Lincoln-Douglas Debate for 1 year.

I am open to most types of arguments as long as you explain them well. I have not judged a debate in a few years, so please slow down if you can! I will say "clear" if I can't understand you but will begin docking speaker points after the second warning. For LD, link your arguments back to your value/criterion and try to not drop arguments on the opposing side.

Make sure to clearly state your position and elaborate on your voters. In the end, if you can summarize your arguments down to a few clearly explained points that emphasize why you win the round, then it will be easier for me to make the final decision.

Respect each other and this space to learn!

Updated for Harvard 2021:

While I have a background in policy and LD I’m usually in pf pools for round commitments these days. Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round that you think would help your strategic advantages.

I prefer a framework or a weighing mechanism in which I can filter the debate. I like strong link chains, impact calculus, and contentious clash. I think defense should be extended if it’s an important argument in the debate, but you ought not waist speech time if they concede the defense. Speed will always be fine, I will flag if I get tech fuzzy because of storms that are expected throughout the weekend.

Email Chain: Grahamphlieger@gmail.com

Background

Policy, PF, Ld, Congress, Extemp for Crandall HS (Tx): 2011-2015

Coach for Southlake Carroll HS (Tx): 2015-2017

Coach for Lake Travis HS (Tx): 2019-

npda/npte at University of Texas at Tyler 2015-2018

pulverizer1997@icloud.com to share the evidence

My name is Michael Alexander Pulver. My kids call me Coach MAP but I do not hold you to that standard, as a competitor or fellow coach. In high school I participated in every debate related activity for a small town in East Texas called Athens. My main successes, at that level, were in speech events, Policy, and Lincoln Douglas. Fundamentally, debate is one big joke and, technically, I leveraged that to my advantage as a frame of reference and debate style. My grace and indebted thanks for helping me understand that goes to Nicole Cornish, Jordan Innerarity, and Carver Hodgkiss; without them, I wouldn’t come close to understanding the purpose of speech and debate.

I was lucky enough to pursue a bachelors of science, with Integrative Studies, and compete for the University of North Texas. Parliamentary Debate kicked open the joke, in full-swing, and I got to tour the country in the pursuit of this knowledge. Brian Lain and Louie Petit, along with the incredible alumni of the program, produced content that allowed me to understand this joke from a perspective where I could laugh, and cry, about this “game we play”.

This “game” produces dogs and cats. It’s hard to understand this concept without a full visualization of my philosophy but I’m also certain that the ontological threshold to “understanding” is held within the eye of the beholder. In essence, I was introduced to this concept, within this space, by Jason Jordan, Matthew Gayetsky, and Gabe Murillo. We are simple creatures that, rather simply, have near-zero relationship to ourselves and we reproduce tools in order to filter, with extreme amounts of success, the communication to our “self”. My telos begins at the conception that debate is a space, looking for its time, to break this cycle and we’ve been woefully unsuccessful at stopping this joke from occurring. Side-hustling as a dog trainer opened up synchronicity into my paradigm and vice-versa. Without that realization, I don’t think I could still enjoy coaching, judging, or training. To those three for that help, I am indebted.

At a few moments in time, I did think it was important to write a several page paradigm about my philosophy about "DisAds", "Condo", "CP Theory", etc., etc. but I've discovered we're in a struggle between competitors who are having to "10x" their flows versus institutionalization. I do not see the importance in either. Rather, I defend that debate is a space to have fun and explore. In the time that I judge, I derive purpose from the quality of character and clarity of forensic mapping while producing a decision from what's given. To me, this means I'm not a "tab" or "tech > truth" but rather a "real judge"; and I will agree: "whatever that means?". Though, the more you read through this, and hopefully ask me questions, you will find that I'm simply calling the plays that are given and executing based on the "score" at the end of the debate. Additionally, this means that I weigh topicality in relation to its position on the lemniscate curve where my firmbelief is that it's the extreme finite position; since I know that's your question after reading all this. Brendan Dimmig, Jimi Morales, Cyd-Marie Minier Ciriaco, and Friedrich Hegel are responsible for ingraining this portion and I thank them for simply helping me find this path.

Lastly, I lost a ton of debates in my career. In doing so, I learned more than the wins ever taught me. Without being too "tongue in cheek", Slavoj Žižek taught me how to lose with grace, Sam Cook taught me how to lose on the flow, Will Harper taught me how to lose on framework, Rodrigo Paramo taught me how to lose on character design, and I lost on the "K" to Matt Hernandez, True Head, and Jose Sanchez; without those characters, I'm sure I'd be taking this joke too seriously. To Mom, Dad, and all the cats and dogs out there: you keep me learning and you inspire me to keep going.

TLDR; If you flow well, you understand your prep, and have a fullness to your character-design, you will pick up my ballot.

================================================================================================

FOR Virtual Debates: I find the computer medium does not allow for spreading to be coherent and I won't use the dock as an excuse for that BUT I'm comfortable with all forms of argumentation and I encourage creativity.

Tab, do whatever you do best. I do not have any categorical prohibitions on any types of arguments. While debating I mostly read the K (Cap, Psychoanalysis, Queerness, Schmitt, Heidegger, Biopolitics, etc.) with T and heg as secondary strategies.

Impact comparison is incredibly important for my ballot. Debate is a game of world comparison, for instance if the debate comes down to an aff vs a disad, I will ask myself if the world of the aff or the world of the status quo is net beneficial. This is what it means to weigh impacts. My default impact framing mechanism is Util. If you present an alternative impact framing mechanism tell me how it impacts my evaluation.

Interps must be textually competitive, there is no spirit of the T. For instance, if your interp is "the aff must spec their agent of action." I will vote on a we meet if the aff specs it at some point in the round. So, a better interp would be "the aff must spec their agent of action in the pmc."

T and theory require explicit interps,

If you are going for a non-extinction death impact under a util framing (which is my default if you dont present me with an alternative) please quantify your impacts.

I have very ambivalent feelings about MG theory. The absences of backside rebuttals makes it structurally abusive but on the other hand without it there is not way to check back for neg abuse. My attitude can be summarized thusly: "lets not!"

Speed is not an issue

I see to minimize judge intervention. Many debate that I judge often miss the forest for the trees, the entire debate becomes a show line by line tit for tat responses without either team pulling across a warrant that is predictive of the opponents arguments nor taking a step back and establishing the stakes of these line by line attacks as it relates to the substance of the debate. Please do predictive comparisons.

Theory defaults to common issues: Condo good, don't need to spec, speed good, cx is binding, presumption goes neg.

Fiat is required for any negative argument that does not defend the status quo.

I did policy debate in High School and was the 2018 4A CX state champion. I did parli at UT Tyler and was a two time NPTE finalist and a one time NPDA finalist. I currently coach parli at William Jewell College.
masonaremaley@gmail.com

I've done LD for 4 yrs in high school, but it's been 5 yrs since then. Try to keep as stock as possible and the spreading to a minimum, and we should be fine! You're better off taking a more lay approach with me, then I can exercise my past experience more appropriately given how long I've been away from the debate space. Any other specifics questions will be answered in person to the best of my ability, so try to get to the round early!

If there is an email chain, please add me to it. Email: Rohanrereddy@gmail.com

I am TABULA RASA !!! BLANK SLATE...FAIR.

I am fine with anything but in terms of what I weigh with each individual argumenT.

K - If you run a K I want to know the SPECIFIC ROLE

T - Standards and voters in terms of the real world are how I vote on topicality. The topicality has to be strong obvi.

REALLY VAGUE LINKS ARE NOT GOOD

CP - I need a flushed out method on why the Net Benefit of the CP should outweigh the case.

LONG TERM IMPACTS ARE IMPORTANT

Speed - I am fine with speed, however I much prefer quality arguments that resound your point. In life, you're going to be a more effective advocate when you can in depth explain and strike the opposition rather than just saying nonsense you dont understand. I will let you know in round if speed is an issue. Dont let me throw you of

CLASH CLASH CLASH!

Paradigm:

I'm essentially a tabula rasa judge in that I will listen to justifications for any paradigm that you can convince me to hold  That isn't to say I don't have biases, but I can be convinced to vote against them if you set up standards, win them, and meet them.  One bias that I do hold (and it can be overcome) is that I default to seeing myself as judging the resolution up or down.  That is to say, if you affirm the resolution, I vote affirmative.  So, if you want to, say, run a topical PIC from the negative, you need to tell me why I should write "negative" on my ballot for something that is affirming the resolution.  

Speed:  

Speed is fine so long as you are not skipping syllables or slurring your speech. Too many debaters have a tendency do this to gain speed.  If you want to go faster than you can anunciate, you do so at the risk of losing me.  Slowing down on taglines and citations is always a plus, because I tend to organize my flow around cards (unless you get very theoretical, in which case, I'll switch to line numbers...so number your arguments in this case). It's also a good idea to get louder (and clearer) on phrases within the card that you especially want me to hear.  Doing this will ensure your argument gets on the flow in context.  Most judges like to hear cards and not just taglines, so we can evaluate source indictments.

Flashing:  

I'm evolving on flashing.  I once disliked it because I noticed that it made teams stop flowing, and resulted in less line-by-line rebutting.  This is an unfortunate habit.  I still allowed it because were some teams who managed to handle it just fine.  I think reading clarity is also sacrificed when flashing, because there is not the added pressure of having to be understood by your opponent.  But you still have to be understood by your judge!  Email chains are no better than flashing, by the way, and differ only in that judges are sometimes included in the chain.  I tried this once, and I realized that *I* stopped flowing!  It's not to say that I don't like being in on an email chain (so I can look at it during prep), but if you send me briefs, I will still not flow with them. 

On the other hand, teams who flash look more critically at their opponents' evidence and are less likely to accept the tagline as an accurate description of what the card says.  Even though all of the above problems are real, this new critical way of assessing evidence makes it worth it to flash.  So, flash away, but don't let that stop you from flowing!

This paradigm works for CX, LD and PF, but I should add that 

1) in LD, I am sympathetic to suggested paradigms that flow from the resolution.  For instance, if a resolution includes a call to action, a plan makes more sense.  If it doesn't, then not so much.  I can be convinced to shift this bias, but you must tell me why.

2) in PF, I tend to think more like a lay judge, since that is the spirit of the event.  I will be evaluating speaking skills and your ability to make logical arguments more broadly persuasive to a reasonable (but lay) audience.  That isn't to say I won't follow the flow if you get technical, but I will give you some lattitude to use grouping to buy time for more pathos and ethos.

My email address is icowrich@yahoo.com

My judging philosophy is to get out of the way in the round as much as possible to let the competitors argue what I should be voting for.

If you say it, and prove it, and apply it, I'll buy it.

LD Paradigms

I debated in high school LD for four years, primarily on the TFA circuit, with a couple national and UIL tournaments. That is to say, I'm familiar with most forms of argument. I will flow just about any argument as long as it's warranted. Framing and impact calculus are important to me. Tell me how the round ought to be weighed. Otherwise, I'll default to utilitarian cost-benefit analysis.

TL;DR-- I'm fine with any warranted arguments, framing and impact calc are important.

Background-- I debated high school LD for four years, also doing some extemp and occasionally congress. I have participated in UIL, TFA, NSDA, and national circuit tournaments, though my own style most aligns with that of TFA. That being said, I am probably familiar with any style of argument you might present me, and if I'm not, I'm fairly open minded-- explain it to me, warrant it, and tell me what it does for the round.If the logic flows, I will flow it.

I'm overall tab. I'll vote on arguments I don't like if they make sense and are winning, that being said, I have some preferences like anyone else.

Framework-- I appreciate strong framework in the round. I want you to tell me how the round will be weighed and what the purpose of this round is, how I will decide the winner. If your opponent challenges your framework or you are proposing a competing framework on the negative, I want you tojustifywhy your framework is the best way to evaluate the round.

Framework does not exist in a bubble. Impacts and stock arguments ought to be viewed under the framework and connected back. Make it clear to me at the end of the round how your arguments connect back to the framework and show how you win under framework. Example: if neg shows we end up in a nuclear holocaust under the aff, but agreed to a framework that we decide the round based off of "stealing is bad," I will vote on an aff that shows the aff world still reduces stealing more.

I don't mind what framework construction you use: value/criterion, standard, role of the ballot, plan text, or something I have never heard of. Just justify it and evaluate the entire round through it.

If neither side gives me any framework, I'm forced to choose how the round is viewed, and will generally default to a material utilitarian cost/benefit analysis, but I really don't like to do this. Tell me how the round is weighed.

TL;DR--framework will tell me how I view the round. Justify your framework. I will weigh all (non-apriori) arguments through the framework, but I'm not going to extend arguments for you.

Theory-- I get tired of theory (particularly given its a priori nature), but I understand the occasional necessity of it. When you read a T-shell, be ready to justify it and actually explore your warrants. If you read 5 points in the underview and one is "no RVIs," I'm not just going to drop your opponent because you come back your next speech and say "They had an RVI but I said no RVIs." You'll have to actually elaborate and explain why something like RVIs are bad if you want to extend that (and particularly with points on the underview, I will hold you to a rigorous standard, as I get tired of people spiking the whole alphabet on underview in bullet points), and explain to me how dropping them solves the problem. Once again, warrant your arguments.

Side note-- if there is one place I err from being totally tab, it may be on certain theory arguments. I will have a very high standard to buy very exploitative arguments like NIBs or disclosure theory, so really think about if those arguments sound reasonable and if you can firmly prove them and how they help the debate.

K-- I have read a good bit and debated even more, so if I can't follow your Kritik, that is a problem. Make sure you understand the material you are citing and you can explain it well. I'm happy to vote for a valid Kritik, maybe even a K-Aff occasionally, but I'm not going to vote for an argument I don't understand. If you fly over my head and your opponent's head, you're not winning this argument.

Let me re-iterate, Ks are fine and I'm familiar with most of your run-of-the-mill stuff, Nietzsche, Wilderson, Marx, Kant (if you want to do some old-school deontology), and I lovephilosophical arguments in LD. But communication and understanding is important. I want to be sure the argument is warranted, and that you actually know what you're arguing. A good standard is to just check occasionally if it looks like I'm following.

TL;DR-- Ks are fine, make sure you and I know what you're saying. If I look confused, that is a bad sign, but if I'm engaged, you're doing fine.

Stock Issues/Case-- Once again, the way I weigh this all depends on framework. I am happy with any warranted arguments here. Make sure that your impact makes sense under the framework (the bees dying is horrible, but it'll be hard to convince me to weigh that in a round framed on Social Contract theory). I first vote on a priori issues like K and theory, but I love a good stock case with clash, and love to hear engagement with your opponent. Don't be afraid to kick moot args in the round, but be sure to extend voting issues.

Topicality-- Tell me why your resolutional interp best serves the round and how your opponent has compromised it. Basically, most of what I said about warranting and a high standard under theory applies here too.

Misc-- If you have some radical style of argument, that's great, I'm all for it, I love novelty. Just make sure it makes sense and walk me through it. I'm fine with flex prep and new cards as long as it's not the last two speeches. If your opponent drops something, tell me what that means for the round, what they agree to, and how that hurts their arguments. Just saying they dropped does nothing but make sure they don't extend it. I won't flow new arguments in the last 2 speeches and won't flow after you've been called out for a drop (don't worry, I keep a thorough flow. I know when drops are real or BS and won't drop an arg just because your opponent says so. Point out when they do drop, though) unless you can extend an answer to the harms from the drop off another arg or something.

And don't just cry abuse if your opponent does something bad. Explain what they violated, why that standard is important, what the harms are, and how that should affect my decision. Even if you don't run it as a T-shell, explain it to me. I'm not going to just take you at your word without warranting on abuse arguments 90% of the time.

K Affs? Fine. CPs? Cool. A traditional aff framed on deontological ethics? Also fine. I really am happy with most any argument,as long as it is warranted.

TL;DR-- explain weird args, flex prep is fine, new cards are fine in the 1NR, explain what drops mean, don't be abusive in final speeches.

CX Paradigms

I primarily judge LD, but I have judged CX several times. Most of my paradigms for LD hold for CX as well, but for a CX round I especially want to see effective sign-posting, extending, and a clean flow. I don't necessarily expect as much gritty work on framework in a CX round, but weighing is still important. Show me why you won the round.

If you have any other questions, about my opinions on args, style, my background, etc, feel free to ask before the round. I'm happy to explain. I'm fairly chill.

speak loudly

speak clearly

I am a high school  debate coach. I have been judging debate for ten years, and am experienced in judging both Lincoln-Douglas and Policy Debate.

The distinction between the approaches to Lincoln-Douglas debate and Policy debate is important to me. Spreading, voluminous evidence, and complexity as competitive tactics make sense to me in Policy debate and are inherent to the nature and style of the activity. In contrast to that, Lincoln Douglas in both style and content should in my opinion emphasis values driven debate, logic, and articulate delivery that emphasizes eloquence and effective speaking. I do not think that spreading makes sense in Lincoln Douglas - it is not consonant with the nature of the activity in my opinion.

I am a tabula rasa judge in the sense that I do not enter a round with a predisposition to emphasize one side's burdens over another's. I flow the constructive arguments and rebuttal looking for which side most effectively addresses the resolution, creates the most coherent and relevant case, and effectively clashes most thoroughly and effectively with the elements of the case presented by their opponent. Speaking and poise help to convey the logic and clash that are the substance of debate, but it is the rhetoric itself that matters most to me.

Furtuna Yemane

Affiliations: Richardson High School

Experience: Two years of varsity LD and extemp, graduated in 18' and haven't judged since 19' so I'm rusty with circuit level debate

Long story short: Rounds should be educational and inclusive. I generally aim to be tabula rasa so do whatever style you prefer, but please ask before running particularly convoluted. I keep judge intervention to the absolute minimum unless I see something blatantly unethical.

In Round etiquette: If you're disrespectful towards the opponent you'll get bad speaks and if it happens often I'll be more likely to vote you down.

Speaker Points: My normal range is 27 to 30. I keep this range relative to other speakers at the tournament.

Spreading: I'll say clear whenever I need to, but if bad spreading impedes my ability to listen to arguments then that's going to affect my flowing. Same for me saying louder or slower.

I will vote for the best argument.