Name: Eric Beane

Affiliation: Langham Creek HS (2018-Present) | University of Houston (2012-2016) | Katy Taylor HS (2009-16)

GO COOOOOOGS!!! (♫Womp Womp♫) C-O-U-G-A-R-S (who we talkin' bout?) Talkin' bout them Cougars!!

*Current for the 2023-24 Season*

Policy Debate Paradigm

I debated for the University of Houston from 2012-2016. I've coached at Katy-Taylor HS from 2011 - 2016 and since 2018 I have been the Director of Debate at Langham Creek High School. I mostly went for the K. I judge a lot of clash of the civs & strange debates. Have fun

Specific Arguments

Critical Affirmatives – I think your aff should be related to the topic; we have one for a reason and I think there is value in doing research and debating on the terms that were set by the topic committee. Your aff doesn’t need to fiat the passage of a plan or have a text, but it should generally affirm the resolution. I think having a text that you will defend helps you out plenty. Framework is definitely a viable strategy in front of me.

Disadvantages – Specific turns case analysis that is contextualized to the affirmative (not blanket, heg solves for war, vote neg analysis) will always be rewarded with high speaker points. Comparative analysis between time frame, magnitude and probability makes my decisions all the easier. I am a believer in quality over quantity, especially when thinking about arguments like the politics and related disadvantages.

Counterplans – PICs bad etc. are not reasons to reject the team but just to reject the argument. I also generally err neg on these questions, but it isn’t impossible to win that argument in front of me. Condo debates are fair game – you’ll need to invest a substantial portion of the 1AR and 2AR on this question though. If your counterplan has several planks, ensure that you include each in your 2NC/1NR overview so that I have enough pen time to get it all down.

Kritik Section Overview - I enjoy a good K debate. When I competed in college I mostly debated critical disability studies and its intersections. I've also read variations of Nietzsche, Psychoanalysis and Marxism throughout my debate career. I would greatly appreciate a 2NC/1NR Overview for your K positions. Do not assume that I am familiar with your favorite flavor of critical theory and take time to explain your thesis (before the 2NR).

Kritik: "Method Debate" - Many debates are unnecessarily complicated because of this phrase. If you are reading an argument that necessitates a change in how a permutation works (or doesn't), then naturally you should set up and explain a new model of competition. Likewise, the affirmative ought to defend their model of competition.

Kritik: Alternative - We all need to be able to understand what the alternative is, what it does in relation to the affirmative and how it resolves the link+impact you have read. I have no shame in not voting for something that I can't explain back to you.This by far is the weakest point of any K debate and I am very skeptical of alternatives that are very vague (unless it is done that way on purpose). I would prefer over-explanation than under-explanation on this portion of the debate.

Vagueness - Strangely enough, we begin the debate with two very different positions, but as the debate goes on the explanation of these positions change, and it all becomes oddly amorphous - whether it be the aff or neg. I feel like "Vagueness" arguments can be tactfully deployed and make a lot of sense in those debates (in the absence of it).

Case Debate – I think that even when reading a 1-off K strategy, case debate can and should be perused. I think this is probably the most undervalued aspect of debate. I can be persuaded to vote on 0% risk of the aff or specific advantages. Likewise, I can be convinced there is 0 risk of a DA being triggered.

Topicality - I'm down to listen to a good T debate. Having a topical version of the aff with an explanation behind it goes a long way in painting the broader picture of debate that you want to create with your interpretation. Likewise being able to produce a reasonable case list is also a great addition to your strategy that I value. You MUST slow down when you are addressing the standards, as I will have a hard time keeping up with your top speed on this portion of the debate. In the block or the 2NR, it will be best if you have a clear overview, easily explaining the violation and why your interp resolves the impacts you have outlined in your standards.

New Affs are good. That's just it. One of the few predispositions I will bring into the debate.

"Strange" Arguments / Backfile Checks - I love it when debate becomes fun. Sometimes we need a break from the monotony of nuclear armageddon. The so-called classics like wipeout, the pic, etc. I think are a viable strategy. I've read guerrilla communication arguments in the past and think it provides some intrigue in policy debate. I also think it is asinine for judges or coaches to get on a moral high horse about "Death Good" arguments and refuse to vote for them. Debate is a game and if you can't beat the other side, regardless of what they are arguing, you should lose.

Other Information

Accessibility - My goal as an educator and judge is to provide the largest and most accessible space of deliberation possible. If there are any access issues that I can assist with, please let me know (privately or in public - whatever you are comfortable with). I struggle with anxiety and understand if you need to take a "time out" or breather before or after a big speech.

Evidence - When you mark cards I usually also write down where they are marked on my flow –also, before CX starts, you need to show your opponents where you marked the cards you read. If you are starting an email chain - prep ends as soon as you open your email to send the document. I would like to be on your email chain too - ericdebate@gmail.com

High Speaks? - The best way to get high speaks in front of me is in-depth comparative analysis. Whether this be on a theory debate or a disad/case debate, in depth comparative analysis between author qualification, warrants and impact comparison will always be rewarded with higher speaker points. The more you contextualize your arguments, the better. If you are negative, don't take prep for the 1NR unless you're cleaning up a 2NC disaster. I'm impressed with stand-up 1ARs, but don't rock the boat if you can't swim. If you have read this far in my ramblings on debate then good on you - If you say "wowzas" in the debate I will reward you with +0.1 speaker points.

Any other questions, please ask in person or email – ericdebate@gmail.com

Coach at Heights High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, Woodlands SP
Judging at TOC for: Heights EP, Heritage WT

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me. The 1AC should be sent before the scheduled start time, and the 1AC should be ready to start their speech by the start time.

If I'm judging you in Policy: heightsdocs.policy@gmail.com
If I'm judging you in LD: heightsdocs.ld@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, am currently a teacher at Heights, and predominately coach policy and LD: my program competes through the Houston Urban Debate League and the Texas Forensic Association.

Pref Shortcuts

• Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2
• Kritik (identity): 2
• Kritik (pomo): 3
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

• Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
• Tech > Truth
• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
• It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
• I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

• Given that I predominately coach policy debate, I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs.
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
• Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters does not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or someone who is genuinely unaware of the wiki.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

• I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
• I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of k-aff v fw debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I don't disclose speaks.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

Hello friends! I'm Kiran, I do policy debate at the University of Houston and help out Kinkaid in policy and PF when I can :)

Don't need to take prep for tech issues, sending cards, etc. but please don't end prep and keep talking to your partner about what you need to do in the speech.

Also, please be nice and a good human being during rounds (and outside of them!)

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: kiran.debate@gmail.com

General things:

Do whatever and do it well! I read ev during the round, but I'm not reading for meaning that isn't articulated in the speeches.

Fine with speed

Tech>truth, and use smart cross-applications to your benefit

More judge instruction and comparison = more likely wins

Idk what's happening, but recently, I've been judging so many debates where people are like "they have dropped everything, extend it across the flow," and there is just 0 argument attached. My threshold for extending arguments that are dropped or very lightly covered is pretty low, but you need to say something like "conceded x impact, that outweighs and turns the DA because..." so I have some judge instruction.

More specific thoughts:

CP/DA/Case Debate: Great, I love it!

-Prefer CPs that solve internal links, doesn't need a solvency advocate and rehighlightings of AFF ev are fantastic

-Internal link comparison>impact comparison

-There can be 0 risk of a DA

-NEG leaning on most CP theory

Topicality:

-Interps should be predictable, I default to competitng interps if ev is of equal quality

-I can be persuaded that lack of clarity in the most precise definitions is a reason to defer to reasonability.

-Most likely to vote for the team that does the best impact comparison-is limits explosion truly atrocious under a certain interp? Does topic innovation die under another one?

Policy v Ks:

-Prefer links specific to the AFF with good turns case explanations

-Don't love big overviews that try to filter the whole debate, but more and specific examples that illustrate your theory of power are much better

-Good for both education and fairness on framework, more likely to vote on the perm if you can clearly differentiate the AFF from the context of the link

K Affs v Framework:

-Pretty sure my record is 50/50 in these debates

-Good for both education than fairness, TVA and SSD helps a lot

-Framework should be combined with a presumption push, more likely to vote AFF the less your 2NR is contextualized to it

-Need to know what the AFF does before the 2AC

K v K:

-Almost never in these debates, not super familiar with the lit, if I am judging a debate where this is the strat-I need clear explanations and examples

Tricks:

-Idk why it's called tricks, this category means "desperate attempts to avoid actually debating" args to me

-Will vote on it if dropped, but threshold is so low for an answer.

-RVIs fall in this category

Speaks: I start at a 28.5, but if I’m judging at a local where everyone’s inflating speaks, I will absolutely do the same. Don’t ask me for a 30.

PF:

-I largely evaluate PF rounds the same as policy rounds

-Don't need big picture things, just explain why your thing outweighs the other team's

-Defense is not sticky, I have no idea what that even means

-I die a little every time a team paraphrases or spends 20 mins figuring out which cards to send after a speech, please do this before your speech

-Speeches are so so so short, you don't need to explain the entire story of your arg each time, just explain why it matters, what your opponents missed, and how I should evaluate it.

Feel free to send me questions, and have fun y'all! :)

Background

I debated for Langham Creek Highschool in Houston in policy for 3 years, crossing over to LD my senior year. I primarily went for the K throughout my career, but was very flex and dabbled in every form of debate. I worked as an assistant coach in PF for SpiderSmart Sugarland and now work as an assistant CX and LD coach for Langham Creek Highschool.

Here is my wiki senior if you want to see what arguments I read.

Conflicts: Langham Creek Highschool - Heights Highschool

Separately Conflicted: Cypress Woods AZ

Short Overview

langhamdebatedocs@gmail.com - email chain, please title - - - Tournament Name: School Name (Aff) vs School Name (Neg).

"Do whatever you want. None of the biases listed below are so strong as to override who did the better debating, but adjusting to my priors could maximize your chances of winning and result in better speaks." - Aden Barton

Spreading is fine.

Read anything you want.

2/23/24 - Central Texas National Qualifiers

I will not care if you read progressive arguments against lay debaters, it is not your fault. I will care however if you take too long, I BEG that you keep speeches as SHORT as possible (i,e going for one line tricks, for 10 seconds and sitting down.) and do not overcover anything, this will be best for everyone in the room.

12/13/23 - STRAKE UPDATE

Too many of y'all are going for unsubstantive hidden tricks in front of me because I evaluate them, and I've downed them every single time. PLEASE, do not split the 2NR/2AR because I guarantee you that you're NOT doing enough work on them and you will NOT be happy with my decision when I decide to not pull the trigger on it because there's been a very SHALLOW extension.

General Thoughts

My views on debate are heavily influenced by my coaches and those who've helped me including, Eric Beane, Isaac Chao, and Sebastian Cho.

Debate is incredibly difficult and time-consuming. I love this activity and hope you can as well. I feel as if lots of judges think it’s your responsibility as a debater to please us as judges, no, it is my responsibility to please you as debaters with a respectable and well thought out decision. I have tremendous respect for the hard work you’ve done to come here and will try to reciprocate that in my decision. I will always be ready to defend my decision. “If you feel unsatisfied with my RFD, I encourage you to post-round me. I will not take any offense or make a determination on your personality on the basis of your reaction to my decision. I was always quick to disagree with judges as a debater and have always considered disagreement the highest forms of respect.” – Vikas Burugu.

I will certainly reward good evidence if you have it. However, your evidence is only as good as you can explain it to me. “Regarding argument resolution, spin outweighs evidence. Spin is debating. Evidence is research. The final rebuttals should be characterized by analytical development rather than purely evidentiary extension.” – Rafael Pierry.

Read what you want and read it well. I do not personally believe the ballot is a referendum of you as a person, especially in highschool. 99% of debaters go through the stage where they read bad, stupid, and not well-thought-out arguments because they find them interesting. I don't think any of those people genuinely believe those positions, but rather are ignorant to how arguments can be harmful. The best thing I think we all derive from debate is reflexivity, if you think people's arguments are bad and violent, say so, beat them on it, the worse their argument is, the easier it is to beat, people will stop reading stuff after they get hit with a L25. Debate is great because people can read what they want and shift the norms, be innovative, be unique, do what you want, I encourage it.

Tech over truth but tech is influenced by truth. Those who read arguments that are naturally grounded in truthfulness naturally appeals to my human biases and would render your argument more persuasive, but technical debaters can ALWAYS beat truthful claims. Truth over tech is an excuse to insert human biases into debate that overrides and demeans good argumentation.

After watching the 2022 NDT Finals, I think the judge has an obligation to minimize as much intervention as possible, obviously our human nature necessitates certain preconceived notion’s influence upon our decisions but the sole method of my adjudication will be my analysis of the way both teams analyze, argue, and implicate their own arguments, I will not do this for you, simply analyze the way in which you do it yourself.

I think debate is a game not in the sense that there are rules we should follow and a structure around what we do, but in the sense that we play to win. That same game can absolutely be a site of beautiful and authentic good, through activism, revolution, argumentation, and more, but even so, no matter how you choose to play the game, winning in front of me means convincing me through a form of persuasion to give you the ballot.

Specifics

1. I will vote on ad-homs / call outs.
2. ivis need dtd warrants when introduced.
3. big overview K debaters are not as good as line by line ones, i prefer you do the latter.
4. i will keep note of cx.
5. things that are particularly harder for me to flow, this does not mean i am not open to these args or that i'm dogmatized against them but that you might want to slow down, "Phil AC/NCs that are 50 pointed with TJFs, Reasons to Prefer, and Pre-empts with enormous philosophical jargony tags that are hardly even delineated." that is all for now.
6. I will try to be as tab as possible thus, "I do not default in any way. if you have not sufficiently justified an argument, I just won't vote on it. this includes things like layering -- theory does not come before substance if you have not told me why it does." - Liam Nyberg, to clarify, this means I WILL vote on extinction outweighing your condo shell on magnitude if you do not layer.

A. More on this, I do not find myself voting on offense that isn't filtered through frameworks because I do not understand how to evaluate that offense in reference to the rest of the debate, this includes things like going for IVIs without weighing it's impacts and offensive tricks like GCB that are not filtered through truth testing (specifically different than presumption permissibility triggers that zero offense on other pages).

B. In debates involving lots of layering, I've found it increasingly hard to weigh between internal links to framework justifications like jurisdictive constraints, I've concluded that this is due to a lack of clash and judge instruction. Before giving your NR/AR, ask yourself, why does my weighing justification to [x impact] sequence their weighing justification to [y impact]? I find too many debaters relying on phrases like a K 2NR telling me to "overcorrect neg for ideological bias" without explaining why that should sequence a 2AR telling me to "hack aff due to time skew".

C. I also seem to be always voting on a risk of offense unless there's an explicit presumption trigger, in debates with low warranting threshold particularly tricks ones, I will not simply just strike off arguments if I don't understand them when both sides are doing a lack of explanation and thus concluding in a presumption ballot, I instead will find a risk of offense on either side given the little explanation I have.

SPEAKS: In general, I find myself most moved and assign the most speaks to people who signpost, are clear, do good evidence analysis, and display a sense of cohesion within their rhetoric and argumentation. I find myself most persuaded by people who are assertive, aggressive, and firm with their rhetoric but do not come off as rude, refer to McDonough JN, Wake Forest RT, Aden Barton and Zion Dixon. People who best exemplify these traits will get the most amount of speaks in front of me.

Specific things that will get you more speaks.

- Sitting down early if you have won, +! Conversely, sitting down early when you have lost, -!

- Referencing other debaters/teams as examples in some of your warrants. Contextualizing stuff to debate history is so cool.

- Being clear. The slower the clearer almost 90% of the time. The louder the clearer almost 90% of the time as well. University RH is a benchmark for how your spreading style should be to optimize speaks in front of me.

- Good argument strategy and tactics i.e going for the right choice in the 2NR, time allocation, and speech construction. You can win different routes but taking the easiest path to victory will garner more speaks.

- CX Dominance, not being lost or seeming evasive in cross, as well as putting your opponent into binds.

- Sending pre-written analytics will help your speaks and probably my flow.

I will not award you for the 30 speaks spike.

Lowpoint dubs only ever go to people who I found rhetorically less persuasive but won a dropped arg.

I'll start at 28 and go up and down from there.

I'll disclose speaks, I think it's a good norm.

I'll yell slow if you're too fast so don't be worried about outspreading me.

Any other questions, please ask in person or email – minhle1933@gmail.com

Add me to the round email chain: eslittle85@gmail.com

I’m from the “old school” debate world where I believe the focus should be on the presentation and delivery of a rational and well thought out argument with good substance and topicality, not a contest to see who can spread the fastest. Spreading is fine with regards to reading evidence; however, slow down for the tags before each piece and when going through analytics, comparisons, impacts, and contextualizing. If you are going so fast that it takes away from your delivery, your speaks will be negatively affected. I award speaks based on quality of delivery, argumentation, and strategic decision-making. I won't disclose speaks so don't bother asking.

I try to be a good judge for research driven, content heavy strategies and find the best debates to be focused on central controversies rather than edge cases. I will privilege technical execution in most instances; nonetheless, in close debates, truth is usually the deciding factor. My threshold for answering nonsense is low. Judge instruction on central questions you want considered is important. I want you to explicitly tell me what is important and why it is more important than other issues, but you should also show me that it’s important via choice, sequencing, and time allocation.

Debaters should time every speech and should always count down on their timer for their own speeches. That way, it'll go off when your time runs out, which will keep you honest and ensure that you don't accidentally go over.

Know what you are talking about and explain your arguments simply.

Have a strategy and execute it well. Creative and innovative approaches are great, so don't be afraid to experiment; but, if your strategy is to confuse your opponent, you run the risk of confusing me too.

Make complete arguments, meaning claim + warrant + implication. I would also suggest labeling or numbering your arguments. Blippy and/or disorganized arguments are bad and I will not waste time or mental energy trying to analyze them for you.

You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your topic literature; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under. Especially if your framework is complex or obscure, a brief summary of how it functions would be helpful.

I’m not much of a fan of Kritiks, but if you’re going to use a Kritik have case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative. Know the literature base well, explain it simply rather than using jargon as a crutch. Show me that you understand what you are talking about.

If you're reading tricks one of three things is likely to happen: I'll miss it, I won't understand it, or I'll think it's stupid. Additionally, I won't hold your opponent to a higher standard than I hold myself to, so if I didn't understand the implication of an argument (especially a blippy/shady one) in a prior speech, I'll give them flexibility on answering it in a later one.

I am a policy centered cross-x judge. I try to stay tab as much as possible and keep an open mind but I don't have the high-level experience that many other national-level judges have. I flow the speeches and take notes during cross-x. I will look at the doc to get the cites and try to read the evidence between speeches.

When you stop prep time, please be in the process of sending or uploading the speech doc. If you say "stop prep," do not turn around and whisper to your partner. If you are the 1NR and you say "no prep," do not start talking to the 2NC and you should have the doc already uploaded if you have new evidence.

I did not debate in college and I am not well-connected to NDT level trends.

As I get older, cognitively I am a little slower and a more concrete thinker. That being said, my weaknesses are high theory kritiks, performance / identity arguments, kritikal affirmatives, and process counterplan theory.

I have no predispositions against arguments. I actually love innovative arguments like critical philosophy, kritikal affirmatives, and process counterplans but I just lack experience so my decision may be a bit unpredictable. I will defer to an offense-defense paradigm and list the offense that each team is winning and then decide which impact or framework I should choose based on the arguments. I will also try to compare the evidence if needed and use the arguments to compare warrants.

I do my best to get a tight flow but I can't get every word. If you are debating theory, you might want to go 90% of top speed and make sure you are enunciating well. If I can't understand it, I can't flow it, and it won't be on the flow.

Topicality-I like topicality debate but I am looking for examples of cases that the other team would allow. I am looking for specific arguments that you will not be able to run. Saying "limits" and "ground" does not qualify as an extension. You will need at least 2 or 3 sentences to explain what that theory means, give examples of in-round or potential abuse impacts, and warrant out why I should down the team.

Theory-I can flow theory pretty well and I will vote on it. But again, you need to give a 2 or 3 sentence explanation of what the in-round or potential impacts are to your theory and why downing the team is merited. Extending taglines or buzzwords won't be sufficient.

Disadvantages-Make sure they are unique and the links are specific. Do impact calculus and compare the impacts.

Counterplans-I like counterplan debate. I like all types and am open to counterplan theory but just don't go too fast and be specific. "Perm: do both" might not always be sufficient. The affirmative may need to have a perm text that is written out and specific to what the perm does especially in a process round or advantage counterplan round.

Kritiks-Sure but I am not the most up to date on kritiks. I sometimes don't understand really dense theory and philosophy. I do prefer specific and timely links that interact with the assumptions of the case over generic links of omission. Framework debate needs to interact so if you are going for an identity or performance argument, I can't be expected to automatically vote for your framework; there needs to be a clear extension of the in-round and out-round implications of endorsing your specific framework and a comparison with the other teams framework. I do prefer kritiks that are timely and germane to the topic and connect to real-life events.

Case Debate-You probably are going to need this and it needs to specific and recent. There needs to be impact comparison and engagement with the warrants of the evidence.