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

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

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

UT '26

My email is t@bawa.us

TL;DR

Update November 2023: I have not been involved with debate for upwards of a year now. I won't be familiar with topic lit, so thoroughly explain and assume that I don't know your acronyms/abbreviations. Also please slow down for online debate. I'm probably an 8/10 for speed at this point, but like 6.5/10 when it's over Zoom.

I'll evaluate any argument. Speed is fine just make sure to be clear and slow down on tags, advocacies, plan texts, etc. Please include me on the email chain.

Substantively, I'm pretty much tab. Read anything but make sure to warrant your arguments thoroughly. Tech>Truth and I generally tend to think of debate as a game (unless you tell me otherwise). Also, err on the side of overexplaining because I'm likely not familiar with the topic literature.

Please feel free to email me if you have any questions before/after the round. Debate is a difficult activity and I'd love to help for future rounds.

PREFS SHORTCUT

1- Policy/Topicality/Theory

2- Ks/Phil

3- Tricks

Speed

Slow down on tags/advocacies/plan texts. Don't mumble, I'll yell clear twice before stopping my flow.

Policy

Most comfortable with this literature. Make sure to weigh and make strong, substantive arguments

For CPs and PICs make sure to explicitly warrant the net benefits. Will judge kick CP if told to do so.

Impact calc makes a disad debate interesting - do it.

Kritiks

I read some Ks in high school (capitalism, settler colonialism, Baudrillard, some more). I understand most K literature but please err on the side of overexplaining - I've been out of the activity for some time so the jargon isn't really fresh to me. I'm big on framework so emphasize why your model for the round should win.

Generate offense!

I'm okay with non-T affs but am very receptive to topicality against them. If you're reading one prove why not being topical is beneficial and propose an alternative mechanism to weigh the round.

Phil

For context, I read mostly util and some Kant in high school. However, I'm familiar with most common frameworks.

I love a solid AC/NC debate but make sure to have a substantive clash on the framework level. It's hard to evaluate these rounds unless I'm given reasons to prefer a framework over another. Again, err on overexplaining and slow down on lengthy analytical arguments.

Trad

Go for it. Weigh offense and be willing to collapse under your opponent's framework. I've seen too many debates where people spend the whole round arguing about a weighing mechanism without actually having offense under it. Don't do that.

Topicality/Theory

These are good debates to be had. Prove the abuse and weigh your impacts and you should be fine.

I generally believe that disclosure is a good practice and am pretty receptive to disclosure theory, especially if the aff specifies a small part of the literature.

Utilize combo shells - they can be extremely helpful and can create better, more contextualized debates.

Friv theory is fine but don't expect high speaks if you plan on collapsing on it.

Please use definitions in the T debate.

Tricks

Err on the side of overexplanation. Not that comfortable with tricks

Case

I love case. If you successfully collapse on a case turn, expect high speaks. People don't utilize case arguments enough.

Miscellaneous:

Prep ends when you're done preparing the doc, but if you take too long to send it I'll start running it again.

If there's a clear skill discrepancy please be reasonable - I'll boost your speaks.

Time yourself

I'm okay with flex prep/open CX as long as your opponent is.

Good luck and have fun!

Senior at the University of Texas at Austin '24

Email chain: david.do.6375@gmail.com and (CX only) hawkcxdebate@gmail.com

Overview

– None of this applies to PF or other formats besides Policy/CX and LD.

– Tech over truth in most cases. I won't evaluate an argument without a warrant, even if it's completely unanswered. I will not evaluate arguments like racism good, ableism good, and any other wholly unethical and derogatory arguments. Additionally, arguments meant to be a meme or joke are inherently garbage. I will give you the lowest speaks for reading any of these arguments.

– I prefer contextualized arguments with specific warrants over anything else. Although I generally prefer high-quality evidence, issues from lack of evidence or poor-quality evidence can be resolved with good argumentation. I do normally read cards, but I leave explanations and comparison of evidence up to debaters. I mostly read cards to give comments/advice on how to better execute/answer a particular argument. I also don't want card docs. If you send a card doc, that email and doc will sadly be ignored and left unread in my inbox.

– I’m not the best for teams reading Kritikal arguments. I didn’t read a lot of Kritikal arguments in high school, which means that I don’t understand your arguments as well as most judges. If you do want to read a kritik and pref me, then structural kritiks like capitalism, militarism, and security and identity kritiks like anti-blackness, feminism, and queer theory are fine. Post-modern kritiks are really pushing my boundaries. However, you shouldn't over-adapt. I would much prefer you read arguments you're familiar with and are able to clearly articulate over arguments I understand. I will be able to follow along with what you're saying so long as you're properly explaining key components of your argument.

– I don't often vote on 0% risk of anything. Although I have voted on 0% risk of impacts or solvency in the past, this was mostly because aff/neg teams provided insufficient responses, rather the other side being so good at beating an argument into the ground. In a debate where both sides are sufficiently responding to each other's arguments, I default to impact calculus more than anything else.

– "Soft-Left" affs have become increasingly popular and common. I don't have an issue with these affs in general, but I do have an issue with 1ACs that have a short 3-4 card advantage with 5-minute-long framing contentions that include pre-empts like "no nuclear war", "[x] DA has [y]% risk", and "[z] thumped their DAs". Teams that read these 1ACs seem to have an aversion to debate. I have read these 1ACs in the past, so I understand the strategic utility of long framing contentions. However, I much prefer listening to 1ACs that have well-developed advantage and solvency contentions. I enjoy sifting through quality evidence that came from the topic literature base rather than evidence I can find in my backfiles. Additionally, I have been increasingly finding myself persuaded by aff indicts of extinction first frameworks. High-magnitude, low-probability events have increasingly silly and comical to me. That being said, the aff must still make defensive arguments to DAs and answer the specific extinction scenarios that the neg has made.

– Unlike most judges, I flow cross-ex. This doesn't mean I consider cross-ex a speech, rather I am taking notes of cross-ex. You don't need to go into detail about what happened during cross-ex during your speech. I will understand the reference and evaluate your use of cross-ex accordingly.

Topicality

– I generally default to competing interpretations over reasonability. I err towards reasonability when there isn't a coherent case list, a persuasive link to the limits disad, or high-quality evidence defending the interpretation. Reasonability is about the aff's counter-interpretation, not the aff.

– I'm not persuaded by "plan text in a vacuum". Just inserting the resolution into your plan text isn't enough to prove that the aff is topical. You have to prove your mechanism fits under the resolution.

– I have listened to debates on T-Taxes. I generally err aff that "fiscal redistribution" implies taxes or transfers. For the neg to win, the aff must either mishandle the Topicality debate or the neg has a spectacular reason that deficit spending should not be aff ground. I have yet to hear a spectacular reason that deficit spending should not be aff ground.

Framework

– Comparative impact calculus matters more than winning in-roads to the other side's offense. I am more likely to vote on "procedural fairness outweighs maximizing revolutionary education" over "switch-side debate solves the aff's offense." Winning turns and access to the other side's offense increases your chance of winning, but they aren't necessary to winning the debate. These arguments are inherently defensive and, alone, are not enough to win the debate.

– Recently, many negative teams have increasingly gone for clash and education as the impact in the 2NR. I find procedural fairness as a more persuasive impact than clash and education. Members of the debate community approach debate as if it were an academic game, which means the collapse of that game discourages further investment into the activity.

Kritiks

– Like most judges, I prefer case-specific links. Links frame the degree to which the neg gets all of their offense and K tricks on framework, the permutation, and the alternative. The more the link is about the broader structures that the aff engages in, the more likely I am to err aff on perm solvency of the links. I'm a sucker for 1AC quotes/re-highlights as proof of a link.

– Kritiks that push back on the aff's theory of the world require, at least in some part, case defense. Defense to the 1ACs impacts or solvency claims are useful to disprove the necessity of doing the aff. I'm more likely to be convinced that the aff has manufactured their threats and have engaged in militarist propaganda when you've proven the aff wrong about their scenarios. Absent sufficient case defense, extinction outweighs, and I vote aff.

– K tricks are fine. However, I won't give very high speaks if a debate is won or lost on them. I am not a fan of floating PIKs, especially if it's not clear until the 2NR.

Counterplans

– I absolutely love counterplans that come from re-cutting an internal link or solvency advocate of the 1AC. Even if your counterplan doesn’t come from their 1AC author, the more case specific it is, the more likely I am to reward you for it.

– Presumption flows towards the least change. I consider most CPs that are not PICs as a larger change than the aff.

– I will judge kick unless told otherwise. If I believe the CP links back to its net benefit or the permutation resolves the links to the net benefit, I will evaluate the net benefit independent of the CP.

Disadvantages

– DAs that rely on poor-evidence can be easily beaten without the 2AC ever reading new evidence against it. I am much more comfortable voting aff on "your uniqueness evidence is horrible" than 1% risk of a poorly carded DA. I am also very sympathetic to the 1AR making new arguments when the block reads new evidence to defend parts the 1NC poorly defended.

– The Economy DA has been incredibly popular in this topic. I'm an economics major, so I will generally understand the macroeconomic factors and theories that your authors are talking about. Just because I understand them does not mean you can simply name drop the theories as a response to your opponent's link or link turn. If anything, my understanding of these links and link turns means impacting out each individual link and link turn is far more important. At the end of these debates, I will still have a hard time evaluating each link and link turn because neither side has sufficiently explained the significance of their arguments.

Theory

– Most theory arguments are just reasons to reject the argument, except for condo. This is especially true when there isn’t any in-round abuse. Theory arguments that such as counterplans without solvency advocates, vague alts, etc. are reasons to be skeptical of the solvency of the counterplan or alt. They are rarely reasons to reject the team. Other theory arguments like PICs bad, floating PIKs bad, agent CPs bad, etc. are reasons to reject the counterplan or alt. These arguments can be reasons to reject the team, but only if the neg severely mishandles the theory debate and the 1AR and 2AR are really good on them. The same is true for theoretically suspect permutations.

– Process CPs have become increasingly popular. I generally err aff that Process CPs are bad and severance or intrinsic permutations are therefore justified.

– I think the most reasonable number of conditional worlds the neg should have is two. Three or four is pushing it. If the neg only reads advantage counterplans or kritiks specific to the 1ACs plan, then I lean neg on condo even if their counter-interpretation is an infinite number of worlds. So long as those worlds are both textually and functionally (or philosophically) competitive, then I’m good with it. Obviously, new affs also justify infinite conditionality.

– I don't vote on shotty theory arguments like ASPEC, Disclosure Theory, New Affs Bad, etc. unless they are dropped and properly impacted out.

Miscellaneous

– I will always disclose or give feedback after the round is over. Debaters will only improve if they are given proper feedback and the opportunity to ask questions about the round. I want to watch and enjoy good debates, but that can only happen when debaters improve and know how to effectively articulate their arguments.

– For UIL State, the above is not true.

– Re-highlighted evidence can be inserted, but you must explain what you've re-highlighted and why the re-highlighting proves your argument (or disproves your opponent's argument). Simply inserting the re-highlighted and stating that the re-highlighting proves your argument is not sufficient. You must make a complete argument with the re-highlighted evidence.

– I have witnessed more and more debaters marking multiple cards in every speech they give. There is nothing wrong with marking cards, but excessive marking (marking more than 3 cards in a single speech) is frustrating. I will ask a debater who marks more than 3 cards to send out a marked copy. I will also lower speaker points for such behavior.

– Please start slow before speeding up. It's difficult for me to understand the first few seconds of your speech otherwise.

LD

– If the affirmative is going for an RVI, it needs to be the entirety of your last speech and you must prove in-round abuse. I won't reject arguments or the negative otherwise.

PF

– Just because I judge CX doesn't mean I want to watch a CX debate. Debate as if I'm a parent judge with no knowledge about the topic. This means no spreading, theory, or Kritiks. If you debate like it's a CX debate, I will not give you speaks higher than 28.

– Please set up an email chain for the purposes of sharing evidence/cases. My email is above.

Typically I am an LD Tech judge, but I am comfortable judging a multitude of events and I'll list paradigms for each of them below. I have competed competitively in LD, CX, Extemp, and Congress, but I also judge PF.

LD- Speed is fine as long as you always share your docs with me and your opponent and slow town on the tags. I am fine with essentially any argument you want to run as long as they aren't offensive to your opponent or any group of people. I also don't like tricks debate and am very unlikely to vote on it. I am cool with flex prep as long as your opponent is as well. As for speaks, I find them to be archaic and a poor way to break ties when breaking, especially when compared to opponent win loss record. I'll typically just give 29s to everyone if I can, unless you are exceptionally well spoken or exceptionally poor, in which case you'll get a 30 or 28 respectively. I'll only give lower than a 28 if you are rude, degrading, or offensive.

K- I am well versed in almost all forms of debate, but I'm an a little less knowledgeable in areas of kritical debate that don't deal with well established philosophers (deleuze, baudrillard, foucault) or preexisting kritics in the debate space or topic lit (cap, fem, bio power, abelism, afro pec). If you choose to read a k that isn't super well known or more in depth, just make sure to really slow down on the tags and give a clear underview at the end, emphasizing the link and alt.

Theory/T- I vote on any shell as long as the warrants make sense and the arguments are laid out clearly, but I would much rather vote on substance instead so I slightly lean against it. I won't ever vote on friv theory that is useless and wastes my and your opponents time. I think the aff always carries the burden of topicality and I'm more comfortable voting on T that theory. I typically like counter interps and reasonability best when arguing against theory, and I will vote off of RVIs as long as there is more of a justification than just "I have to spend time on the shell".

CP- CPs are fine as long as they are well researched and explained. Picps are fine as well, though I think they run the risk of engaging in a Picps bad debate which I am comfortable voting off on if the win the shell.

Framing- I typically don't care if you read a FW or not, but I do like creative and unique framing metrics that shape the round in an interesting way.

I am most likely to vote for the person that best compares and contrasts their argument with the opponent using reasonable metrics of comparison, like probability, magnitude, timeframe, etc. Please please weigh your arguments, so I don't end up debating the round in my head for you guys.

CX- I am open to pretty much any argument you want to read, just like in LD. Most of my paradigms stack up the same way here, but I'll go more in depth on each here. Please do not read new arguments in the second half of the neg block, I will not flow any of them. Additionally, I don't love hearing completely new, complex arguments in the 2AC (i.e. a performance k in the 2AC) and won't flow them. If you're reading an extension of an argument in the 1AC or a more basic disad, case turn(s), or theory shell I will flow them.

K- Same goes as above. I am more likely to vote off of a performance k in CX than Ld since there is a lot more time for either the off or neg to flesh out the k.

Theory/T- Same as in LD, though I can guarantee I will never vote off of substantial T unless it goes 100% conceded. It is a lazy argument that almost never wins rounds. I am far less likely to vote off of RVIs in CX since there is so much time that can be dedicated to the theory debate. Unfortunately, all that time also means I usually end up evaluating theory as a wash unless there is a clear winner, which there usually isn't.

CP- Same as above

Stock Issues- While I am a progressive, modern CX judge, if both teams want to debate stock issues I am comfortable evaluating that as well. I usually end up voting on inherency or topicality out of the bunch.

PF- I am a firmly traditional PF judge. I never debated PF competitively but I am familiar with the event and can judge it aptly. I think if you want to read progressive arguments in a 45 minute debate, do LD. If you want to read progressive arguments with a partner, do CX. I do not like spreading, Ks, or theory in PF. CPs and T are fine as long as they are well constructed and thought out. I typically will vote on impact debate and weighing the most, which I find extremely important in a more traditional debate setting. Speaks are the same as in LD.

Congress- While congress was not my main event I did fairly well on the state and local circuit, but I'll typically evaluate the event like any other judge. That being said, I don't like a heavy emphasis on LARPing and I prefer more of a conversational style and deep analysis. However, I will rank someone with more charisma and presence over someone with deep analysis. I don't enjoy vocal cadences and they bother me when they get too repetitive. I also dislike planned out rhetoric or AGDs that get recycled throughout rounds. Besides that, I will rank people with 2 good speeches above those with 3 poor ones, but 3 mediocre speeches will outrank someone with 2 good speeches. 2 amazing speeches will trump pretty much anything else in my book, though. I rank normal POs 4th, and for each mistake the get knocked down a spot. If they do something amazing, they will advance a rank.

Extemp- Speaking quality is the same as congress, I prefer those with more charisma and presence over those with in depth analysis. I really enjoy a conversational style and good jokes, especially meta ones about the round or extemp. Just be natural, stay conversational, and speak at least 6:30 and you'll get a good rank from me.

DEb8 don’t H8.

Quick run down: Do you what you do best. I mostly read policy arguments in high school. If you are a K team spend the time to explain the lit that you almost definitely know more than me about. Be nice and have fun. No one wants to spend their Saturday feeling bad about themselves.

Style/Speed: Make sure to sign post well so I can stay organized. Fine with speed just please slow down on tags, authors, and analytics.

T: Can either be pretty interesting or really really boring. Not saying don’t read T, just saying that a meaningful standards debate and proof of in round abuse will go a long way. T is a voter and RVIs are probably not the best idea in front of me.

Theory: probably reject the argument unless condo. I don’t like the 3 second ASPEC blips or ASPEC hidden in the word doc with no verbatim heading.

DA: I don’t need really specific links, just contextualize it to the aff. I think that disad turns the aff is convincing as well as a good impact calc. Feel free to read politics or generics but specific disads are always neat.

CP: Same thing as DA’s, generic is fine, specifics are cool. Affs should be able to explain what each perm would look like.

K: They can be fun with good debating and understanding of the argument. I am not going to know as much about the K literature as you do, debate accordingly. Specific links can be convincing but contextualization of any link to the aff is a must. A long overview explaining the K would be helpful, but if you feel that you can do a good explanation in the line by line with a shorter overview, then im good with that too.

K Aff: Same thing as K, do some work explaining the thesis but feel free to read them.

Case: read it and impact turns can be fun if you really flesh them out in the block/2nr.

My email is ferry4554@gmail.com for the email chain.

Assistant Debate Coach Dripping Springs High School

2a/1n UH debate 2016-19

email chain- ryanwaynelove@gmail.com

I do not watch the news.

Novices:

I have infinite patience with novices. So just do your best to learn, and have fun; welcome to debate!

Unrelated:

Hegel updates just dropped: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/29/manuscript-treasure-trove-may-offer-fresh-understanding-of-hegel

Policy: TFA State Update: (Ask me questions! This is an important tournament, I really do not like how hostile some judges can be to debaters. Y'all deserve to be able to ask whatever you want before the round).

Really important: You have got to slow down a bit for me. If you are not clear, you are doing yourself a disservice. The clearer you are, the faster you can go in front of me. The less clear you are means the more you should slow down.

You do you. But please crystallize the debate. I am infinitely more comfortable voting on well explained, well warranted, argument(s) that were explained persuasively, that took up the vast majority of the time in the 2nr/2ar, than I am on voting on a blippy technically conceded argument that was 20 seconds of the 2nr/2ar. This means I prefer deep debates over crucial issues of clash much more than debates where both sides are trying to spread the opponents thin. In debates where debaters take the latter approach rather than the former, I often times find myself seeking to determine the core "truthiness" of an argument. I often times have a different interpretation of "truth" than others. This means that in debates where little weighing is done for me you may not like how I intervene to make a decision. Similarly, if there is a conceded argument I much prefer you explain why that concession matters in the context of the greater debate being had, instead of just saying "this was conceded so vote for it." Most important to me is how you frame the round. If structural violence outweighs make it clear. If ontology is a pre-requisite to topical discussion make it clear, and so on. I do not want to adjudicate a round where both sides "pass each other like two ships in the night." Weigh your arguments, compare evidence, indict the ideas and arguments your opponents put forth.

Many times in conversations with debaters after the round I will be asked "Well what about this argument?" The debater will then go on to give an awesome, nuanced, explanation of that argument. I will then say "If it had been explained like that in rebuttal, I probably would have voted for it." If you expect me to vote on something, make it important in the last rebuttal.

I have not judged much on this topic. So start slower and work your way up to full speed. If I cannot understand you I will say clear.

Slow down in rebuttals. If you are going blazing fast I will miss something and I will not do the work for you on the flow. If you are fast and clear you should be fine. I need a clear impact scenario in the 2nr/2ar. Tell me the story of your impact(s); whether it be nuclear war, limits/ground, education, or settler violence. Be sure to weigh it in comparison with the impact scenario(s) of your opponents. In short, do the work for me, do not make me intervene to reach a decision.

Argument specific stuff:

Topicality-I am not aware of topical norms, so do not be afraid to go for topicality; especially against super vague plan texts.

Kritiks-I am most comfortable judging kritikal debate. As a debater I debated the kritik explicitly. I say this because I think y'all deserve to know that the finer techne of policy throw-downs are not my strong suit. If you read the Kritik I likely have at least some passing familiarity with your arguments. That does not mean I will hack for you. I expect you to explain any argument to me that you expect me to vote on in a clear and intelligible way. If I can not explain to a team why they lost, I will not vote for an argument.

K Aff v. Framework- I am about 50/50 regarding my voting record. Something, something, the duality of being ya know?

Disads- These are fun. The more internal links to get to the impact the more suss I think the arg is, the more likely I am to believe there is very low risk.

Counterplans-If your strat is to read 900 counterplans that do not really compete I am not the judge for you. Counterplans that have a legit net benefit on the other hand...those are nice. That being said, I have a soft spot for words PICS/PIKS.

Misc- Debate is a game. So if your A-strat is to go for that heg advantage, federalism and 50 states, or cap good, then go for it. You do you. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.

Please use cross-x effectively

Please act like you want to be here.

Please be efficient in setting up the email chain, sharing docs, et cetera.

Please know I am only human. I will work hard. But know I am not perfect.

Last but not least, have fun! Debate is a great place to express yourself and talk about really interesting and pertinent things; enjoy your time in debate because it is quite fleeting!

LD:

This is the event I am least familiar with of all of the ones I have on this page. I would say look at my Policy paradigm and know that I am very comfortable with any policy-esque arguments. What the cool kids call LARP in LD I am told. For anything else judge instruction and weighing of args is going to be critical. As I have also stated in my policy paradigm I am more familiar with Kritikal args than policy ones, but I think for LD I am a good judge to have if you want to read a plan or something.

That being said I do appreciate debaters using their framing IE Value/standard/whatever to help me adjudicate the round. If you win framing you will probably win the debate when I am in the back of the room, as long as you have an impact as to why your framing matters.

Frivolous theory, RVI's, and tricks are going to be a hard sell for me. Legit theory abuse, topicality, or "T-you gotta defend the topic on the aff" are args I am more than willing to vote on.

Phil arguments are cool but do not assume I have any familiarity with your author. If I do not understand something I ain't voting on it.

San Antonio specifics

Unless both parties agree I do not want to see any spreading.

Do not be afraid to be a traditional debater in front of me. Just be sure you can debate against other styles.

Public Forum

Update a la Churchill on the Kritik- I am down like Charlie Brown for the kritik in PF (understatement). However, if you introduce the K in rebuttal I will be willing to evaluate theory args in response.

TLDR: Tech>truth, I keep a rigorous flow, I appreciate good analytics, and I hate theory in PF. I do not care if you sit or stand. If you want to call for a card go for it; BUT PLEASE do this efficiently. Do not try to spread, but going quick is fine.

Long version: I have judged a lot of rounds in Public Forum this year. There are a few things that you need to know to win my ballot:

The teams who have routinely gotten my ballot have done a great job collapsing the debate down to a few key points. After this, they have compared specific warrants, evidence, and analytics and explained why their arguments are better, why their opponents arguments are worse, and why their arguments being better means they win the debate. This may sound easy, however, it is not. Trust your instincts, debate fearlessly, take chances, and do not worry about whatever facial expression I have. I promise you do not have any idea where my thoughts are.

Crossfires: Use this time wisely. Use it to clarify, use it to create ethos, use it to get concessions, use it to make their arguments look bad and yours good. But use it. I think answers given in crossfire are binding in the debate. If you get a big concession use it in your speeches.

Framework(s): I like these debates. Reading a framework IE structural violence or explaining via an observation how the debate should be framed is helpful because it clarifies for me how to evaluate the debate. I like this in debates, it makes things easier for me. If you are reading a framework be sure to extend it in every speech and use it as a lens to explain your impacts in the debate/weigh your impacts against your opponents.

Speed: I think PF should be more accessible to the general public than policy. With that being said I have not seen a team go too fast yet.

Theory: This is silly. Disclosure theory is silly. Do not read it in front of me. Do not read any theory arguments in front of me. I will not vote on them. With that being said arguing that your opponents are not fitting within the bounds of the resolution is a good argument to make if it applies. If you make this argument and have warrants and impacts do not be afraid to go for it in final focus.

Non-traditional stuff: I enjoy creative takes on the topic, unique cases, and smart argumentation. I do think that PF should always revolve around the topic, I also think the topic is broader than most do. That being said avoid jargon. You can make a lot of creative arguments in this event, do so while avoiding weird debate jargon. No this does not contradict the "theory" section above. I will weigh claims about someone not fitting within the bounds of the resolution vs explanations about why a team is satisfying the burden of the resolution. Whoever does the better debating will win this question in the debate.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: I am a firm believer that my role as a judge is to be impartial and adjudicate fairly. I will flow what you say and weigh it in comparison with what your opponent says. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.

Congress:

I was a finalist at the TOC in this event. This means I am looking for a lot of specific things to rank high on my ballot.

Clash over everything. If you rehash I am not ranking you.

Authors/sponsors: get into the specifics of the Bill: funding, implementation, agent of action, date of implementation. I appreciate a good authorship/sponsorship speech.

1st neg: Lay out the big neg args, also clash the author/sponsor.

Everyone else needs to clash, clash, clash. Specifically reference the Rep's you are refuting, and refute their specific arguments.

Leave debate jargon for other events.

Ask lots of questions. Good questions. No easy questions to help your side out.

This is as much a speaking event as it is a debate event. Do not over-read on your legal pad (do not use anything else to speak off of), fluency breaks/over gesturing/swaying are distracting, and be sure to use intros, transitions, and conclusions effectively.

I loath breaking cycle. If it happens those speaking on whatever side there are speeches on need to crystallize, clash, or make new arguments.

I appreciate decorum, role-playing as congress-people, and politicking.

1 good speech is better than 100 bad ones.

Wear a suit and tie/ power suit. Do not say "at the leisure of everyone above me" that's weird. My criticisms may seem harsh. I promise they are not intended to be mean. I just want to make you better.

Presiding Officer: To rank in my top 3 you need to be perfect. That being said as long as you do not catastrophically mess up precedence or something like that I will rank you top 8 (usually). The less I notice your presence in the round the better.

BOOMER thoughts (WIP):

Outside of policy/LD I think you should dress professionally.

In cross-x you should be looking at the judge not at your opponents. You are trying to convince the judge to vote for you not your opponents.

At the conclusion of a debate you should shake hands with your opponents and say good debate. If you are worried about COVID you can at least say good debate.

You should have your cases/blocks saved to your desktop in case the WIFI is bad. You should also have a flash drive just in case we have to go back to the stone age of debate.

"Is anyone not ready?" is not epic.

"Is everyone ready?" is epic.

The phrases "taking running prep" or "taking 'insert x seconds of prep'" should not exist.

"Taking prep" is all you need.

"Starting on my first word" umm duh that's when the speech starts. Just start after asking if everyone is ready.

add me to the email chain: patmah729@gmail.com
but for team events I'd prefer a speechdrop
Please set up the filesharing before the round. Rounds should start on time.
PLEASE RECORD YOUR SPEECHES FOR ONLINE DEBATE

Conflicts: Byron Nelson (the whole team) and Tempe Prep CO

he/they
call me "Patrick," "Pat," or even "Judge" is fine, anything more formal makes me uncomfortable

Debate is a safe space, keep it that way. This means don't be violent. It also means give content warnings.

TLDR: I'm comfortable listening to most arguments at most speeds. Give me pen time (even if I'm laptop flowing) or it will not get to the flow. Refer to cards by authors and dates. Pop them tags. Flash analytics or slow them down. Give me a filler word between cards. Tell me what to do and I'll do it, leave the decision in my hands and you'll be disappointed.

General Paradigm (Mostly LD)

I will try to be tab

- Speed: I don't have the best hearing, so maybe around 80% of your top speed is best.
- Tech > Truth to the fullest extent ethically possible.
- Comparative worlds > Truth Testing
- competing interps > reasonability
- yes RVI
- you should probably read some kind of framework, but I'll default to util if nobody says anything.

Pref shortcuts (I'll evaluate anything but I'm better at some things over others)

Ks: Bad K debate makes me sad. Good K debate is what I'm here for (1)
K Affs: are good, explain things pls (1-2)
Larp: is fine, go for it. (1-2)
Phil: is fine, go for it. Explain your wacky philosophy. (3)
Theory: I actually really like these debates, but I'm bad at flowing procedurals so be really clear, send the doc or something, otherwise I'll probably mess something up. (2-3)
Trad: To each their own? Like you'll be fine but I don't particularly enjoy these debates. (4-Strike)
Trix: are for kids. Low threshold for response, I will still evaluate them, I'd just rather not, and if I can't understand them, I will not vote on it. (4-Strike)

Rapid fire misc thoughts:
Disclosure is good, I think open source + RRs should be the norm.
Condo is probably okay, but you still have to justify it
RVIs are good (in LD/PF)
The best rebuttals have minimal/no overview and do everything on the line-by-line.
There is such a thing as a bad argument, but that is totally irrelevant to my decision.
PTX Disads are fun and I like them, but you should be reading updated, unique, interesting scenarios. When every team at a tournament is reading the same scenario and it's not even very good I question why you're reading it in the first place.
Dedev is good and you should read it
Nebel has a point but please make new arguments
"I don't need this to win, but I'll extend this anyway" is one of the most frustrating things to hear. Collapse. Don't go for everything, just because you win it doesn't mean you should go for it.
Speech times, safety, and whatever tab yells at me for are the only actual rules of debate. Anything else is a norm and can be changed.
I will vote on ivis vs trix, especially if you're reading identity based positions.

I'm pretty solidly in the trial by fire camp, but there's a line between trial by fire and just throwing your weight around. Don't make it harder to be a less experienced or institutionally disadvantaged debater, there are already enough barriers to success for the least privileged. Read what you want, but don't be inaccessible. Be the support you wish you had as a novice. Be nice and take the round seriously and I'll boost your speaks.

An off-time roadmap is just telling me what order to put my flowsheets in. Please just leave it at that.

Traditional framework debate: Framework is not a voter, it's just the lens I use to evaluate the round. Contextualize how your case best achieves the winning framework of the round. Ideally, you should do some weighing under both frameworks if the debate is at all uncertain. Anything less is gambling with my ballot. Btw, value debate is meaningless and I would rather you concede a value of morality/justice and then do the framework debate on the criterions.

Also directed at trad debaters: Arguments need evidence, and evidence needs citations. If I don't hear a citation, it is an analytic, and if it is an analytic vs a carded piece of evidence, it had better be a pretty good analytic. If your case is entirely analytic, you're behind from the beginning. You've already (presumably) done the work and have a citation. Just tell me the author's last name and the date it was published and I'll be happy.

I hate paraphrased evidence, it makes misrepresentation easy, and I will vote on potential abuse. Please just read highlighted cards.

I LOVE evidence comparison, PLEASE rehighlight your opponent's cards and tell me why their authors suck, I BEG to be in the back of the room when you go for them.

Speaker points

Speaks start at 28 and go up/down based on strategy, delivery style, norm setting, and round conduct. I will disclose speaks, just ask. I'm trying to be objective about how I give speaks, I think speaks are a dumb thing overall and I try to be cognizant of the fact that they determine breaks.

I am very comfortable giving an L-25 to people who are rude or make debate a hostile place to exist.

If you just docbot, I will tank your speaks. Good speaks are for good debates and just reading prewritten blocks instead of making your own arguments does not make for good debates. Some of the messiest and most boring debates happen because debaters refuse to make arguments in round.

Speaks calculations:
I'm pretty relaxed on these with novice rounds and if there's tech issues, I'm not gonna tank your speaks for them, don't worry abt that.

+ .1 for each card you read that has your initials in the cite (you had to cut the card) and that has author quals and everything in the cite (Max is + 1.0, tell me if you want these during your prep, otherwise I'll probably miss it)
+ .5 if you send analytics in the doc
+ .5 if you innovate and read something unique and interesting that I haven't seen before
+ .1 for reading a PTX disad that was updated the day of the tournament.

- 1.0 for stealing prep
- 1.0 for misgendering someone (It's an auto loss if you do it twice. Be better)
- .5 if you don't send a doc
- .5 for weird gross purple highlighting
- .5 for calling me "Mr. Maher" or "Sir" this just makes me super uncomfortable.

25.3 if you lose disclosure theory at a TFA tournament that tells me I'm not allowed to vote on it. I think TFA is setting a bad precedent by enforcing rules about what arguments are/are not allowed to be made, and I want all arguments to have implications. Following these new rules, tanking speaks is the implication I can have access to. I fundamentally disagree with TFA's decision, I think any non-offensive argument should be able to be considered, but I don't want to get yelled at, so that's the best I can do.

25.3 and under is reserved for people who are rude/violent.
29.7 and over is reserved for people who are nice, give optimal speeches, and are organized.

I feel like asking for 30 speaks is silly.

CX: I'm a progressive LD judge. Almost everything above should still apply to policy.

Docbotting is probably not strategic but it won't hurt your speaks

RVIs are dumb in policy, condo is probably fine unless it's something absurd

PF: I'm a progressive LD judge. Almost everything above should still apply to PF.

I believe in norm setting for evidence norms: straight up if you send your evidence without being asked I will start your speaks at 29, I'm so tired of wasting time waiting for cards. Only way to get a 30 in pf is if you send a speechdoc with non-paraphrased evidence (policy style cards) like how every other event does it. If you choose not to send evidence initially and we end up wasting time (cumulatively over 5 minutes) for you to find it and send it, I will be docking speaks heavily.

If someone asks for evidence, sending a link to a study paper or webpage is not acceptable, you have a responsibility to clearly mark where you're paraphrasing from (that means send highlighted evidence). Each time it happens is -1 speaker point, I can be (and have been) persuaded to vote on it. Debate has clear standards for evidence and you don't get to just ignore them. This is like the simplest thing.

read paraphrasing theory

Updated Longhorn Classic '21

Chris O'Brien

he/him

forever student at UT Austin

please put me on the email chain: chrisob26@utexas.edu

I debated policy in high school all 4 years in Athens TX, and have been judging/coaching on the Austin circuit since 2013.

Also, if anything in this paradigm isn't clear enough, feel free to ask me before the round, I'd be more than happy to clarify.

General Thoughts

I am tab but default to policymaker if not given a clear alternative evaluative framework.

The most important thing is that you give me the easiest path to the ballot. Tell me how to vote, on what, and why. Other than that, give me overviews, keep the debate organized, and please extend things correctly. Technical debating ability determines your speaker points in large part, unless there is reason to dock speaks for hate speech/immoral arguments.

I am generally more confident in my ability to evaluate policy v policy and policy v k debates, than k v k due to a literature knowledge deficiency, especially in high theory kritiks (read: Baudrillard, Heidegger, Deleuze/Guattari, etc.), so expect to explain the thesis of your critical position and how they interact with the topic thoroughly when reading those arguments.

Performance Affs are fine as long as you are very thorough in your explanation of what my role as a judge is and what the ballot does.

I will try to evaluate rounds to the best of my ability based on the information I am able to flow from your speech. That means despite what is in the speech doc, I will only be evaluating what you actually say in your analysis and a lot of close rounds are won or lost in the rebuttals over this issue. There should be clear extensions from the 2AC to the 1AR/Block to the 2NR and 2NRs/2ARs should be going for a specific strategy that is writing my ballot.

Tech over truth in most cases. If an argument is dropped, I still need a proper warrant extension and implication given for that drop to matter, unless given some other model of judging the round. I will rarely decide a round on a single drop and that argument must still be implicated in the broader aspects of the round.

I flow on paper despite the advances in technology since I first started debating. Speed is fine, but in a world of virtual debate please slow down. I expect any theory standards to be read at a pace that gives me adequate pen time, if not they should be in the speech doc.

I will always listen to CX - open CX is fine, but do not talk over each other. Flashing/Email doesn't count towards prep unless it is egregious.

Don't be offensive, rude, homophobic, racist, ableist, derogatory, sexist etc.

Always try to have fun - if you're not acting like you want to be there, it is a real drag to judge your round.

Framework/T-USFG

I default to debate is a game, and I think the k aff bad debate comes down to a question of fairness, whether used as an impact or an internal link by the neg. I am not usually persuaded by topic education vs critical lit education through an aff specific method since that doesn't interact with the fairness question a lot of the time, and the aff team usually has better evidence about the importance of their particular educational outlet anyway, especially given the fact that they know what it is and can adequately prepare for it. The most important way for the aff to get me to vote for a non-resolutional based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. However, I grant K affs a lot of grace if there are clear resolution-based links that are able to answer ground loss claims.

My threshold for granting neg offense on clash is directly determined by how abstract/immaterial the aff explanations of the k method are.

TVAs are under-utilized in my opinion as ways to take out Aff standard offense. SSD is a must-have argument to even compete on the education debate.

I default to k affs getting perms but have a pretty high threshold for these arguments in context to the ground/clash debate, if brought up.

Topicality

I default to competing interpretations, but can be persuaded otherwise in round. Bad/unpredictable T interps are worse for debate than predictable ones, so I expect neg teams to read interps that are actually making an argument about what the literature base should be for the topic. Barring the block dropping reasonability, I will most always focus on the standards when evaluating the T debate, so teams that do the work on explaining how limits are improved/destroyed by the other team, what case lists/neg generics look like, and which interp provides the most sustainable form of debate for the year are most likely to win.

I typically don't vote on RVI's here unless there is a multitude of T's that the aff meets on face, which puts the neg more in the realm of reading frivolous theory, not just T args.

Kritiks

I really enjoy policy aff vs k debates, however I have very limited knowledge of critical literature outside of Cap/Neoliberalism, Abolition, SetCol, Security, Biopower (Foucault/Agamben), and small amounts of Ahmed. As said above in general thoughts, if you are reading a kritik you feel I may be unfamiliar with, or are pulling multiple theories from critical bodies of literature, I fully expect you to clearly explain the thesis of the criticism and how your method is able to possibly resolve the links you present.

I am very tech based in my evaluative approach to kritiks and hold a high standard for both teams in order to win the sheet. I evaluate the K sheet first by framework then K proper, where the line-by-line is very important - reading massive overviews that don't specifically interact with 2ac arguments hurt your chances of winning those parts of the K if the aff does the work you don't do in the 1ar. I believe the aff should be able to be weighed against the kritik, it is up to the neg to win why that is not the case in this round with a clear counter-interp.

Links are important and must be contextualized to the affirmative, but it is also just as important to be able to explain how the alt method is able to resolve those links. I hold alt solvency to a high regard, you must be able to explain what the alt does to create change in the world after I vote neg. I have found that there is big trend recently by neg teams to ignore solvency deficits/turns because they aren't specific to the (usually obscure) alt method the neg is choosing to read this round - you still need to interact with those arguments and disprove their warrants!

I think perf con is voter as long as there is a clear link in contradiction of advocacies - I believe the neg is able to spin out of this, but depending on the positions read that might be hard at times.

Floating PIKs are bad, but if you get away with it, I will still vote on it.

Disads

I would love to hear a good DA+Case collapse in the 2nr. I believe the top level of the disad should be thoroughly fleshed out in the block and there be clear turns case analysis given that is contextualized to the aff scenarios/solvency. Generic link walls are fine as long as you are doing that contextualization as well. I don't think winning case outweighs is all the aff needs to do when turns case analysis is competing against it, but I do think it is underutilized in the 1ar when paired with other arguments on the disad proper.

I really enjoy politics disads when their scenarios lean closer to plausible rather than just fiat spin +"and x is at the top of the docket now". I think warrant interaction on the uniqueness/link uniqueness question is where this sheet is usually won on either side. Generic pc is fake and winners win args aren't too persuasive unless contextualized to the current political climate.

Counterplans/Theory

I really love good counterplan debate. Generic counterplans are necessary and good. I think specific counterplans are even better. Counterplans that read evidence from the 1AC or an aff author are even better than that! I think process cp's are legitimate but prefer neg teams to explain how the net benefit is still a disad to the aff. Plan plus multi-plank advantage cp's are my new most hated CP on this topic - do with that info what you will.

Neg teams need to be sure to have a clear story/explanation for how the aff/perm links to the net benefit and the CP alone avoids it. I do not think the answer to solvency deficits is to go for "lens of sufficiency" or fiat, you need to explain how those deficits still allow the cp to solve the aff/avoid the net benefits. Severance/Intrinsic perm debates seem to be less common these days, but I still think they are important tools against "creative" aff perms.

I am okay with aff teams making multiple perms but those perms need to be explained and how they work before the 2ar is going for them. In that same regard, solvency deficits/perm shields the link analysis and implications must not be made for the first time in the 2ar either. Aff should be leveraging their "creative" permutation with their cp theory if the cp is even close to abusive, but I really don't like when rounds come down to just a theory question.

Theory that is more specific to the argument it is read against will typically have a higher chance of being viewed as a voter. I typically lean neg in most cases, except for bad PICs or convoluted process cp's. I think theory should also be used as a justification for other arguments you make in the round based on substance, not just a reason to reject the team.

My threshold for condo is very easily shifted by circumstances, but I generally believe it is a good idea for the aff to read condo in the 2ac if the neg is reading 3 or more counter-advocacies, though the likelihood of me voting on it largely depends on the amount of in-round abuse/sand-bagging strategy the neg is choosing to do. Aff needs to have a clear interpretation, and I find "no difference between 2/3/4 off" not very convincing by the neg, especially if the aff gives any type of intelligent analysis on time tradeoffs.

I believe frivolous theory bad is a voter, especially on procedural questions that the aff/neg themselves violate, but you need to do the work of showing how in round abuse is occurring and how the theory is frivolous.

On judge kick - if the neg tells me to and it's unanswered or the neg is ahead on the question of whether I should, then I will. Neg teams, you should tell me to do this in the block if you want it to be considered for the same reason 2ar condo strats are bad, you wouldn't want the aff to win on 5 minutes of judge kick bad in 2ar and it gives the aff plenty of time to respond/not respond to it by the 2nr.

I am a third year out and I did CX and LD at Austin SFA from 2015-2019.

I would like to be on the email chain - anevayel@gmail.com

General:

I have 0 preference for argumentative style (traditional, “progressive” etc). Yes I’m fine with whatever speed you want to go.

Tech/Truth: I default to tech on arguments I either have personal opinions about or don’t understand but please don’t mistake tech as just having more ink on the flow. I swing more towards truth in matters where whatever is being said is like common knowledge or a fact about current events etc.

I will not disclose your speaker points and I won’t give you a 30.

Speaker points are 60% strategy and quality of argumentation and 40% how clearly you spoke and your in round etiquette. I will give you the lowest points I can if you are nasty. Don’t be.

LD/CX:

Kritiks: Fantastic. Please make sure you understand it and you explain it clearly. I’m probably familiar with whoever you are reading so I wouldn’t downvote you because I don’t know/understand the author but the burden is still on you to explain and win their argument as if I don’t know who they are.

T: Please be mindful I have not judged many rounds on this LD or policy topic so I have 0 preconceived notions of what is T and what is not. You must give me a clear violation->impact story.

Theory: If you’re in LD or PF-I don’t evaluate theory. Ask me for clarifiers if you must. CX- do your thing but please don’t just spread through a bunch of blocks someone else likely wrote

Disads and Counterplans are great! Make your link stories specific! Please, don’t forget to debate about the aff!

PF:

Please be nice to each other. Don’t quote the TFA rules at me. Run whatever arguments you want but you absolutely must tell me a coherent story that is backed by your evidence.