email@example.com - Yes, I want to be on the email chain. -- please format the subject as "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs. Neg School NG." Example: "TOC -- Finals -- MBA BM vs. WY MM."
If you have any questions before the round starts, please don't hesitate to ask.
LD specific stuff is at the very bottom.
Hebron '20. Did CX debate all 4 years. Read K affs/negs sophomore-senior year. 2A Soph, 2N Junior, 2A Senior.
UT Austin '24
Work with Westwood HS.
Spreading - Yes
Open CX - Yes
No Plan Text (Varsity/JV)- Yes
No Plan Text (Novice) - No
Kritiks - Yes
Disclosure Theory -- Ideally, you'll have some proof of mis/lack of disclosure to make things easier, but I'm willing to vote on it.
Cards in Body of the Email - You get 1 per speech given. Anything more, and you put it in a document.
If you open-source and do round reports with the details of the 1AC, 1NC, and 2NR, tell me right when the round ends, and I'll increase your speaks by .2 after checking.
I conceptualize much of debate as who is winning the "framing issue." How do I evaluate offense, what do I prioritize, post fiat or pre-fiat? Answer this question of debate for me, and it'll give you a strong cushion to supercharge your line by line and gives me very simple ways to conceptualize my RFD.
I'll vote on anything, but some things I'm more comfortable evaluating than others. My debate history was entirely Ks, but don't over adapt to me.
Reconcile what impacts come first or how to weigh them relative to your opponent's.
Framing pages are really boring. Spark is entertaining. Give me more spark or dedev.
If you say *anything* that is construable as racist, I reserve the right to drop you and go on about my day.
Look, it's a DA; just extend it properly, please.
Ideally, do not read a soft left DA versus a plan text aff.
Clever counter-plans and PICS are fun. Generics are also fun if run well. I probably lean neg on most CP theory except for consult and solvency advocate.
If a CP text just has "do the aff" or something similar instead of explicitly saying the portion of the aff that the CP is doing, the Aff team can just say "They don't know how to write a plan text. They don't actually fiat anything real so it doesn't solve anything" and that will be sufficient for the aff to win the CP.
I don't judge kick unless you tell me to.
4-minute overviews make me cry. Case-specific links are great. Generic links are fine and can definitely be won.
I have the most experience with Settler Colonialism, Afropess, Virilio, Heidegger, and Black Nihilism. However, I also have worked with Ks like Agamben, Baudrillard, Foucault, Security, Queer Theory, Psychoanalysis, etc. Pretty much, I won't be scared of whatever you decide to run. That does not mean I will do the work to fill in the analysis for you, though - explain your stuff.
Unfortunately, most framework debates in the 2NR/2AR often become meaningless with a lack of clash. At that point, I functionally default to weigh the aff, but the K gets its links in whatever form they are. If this isn't strategic for you, then put the work in and win FW by answering their stuff and not just extending yours.
I'm generally quite willing to vote on all the cheaty K tricks like floating PIKS or all in on FW. With being willing to vote on small techy tricks, I'm also fine with voting on the hard right approaches to answering Ks, whether that means going all-in on heg good/impact turning the K.
Identity K's Warning--- I'm not against people reading kritiks outside of their subject position. However, I think that debaters who choose to run these Kritiks are obligated to do the maximum amount of research and practice necessary to make sure they do not bastardize the literature or make a mockery of the argument. You don't get just to pick up the argument, know like 45% of the buzzwords, and call it a day.
Root cause arguments are not links. If your only link is just a root cause then I probably won't give it much weight.
I seem to judge a fair amount of Wilderson/Warren debates so here are a few things. On the state good side -- just winning a list of reforms isn't enough for me. I need to hear a clear counter-theorization of how the world operates and comparative claims to take out social death/equivalent claims. Reforms prove that counter-theorization but don't make a theory in and of itself. On the Wilderson/Warren side -- you need to be justifying your theory of the world way more than just the surface level claims. Saying "Jim crow to prison industrial complex" over and over again does not make a full argument. Ideally, for Wilderson, I'll hear some thesis-level explanation like a few seconds on social death or what the libidinal economy is rather than just "extend the conceded libidinal economy". To me, the "Jim Crow to PIC" explanation requires the thesis level explanation to precede it for it to be true. For both teams -- I've found that most debates are decided by who undercovers ontology/libidinal economy the most. Many arguments on the flow come secondary to winning this and applying it to those other things so identify what you can afford to give up to make my decision easier. You can still win ontology/metaphysics and lose the debate, but there are far fewer scenarios where that's true.
University K's that PIK out of the university or debate suck. Do with that information as you will.
For the negative - I'm not the best judge for fairness as a terminal impact. I think it's tough to evaluate fairness versus K impacts, so I'll probably need some external benefit to fairness like clash. Don't read this as me being dogmatically against voting on fairness. Instead, I need an incredibly robust explanation of fairness with a large amount of case mitigation to vote on it. BUT - fairness is a great controlling IL to filter things, so definitely leverage it as a part of other impacts if you go that route.
The one caveat to the above fairness stuff -- hyper-personal affs that don't defend a "strategy" or "theory of power" make me more open to fairness as an impact because I genuinely can't see a role for the negative there. Note: this is not the same thing as like "Warren/Onto Terror - endurance strategies good."
Ks are often a great strategy versus a K aff if you do your HW to learn it. I default to the aff gets a perm, but feel free to win they don't. Just winning your theory of power isn't sufficient for me to vote negative, but it definitely supercharges link arguments.
Impacts turns are great and underutilized. Feel free just to drop a rack of offense and challenge the fundamental assumptions of the 1AC. A great debate here will likely get you more speaks than I would normally give just because it's interesting, and the very nature of the argument is that the clash between the teams is more robust.
DAs -- if a K team is trying to be tricky and give you topic DAs. Feel free to call them out on it and drop CP/DAs in the 1NC and GO FOR THEM (but have case answers) A) I think it's disingenuous when the Neg goes for FW and acts like there was zero way to engage when CX of the 1AC explains the aff as in line with the topic, just without a plan text (debate to be had, of course) and B) how many speeches do you think the Aff team has given versus FW and versus a DA?
For the aff -
You need to either win a) your model is better than theirs or b) their model is really, really bad if you don't have a c/i.
I find myself voting negative in these debates when the Aff fails to give me a framing argument to filter negative offense, so do that work for me.
Be ready to defend your solvency mechanism. I'm not necessarily holding you to an absurdly high burden, but I need a coherent story if pushed back against, about what my voting aff does. Do I signify a good political strategy, does my ballot literally break the system (lol), does it change mindsets, etc. Presumption is persuasive, so don't disrespect it by under covering it.
I'm not the judge for rounds where you and the opponent agree to have a "discussion" and talk about important issues outside the traditional speech times of debate. These things are likely important, but I really don't want to have to make a decision on something like that, especially since it doesn't follow traditional understandings of flowing and offense/defense and it effectively requires judge intervention.
I am not anywhere near the best judge for T. If your A strat is Topicality then I'd recommend striking me or having me hover around a 4. If you are forced to go for T in the 2NR/answering it the 2AR, then hold my hand through the RFD and explain how things should interact.
If you're put in a position where T is your only option don't worry - just keep the things below in mind.
I default to competing interpretations.
Give me a case list, especially if it's a weirder interp.
Go slower than you would with a DA/K/CP. I find it harder to flow T than other off-cases at high speed.
Make sure you are telling me the exact reasons why I should vote for you rather than just have floating offense.
Weird and Random Technical Things:
Speech times are a rule, while things like topicality are a norm. What that means is that I'm willing to entertain a debate about the benefits of topicality/FW vs. a K aff. If you speak over the timer, I will not flow or evaluate what you are saying, even if it is a part of your argumentation.
No, the neg will never get a 3NR.
I greatly dislike completely new 1AR cards if the argument was made in the 1NC and dropped in the 2AC. There is a big gray area here for what it means to be "dropped," but you should be able to realize what is abusive or not.
Off-case positions should be clearly labeled in the 1NC. I don't like the awkward moments where people give the 2AC roadmap, and there's a silence or argument while the 2A tries to name the off-case themselves.
I'll generally evaluate inserted rehighlighting of the opponent's evidence. There is obviously a point where a team could abuse this -- don't do that. But, I think that teams should be punished for under highlighting/mis highlighting their evidence. Due to time trade-offs/competitive incentives, I think that forcing you to verbally re-read the evidence punishes you more. Essentially, one or two key inserted rehighlightings is fine, but if you're inserting the entire 1ac re-highlighted, that's not ok.
Don't say "brief off-time roadmap." Just say roadmap, please.
The only thing I want to hear in your roadmap is the name of off-case positions and specific case pages. If there's a large overview, then maybe add that to the roadmap. "Impact calculus" happens within one of those flows so just signpost in speech rather than making it a part of the roadmap.
Please don't send pdfs. Verbatim > Unverbatimized Word > Google Docs > Pdfs.
I have never judged a trix round and I barely know what trix are. Do with that information as you will.
In order of args Im best suited to judge (best to worst) -- K, LARP, Phil, Trix.