Some tidbits to consider, no particular order:

I try to make decisions based on criteria established by debaters. If none are offered, I will rely on my knowledge of convention, style, and execution to guide me. What that means - I am equally likely to vote for a good thought experiment or critical intervention, as I am a traditional policy proposal. That being said, I have a higher threshold for what counts. Asserted risk calculus is as unappealing as unapplied critical jargon.

Mediocre debaters copy others. Good debaters advance arguments. Great debaters persuade.

Don’t assume I know what you are talking about

I prefer organization and development of arguments as the debate proceeds. That means: 
Details matter. Warrants matter. Cross-ex matters. History matters. 

Evidence matters when a claim is contested. "We have a card" is not a warrant for an argument. How one chooses to highlight evidence should be of relevance to you, but it is especially relevant to me.



Argument "type" is not extremely relevant to me - select the arguments that you are prepared for rather than those that you think I agree with. I obviously have preferences but am interested in seeing how you make sense of the activity, not with advancing my agenda.



I think the activity is at its best when rounds are serious and complex investigations of policy, philosophy, and politics based in literatures and discussions made relevant by and to the resolution. 

That means I am less likely to care about miniscule theory debates or certain kinds of performances until/unless their relevance is clearly explained and impacted. Then, it's awesome.

I like:

case debates

disadvantage impacts that focus on early internal link claims and less on terminal impacts

affirmatives that affirm things

consistent but tricky negative strategies

counter plans with solvency advocates and real net benefits

alternatives

some relation to reality, even if contested

ethos

serious theoretical objections, including topicality

Everyone is always learning - including me and you.

Hello fellow debate enthusiasts, you probably don't have a lot of time to read this, so I'll get straight to the point. I debated four years of CX debate at Caddo Magnet High in Shreveport, Louisiana (which really means I debated in Texas). I participated in the Harvard Round Robin and got a bid by getting to quarters of Harvard my senior year (2014-2015). I work at the UTNIF Debate camp held at UT Austin during the summer. I am currently in my senior year of college at Louisiana Tech University, where I am majoring in chemistry. As for gender, I am non-binary, specifically agender. Any pronouns are fine with me and you may take your pick of Cole or Juliet.

If you came here to see if you could run your weird and unique argument, the answer is yes, specifically I am fine with any word PIC ("the" PIC included) conditionality theory (my favorite), and many many other weird/sketchy K (and policy) arguments.

Short Version
I have debated everything from politics to the craziest K. I was a 2N for 3 years. Freshman year and sophomore year politics was my jam. Junior year anthro was my jam. Senior year as a 2A, Nietzsche Chaos aff I cut was my jam. Long story short, you do you, and I will do me. I am a tabula rasa- blank slate- I will do my best to only vote on things said in the round. All arguments are still arguments so at least answer them. I WILL VOTE ON ANYTHING.

Long Version

Top Level:
Tabula rasa- anything goes (within reason), debate is a game so play it, tech over truth (in most cases- you wont win that the sky is red or the ocean is orange, but you may win a link if the other team allows you to frame/explain their arguments in such a way that you get the link, even if it is just not true). Clarity over speed. Differentiate between tags and the body of the card. Signpost effectively because a happy judge means more speaker points. NEVER be rude to your opponents or your speaker points will get nuked (especially if you attempt to argue offensive arguments such as sexism or racism good). Keep everything professional and be sportsmanlike. Open C-X is cool as long as one partner doesn't dominate. For paperless, I don't count flashing as prep, but be reasonable and don't steal prep. Stick to the line-by-line instead of huge overviews for better clash. I'll try to keep my biases to a minimum and will basically evaluate the round as I am told (policymaker, academic, etc.). ALSO, bonus speaker points if you make funny references (or references to some of my favorite shows- i.e. Steven Universe, South Park, Adventure Time, Rick and Morty). A little humor never hurt anyone, but don't be disrespectful.

Case:
I love a good case debate with lots of clash. I think case is undervalued a lot these days and usually is underdeveloped. A hugely mitigated case can win you the round. I'm okay with generic impact defense and internal-link take-outs, but never forget analytics. Always point out logical fallacies or exaggerations made by the opponent. Not just for case either; this can apply to other off-case arguments, too.

Disads:
I love disads, but the internal link is where most disads fall apart. True links and true impacts are better than probable (or really, improbable) impacts, but the truth of anything is up for debate, as it should be. Always answer turns the case argument, because they can be damning. Bonus points for case-specific disads.

Counterplans:
Counterplans are awesome, but I'm willing to give the aff some leeway on theory for abusive counterplans like word PICs and process counterplans. On severance and intrinsic perms, I default to rejecting the argument and not the team (if theory is brought up). Again, case-specificity is amazing and will impress me.

Kritiks:
I can follow most critiques pretty well. That being said, don't expect me to do alt work for you. Alt work is the most important thing. Do all your tricky tricky K tricks but explain and impact them. K affs are fine too, but get ready for them framework debates. Please do not mispronounce your author the K is based around (Nietzsche for one).

Theory/Topicality:
Don't be blippy on theory. Slow down. If you don't, I can't flow and that means I may miss a crucial argument. You will get an extra speaker point for actually understanding theory and not reading blocks, but engaging in the warrants of education, fairness, predictability args, etc. RVI's are probably a waste of time. Potential abuse is a voter because its about competing visions of debate, but in-round abuse is also pretty persuasive. Don't just say reasonability - I don't know what it means to be reasonable.

Performance:
I haven't seen much performative debate, but as long as you follow relatively the same guidelines as for everything else (well-warranted explanations and lots of clash) there won't be any problems.

Obviously, I probably forgot something, so if this doesn't answer your questions, you can always ask me during the round :)

When I understand the words you say I take them more seriously

Do what you want.  I follow tournament rules, try not to throw things

Debated: Norman High School (2005- 2009), University of Oklahoma (2009-2014)
Coached: University of Texas at San Antonio (2014-2015), Caddo Magnet High School (2014-2015), Baylor University (2015-2017), University of Iowa (2017-2022), Assistant Director of James Madison University 2022-2023

Currently: Assistant Director of Debate at Baylor University, Assistant coach at Greenhill High School

email: kristiana.baez@gmail.com

Updates- Feb 2023

Think of my paradigm as a set of suggestions for packaging or a request for extra explanation on certain arguments.

Despite the trend of judges unabashedly declaring themselves bad for certain arguments or predetermining the absolute win condition for arguments, I depart from this and will evaluate the debate in front of me.

*Judge instruction, judge instruction, judge instruction!*

Sometimes when we are deep in a literature base, we auto apply a certain lens to view the debate, but that lens is not automatic for the judge. Don’t assume that I will fill things in for you or presume that I automatically default to a certain impact framing, do that work!

*Argument framing is your friend.*

“If I win this, then this.”

"Even if we lose ontology, here is why we can still win.” This is important for both debating the K and going for the K.

Zoom debate things:

Don’t start until you see my face, I will always have my camera on when you’re speaking!

Clarity over speed, please- listening to debates over zoom is difficult, start out more slowly and then pick up pace, but don’t sacrifice clarify for speed.

Ethics violations-Calling an ethics violation is a flag on the play and the debate stops. Please, please do not call an ethics violation unless you want to stop the debate.

---

Top level thoughts: This is your debate, so above all-- do what you do, but do it well!
My debate career was a whileee ago. I primarily read Ks, but I have also done strictly policy debate in my career, so I have been exposed to a wide variety of arguments. I like to think that I am a favorable judge for Ks or FW. I have coached all types of arguments and am happy to judge them.

I judge the debate in front of me and avoid judge intervention as much as possible. In this sense, I am more guided by tech because I don't think you can determine the truth of any debate within the time constraints. HOWEVER, I think you can use the truth to make more persuasive arguments- for example, you can have one really good argument supported by evidence that you're making compelling bc of its truthiness that could be more convincing or compelling than 3 cards that are meh.

FW/T

I judge a good number of T v. K aff debates and am comfortable doing so.

Sometimes these debates are overly scripted and people just blow through their blocks at top speed, so I think it's important to take moments to provide moments of emphasis and major framing arguments. Do not go for everything in the 2NR, there is not enough time to fully develop your argument and answer theirs. Clearly identify what impact you are going for.

Internal link turns by the negative help to mitigate the impact turn arguments. Example- debating about AI is key to create AI that does not re-create racial bias. TVA can help here as well!

The definitions components of these debates are underutilized- for example, if the aff has a counter interp of nuclear forces or disarm, have that debate. Why is their interp bad and exacerbate the limits or ground issues? I feel like this this gives you stronger inroads to your impact arguments and provides defense to the aff's impact turns.

K aff's- It is way less compelling to go for impact turns without going for the aff and how they resolve the impact turns. You cannot just win that framework is bad. It is more strategic for the aff to defend a particular model of debate, not just a K of current debate.

Kritiks:

Updated- It’s important to find balance between theoretical explanations, debate-ification of arguments, and judge instruction. More specifically- if you have a complex theory that you need to win to win the debate, you HAVE to spend time here. Err towards more simple explanation as opposed to overly convoluted.

Think about word efficiency and judge instruction for those theoretical arguments.

Although, I am familiar with some kritiks, I do not pretend to be an expert on all. That being said, I think that case specific links are the best. Generic links are not as compelling especially if you are flagging certain cards for me to call for at the end of the round. It seems that many times debaters don't take the time to really explain what the alternative is like, whether it solves part of the aff, is purely rejection, etc. If for some reason the alternative isn't extended or explained in the 2nr, I won't just apply it as a case turn for you. An impact level debate is also still important even if the K excludes the evaluation of specific impacts. It is really helpful to articulate how the K turns the case as well. On a framing level, do not just assume that I will believe that the truth claims of the affirmative are false, there needs to be in-depth analysis for why I should dismiss parts of the aff preferably with evidence to back it up.
The 2NR should CLEARLY identify if they are going for the alternative. If you are not, you need to be explicit about why you don't need the alt to win the debate. This means clear framework and impact framing arguments + turns case arguments. You need to explain why the links are sufficient turns case arguments for me to vote negative on presumption.

CPs- I really like counterplans especially if they are specific to the aff, which shows that you have done your research. Although PIKs are annoying to deal with if you are aff, I enjoy a witty PIK. However, make it clear that it is a PIK and explain why it solves the aff better or sufficiently. Explain sufficiency framing in the context of the debate you're having, don't just blurt out "view the cp through the lens of sufficiency"--that's not a complete argument.

Generic cps with generic solvency cards aren't really going to do it for me. However, if the evidence is good then I am more likely to believe you when you claim aff solvency. There needs to be a good articulation for why the aff links to the net benefit and good answers to cp solvency deficits, assuming there are any. Permutation debate needs to be hashed out on both sides, with Da/net benefits to the permutations made clear.

DAs- I find it pretty easy to follow DAs. However, if you go for it I am most likely going to be reading ev after the round, so it better be good. If your link cards are generic and outdated and the aff is better in that department, then you need to have a good reason why your evidence is more qualified, etc.

Make the story of the DA AND your scenario clear, DAs are great but some teams tend to go for a terminal impact without explanation of the scenario or the internal link args. Comparative analysis is important so I know how to evaluate the evidence that I am reading. Tell me why the link o/w the link turn etc. Impact analysis is very important, timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc., so I can know why the Da impacts are more important than the affs impacts. A good articulation of why the Da turns each advantage is extremely helpful because the 2ar will most likely be going for those impacts in the 2ar.

Theory- I generally err neg on theory unless there is a really good debate over it. Your generic blocks aren't going to be very compelling. If you articulate why condo causes a double turn, etc. specific to the round is a better way to go with it. I think that arguments such as vague alternatives especially when an alternative morphs during the round are good. However, minor theory concerns such as multiple perms bad aren't as legitimate in my opinion.

Other notes: If you are unclear, I can't flow you and I don't get the evidence as you read it, so clarity over speed is always preferable.
Don't be rude, your points will suffer. There is a difference between being aggressive and being a jerk.
Impact calc please, don't make me call for everyones impacts and force me to evaluate it myself. I don't want to do the work for you.
The last two rebuttals should be writing my ballot, tell me how I vote and why. Don't get too bogged down to give a big picture evaluation.

Accomplish something in your cross-x time and use the answers you get in cx and incorporate them into your speeches. Cx is wasted if you pick apart the DA but don't talk about it in your speech.

I debated at the Liberal Arts and Science Academy (a high school in Austin) and at UT Austin. I am comfortable with policy and K arguments. Make the arguments that you are good at making. I usually go for tech over truth. Be specific and precise. Do evidence comparison. Use examples. In the 2NR and 2AR, make my job easy by explaining the big picture of why I should vote for you.

Maintain some kind of order. If the 2NR has a 4 minute overview, I won't do much work for you.

Theory debates are good. T debates are good. But don't spread through these speeches too quickly.

Do not cheat. Mark your own cards. Do not clip.

Be kind to each other.

Email me if you have any questions and/or complaints about this judge philosophy.

Updated for October 2018.

Put me on the email chain - abdebate1@gmail.com

Note - I only check this email at debate tournaments, so if you are trying to contact me for some other reason, my response will be delayed.

Short version.

I've started to question the utility of these paradigm things. In short, do whatever you want. Read whatever you want to read. All styles of debate can be done well or poorly. My decision in any particular debate does not reflect a judgement on those styles but instead on the aptitude with which they are deployed in the given debate. Content matters less than strategy, unless the content of your argument makes it a bad strategy. I tend to make decisions quickly. This should not indicate to you whether the debate was close or not. Just because I go for or have gone for certain arguments does not mean I will automatically understand your arguments or do work for you. Similarly, it doesn't mean I will automatically discount any particular argument. I like clash. I dislike attempts to avoid clash. Perm do the aff is not an argument.

One thing I have noticed about debate is the proliferation of "cut the card there." When you stop reading before what your evidence indicates what you will read, you or your partner must mark the card in the speech doc and have a copy of those marks ready for anyone who needs them. To quote Andy Montee,
"If you just yell out "Mark the card at bacon!" you have to physically mark the card on your computer. It is not the responsibility of the other team or myself to do so."
Not marking evidence, and relying "cut the card there" to indicate where you stopped reading, is a form of clipping cards, and I will treat it as such. Since this seems to be an acceptable thing in debate at the moment, at the first occurrence of "cut the card there" I will ask for the marks, and if I notice you going through the doc to mark your cards post-speech, I will warn you about basically everything above.

Background info on me: I'm a first year out of college debate. I debated at the college level for 4 years at the University of Southern California. Attended the NDT four times, making it to doubles twice and octas once. I debated at the high school level for 4 years at Notre Dame High School. Qualified to the TOC 3 times. I was both 2A and 2N during my debate career.

Longer version.

Debate is a rhetorical game where debaters use a set of (ostensibly) mutually agreed upon scripts to persuade a judge. Scripts are rhetorical conventions that have been constructed in order for the game to make sense to all involved - impact calculus, uniqueness, etc. are examples of these scripts, convenient ways of describing a world that make the complexity of that world reducible to a (hopefully) less than 2 hour conversation. Debaters who can control how these scripts operate within the debate, either by implicitly agreeing to them and winning their set of contentions, or through the use of competing framing arguments, generally seem to win more debates. For example, many debates occur in which the value of life is never questioned - that is a script implicitly accepted in those debates for the purpose of brevity. This is not to say that I want to judge a bunch of death good debates, though I won't say the opposite either. Regardless, controlling the framing of the debate will serve you well.

I seem to be judging a lot of framework/T-USFG debates. I think quite a few of the commonly held framework predispositions are arbitrary, so I'll just say this: yes, you can read your K aff in front of me. Yes, you can go for framework in front of me. I don't really care, just make it a good debate.

Here are some of my reflections about FW rounds that I have judged.

-I find myself voting affirmative when the negative fails to explain their impact beyond "limits are important for negative ground" or "we won't learn stuff about immigration" or "fairness is important because otherwise debate isn't fair."

-I find myself voting negative when the aff fails to provide a workable vision of what debate would/should look like. T/FW/whatever we call it is a question of models of debate. That the neg could have read a particular strategy against your particular aff is not a defense of your model. In other words, "potential abuse" is important. You need a defense of your model of debate.

-Almost all of the K affs that I saw on the education topic were basically little more than a criticism of education policy. I did not hear a persuasive response to "do it on the neg" in these contexts.

-Topical versions of the aff are not counter-plans. They don't have to be perfect. They should, however, be well researched (though not necessarily evidenced in the debate) and explained. I would prefer 1 good TVA over 5 asserted TVAs.

-Asserting that debate is a game is fair enough, but does not on its own provide a reason to discount any of the aff's impact turns. I do believe fairness is an impact. I don't think it is an impact that automatically trumps all other impacts. As with all other things, impact calculus on the parts of the debaters matters most.

Case Debate
I would prefer to adjudicate a debate in which the negative reads less than or equal to 4 well constructed offcase positions and invests a good deal of time in taking apart the aff instead of a debate in which throwaway offcase positions are used as a timeskew and the case is addressed sparsely and with only impact defense. A diverse 1NC that attacks advantages at every level is helpful regardless of your broader strategy. Most affs are terribly constructed and have awful chains of internal links. Most affs wont solve the things they say they solve. Point it out.

You do not need a card to make a smart case arguments. In fact, the desire for cards to make an argument can often work to limit the vectors of attack you have against the case. Example: you do not need a card to point out a missing internal link, or that the aff's internal link evidence is about X and their impact evidence is about Y.

CPs and DAs
Not much to say here. If you have them, read them. Specificity is your friend. "DA turns case" arguments are invaluable.

Teams have found it difficult to convince me that the reading of any particular counterplan makes being aff impossible and as such is a voting issue.

At the same time, I find myself increasingly annoyed at the "use fiat as a battering ram" approach to counter-plans. Indefinite parole that is immune from deportation or cancellation, has full work authorization, all the benefits of LPR, etc. is just not something that exists in the literature base and is a ridiculous interpretation of what scholars in the field are actually talking about. All that being said, it is up to the debaters to figure this stuff out in the round.

I have voted for conditionality bad only once, in a debate where the 2NR spent about 15 seconds on it.

"Judge kick" is an inevitable element of conditionality. If the status quo is always an option, then a 2NR that includes a counterplan is not always and forever bound to that counterplan. In other words, if the counerplan is described by the negative as conditional, then my default is to also consider the status quo, and not just the counterplan. I can be persuaded otherwise.

Critiques

Sure, why not. I've read them, I've debated against them. Just be specific about what your alternative does. If it is a pic, say that it is and what your pic removes from the aff. If you are debating against a K, defend your aff. Generic K answers like the Boggs card are far less useful than justifying whatever assumption that the neg is critiquing.

Permutations are tricky. All too often, the aff just kinda extends "perm do both" and leaves it there. Explain what parts of the criticism you are permuting, how that interacts with the links, etc.

"No perms in a method debate" is a bad argument. You can wish away the form of "permutation," but you cannot do away with the logic of opportunity cost. If your K doesn't actually link, find a better argument.

As said above, "perm: do the aff" is not a thing.

Generally speaking, I am not a fan of severance permutations or intrinsic permutations. A permutation is legitimate only if it contains the entire aff plan and some to all of the negative counterplan/alternative. At the same time, many alternative texts are not representative of everything that an alternative would do - in my opinion, any evidence included by the negative as descriptive of the alternative is fair game for permutations. Example - many alt texts are written as "The alternative is to vote negative" - but the alt card says that "interrogating tropes of security" is important. A permutation that does the plan and interrogates tropes of security is not intrinsic.

If you have a theory of power, explain it and its implications for the aff. Meta arguments such as these have broad implications for both the link and the alternative.

Speaker Points

Points are always arbitrary and I wont pretend that my personal scale is anything different. Average speakers get in the low to mid 28s. Good speakers get in the high 28s to low 29s. Mid to high 29s, good job. You wont get a 27 unless you consistently do something annoying, like telling your partner "faster!" over and over during their speech.

Other random thoughts.

--Puns translate directly to increased speaker points.

--Please don't call me judge.

--When reading evidence, I will only evaluate warrants that are highlighted.

--I hate word-salad cards.

--Arguments that are "new in the 2" - generally the bar for me is whether the opponent team could have expected this argument based on the content of the previous speech. This excludes new impact turns to a disad in the 2AR, but maintains the capacity for 2As to cross apply, say, an impact defense argument on the case in the 2NR (intervening actors check, for example) to a disad scenario. If an argument is made in the 2AC, conceded by the neg block, not mentioned in the 1AR (and thus not responded to by the 2NR), it would be 'new' for the 2AR to extend and elaborate on the argument. While this may seem arbitrary, and while dropped arguments are, in a provisional sense, true, it is the job of the debaters to jump on strategic mishaps, not me. However, if a completely new argument arises in the 2NR or 2AR, I am willing to strike it from my flow without a debater pointing out that it is, in fact new.

--Speed is good, clarity is better.

--Confidence in your arguments, your partner, and yourself is good, disrespecting your opponents is bad.

--Ethically repugnant arguments will not make me want to vote for you. At the same time, however, if you cannot defeat ostensibly "bad" arguments, then you are a bad advocate and you should lose.

--If a debate does not occur, I will either flip a coin or consult tab.

--Please, "settler colonialism", not "set col". similarly, "afro-pessimism" not "afro-pess" -- yeah, I'm grumpy.

--Just because I go for certain arguments does not mean I will either automatically understand your argument or supplement your lack of analysis with my understanding of the literature.

--Random buzzwords are not arguments. I don't care until you impact a statement.

--There can always be 0 risk of something.

--Ad homs about the other teams authors aren't arguments.

--A claim without a warrant is just that.

--Theory and T debates are not my favorite.

--No insults or general shenanigans.

--Binding and prior consultation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is probably pedagogically relevant.

Racism, sexism, ableism, or any similar things recieve 0 points speaks and will not win a round. Otherwise, I am open to any form or argumentation.

*everything* in debate except for the above statement is up for debate

Strong arguments won beat weak arguments dropped (usually)

I debated CX through college so I can handle any speed *if you are clear and not pushing past capability*

Former debater at the University of Texas at Austin, former debater at The Kinkaid School

updated - april 2019

- I'm revising this to be less about how I feel about arguments and preferences and more about the general trend of the decisions that I make and how I make them. So what's below is about the general trend – not absolutes on how I evaluate arguments. It's how I typically think, and not universally applicable to every round – so if there's an argument the round that tells me to evaluate otherwise, I will.

Some things to know:

- Be good to each other

- Please don't read into my facial expressions too much. Something you said may be reminding me of something else which made me remember this other thing, etc. I'm not trying to cue you or give you secret clues – I don't want to control/influence/intervene/otherwise make the debate about me and not you.

- Controlling big picture questions of the debate is almost always more important than tech minutia. In other words, dropped arguments are true arguments, but not always important arguments. Identify which issues matter the most and invest your time there. Tech can certainly influence key issues, but rarely replaces them.

- Arguments don't "count" unless they have a claim, warrant, and impact. I typically don't call for evidence to decipher an argument that was under-explained, either. If you're asserting something without any warrant/explanation/impact, there's a good chance it won't matter a great deal to my RFD.

- I find myself usually filtering rounds by starting at the impact level and working backwards. What's the greatest harm, followed by who has the best chance at stopping it. I've noticed I use this frame /regardless of argument type/ - so take this into account even with T, Theory, and Framework debates.

some contextualization:

Theory - I think about theory debates much the same way I think about disads: there must be a clear link, internal link, and impact. Impacts should be weighed (does education outweigh advocacy skills or vice versa?) and internal links should be challenged. A pet peeve of mine is when debaters claim that minor theory arguments are a reason to reject the team - if you want to win this is true, you need to articulate a reason why the impact to your theory argument rises to that level.

-Framework/clash of civs debates – The questions I typically ask myself are: What's the worst thing that can happen to debate (/in debates)? Whose interpretation best prevents this? Prior questions like this – aka taking a stance on what is debate for – guide how I identify whose interpretation is best for debate.

In the interest of transparency: if you read a framework violation that relies solely on procedural fairness as the impact or collapses to only this impact, my track record leans not in your favor. To make this argument successful in front of me, you need to win the impact level – win why fairness matters most. Absent debating it out, relying on "because procedural fairness" full stop doesn't feel super different than "T is jurisdictional" full stop. For every version of framework: don't cede the impact debate. Tell me what debate should give us or what debate should be for us and why, and then why your interpretation promotes that.

Topicality, same vein, should also be about why your interpretation is best for debate and best for the topic. Impact out and weigh the standards of your interpretation against the counter-interpretation.

Counterplans - I appreciate creativity and I also appreciate really good theory debaters. Take the time to make the difference between the aff and the counter-plan clear and feel meaningful, and make sure your theory blocks don't feel like a wall of text thrown at me.

-Disad/case debates - I know I've ranted a lot about impacts mattering, but I also think I have a slightly above average tendency to be willing to say 0% risk. Try or Die framing / 1% risk is not compelling to me if a team has won defense to your impact - you only win in that scenario in front of me if you're the only one trying to extend an impact at all.

Also - I don't "weigh" case per se in framework debates, but I /do/ think the arguments pulled from the 1AC to answer framework are still relevant. I assume "don't weigh the plan" is a different argument than ignore the speech. If you win that my evaluation should shift to who's model of debate is best, and not a yes/no on the advocacy from the 1AC, the 1AC speech still had arguments that the 2A has applied to framework and that I'm assuming you'll answer or say why your stuff outweighs.

Kritiks - All my prior discussion matters here – what is the bad thing and how do you stop it. Or, not do it/ subvert it/ etc. I care about the thesis level here, a lot. Winning a sweeping K claim can control a lot of the round for me and color how I read every argument, and often make tech nuances fall into place depending on the debate. Losing the thesis level will complicate whether or not I think you can extrapolate that thesis into specific links/impacts. When I consider impacts, I'll also usually think about the "level" they happen on – are they about things happening in the round, who we learn to be, big picture political concerns, etc. So know that debating out which of these types of impact matters most is a big component of how I decide ... whose impact.... matter most... That's usually how I interpret the relevancy of framework debates, too. I don't find myself voting on "they shouldn't get Ks"-type arguments often, and I regularly feel too much time is invested here for no reward. The better time investment here for me is on why your framework arguments make your "level" of debate the important one. If you didn't just skip to the K section, you'll recognize this is basically my same spiel on arguments needing impacts relevant to the round.

One more K affs note – I'm not sitting on some secret arbitrary interpretation or bright line of what affs I think are kosher. The sections above on how I resolve debates also impact how I interpret your aff. I'm always looking for what is the worst thing and how do you solve it. I need clarity on that story.

Ask me questions.

You put in a lot of time and energy and care for this activity – I want to respect that.

Hello, friend.

I debated for 5 years at Texas (Fall 2011 - Spring 2016 ). Now I am pursuing my MA in Comm at Baylor and coaching for them. 

tl;dr

• I'm flowing on paper, slow down for theory or framework interps, argument transitions etc.
• Don't be mean to your parter or the other team. Obviously debates can get tense but if things get unreasonable I will intervene and if you don't trust me with that brightline don't pref me. 
• Defend what you do, or what you think debate should do
• I place a good deal of weight on evidence quality, but only if they've been adequately explained 

Specifics

I think debate is an activity that provides a lot of different skills and different educational opportunities, and because of this I try not to have my preferences for what debate should be override how I judge debates. I prefer affs that engage the resolution either directly or through creative interpretations, but affs that criticize the resolution externally are fine as long as you defend the choice. Similarly, I prefer line by line, but if you want to forward arguments about a more wholistic form of argument evaluation make sure you start this early in the debate and defend it sufficiently. 

 A lot of how I view debate was formed by JV Reed, so i'm going to quote parts of his judge philosophy that resonate with me at length:

• Many Aff advantages and many more Neg disadvantages and kritiks are so poorly constructed, with so many missing internal links that they hardly warrant a response by the opposing team.  This requires an attention to internal links, source quality, and also the depth of the warrant cited by a given piece of evidence ... I want to be clear about the preferences I have: I do not have a preference for K over policy or vice-versa. I do have a preference for debates where the debaters are working hard to make the most of their evidence. The teams I enjoy judging the most, whether K or Policy, will demonstrate in debates that their knowledge of the [subject] is substantial, and will make “cutting to the chase” their primary argument resolution tactic.
• DA's - it is possible for there to be no risk of a disad. it is possible for you to win uniqueness decisively and there still be no risk of a link. link debates are very important to me. quality of link evidence, qualification of link authors etc is something to be considered. ... disads are little machines with lots of moving parts that all need to be considered in isolation, but also in concert. it is therefore better for you to talk to me in terms of the relationship between the risk of the link and the risk of the impact rather than treating these issues as completely discrete. 
• K's - K's need a specific link. K's need examples. K's usually need better application/explanation of evidence more than they need more evidence. I prefer Ks that include a link to the plan. That does not mean that I don't think that reps Ks are illegit, but I do think that reps k's are more persuasive when the impact is explained in relation to the goals of the aff. and the intended projected consequences of the plan. Think "turns solvency" arguments here ... I am more interested in how a given mode of understanding/ideology implicates implementation of the plan, than I am in simplistic root cause (and therefore "turns case") allegations. 

This last section is particularly important to me, whether you are debating a plan or an advocacy, make sure that your argument engages the process of the affs mechanism in some capacity. 

I don't have any particularly nuanced views about counterplans, and to be honest I doubt I will judge many debates where that becomes relevant. The maxim justify what you do is relevant to every theory/T/Framework debate I evaluate. 

Speaker point scale:

29 - 30: Deserves to be in late elims. Has engaged the other teams arguments thoroughly, made strategic choices, and spoken extremly clearly 

28.6 - 29: Deserves to clear. Has made strategic choices and spoken relatively clearly

28.0-28.5: On the verge of clearing. Needs more strategic awareness and probably needs more clarity. 

27.5 - 28.0: Needs to work on clarity and overall flowability. May have dropped key arguments

27.3 - 27.5: Needs to work on clarity and overall flowability, Needs to work on filling speech time 

25.0 - 27.2: Was emotionally abusive to their partners or other participants in the debate. 

please put me on the chain! - amcalden@gmail.com

Assistant Coach at Niles West

Argument Coach at Baylor University

5 years at Baylor

4 years at Caddo Magnet

In general i'm fine for you to do whatever you want to do. I've read and coached both policy and K things from variety of literature basis so do what you do best and I'm sure to enjoy it! Please don't be overly aggressive, rude, or dismissive of your opponents or speaker points will reflect it

if a timer isn't running you should not be prepping.

if the aff isn't clearly extended in the 1AR i will not give you the 2AR case rants

Framework v K affs: More of an uphill battle given the arguments i predominately read and coached but fairness is an internal link to the integrity of debate which still requires you to win the value of maintaining debate as it currently exists. Clash is by far the most persuasive standard, TVA's don't need to solve the entire aff if there are framing arguments in place or additional tools such as switch side debate to deal with what it doesn't solve, examples of ground, either lost or enabled is helpful on both sides!

K: Links to the plan are nice but not necessary, Alts don't have to solve the link if they are able to avoid them and solve the aff. I do not think you need an alt to win a debate if you have the appropriate framing tools however I need instruction on what to do with offense related to the alternative in a world you are not extending it.

CPs: Comparison between deficits/net benefits is key, can be persuaded for or against "cheating" counterplans, solvency advocates are preferred but not needed if pulling lines from the aff.

DAs: Nothing incredibly innovative to say here! I enjoy internal link comparison, and speaker points will reflect great impact debateing

Theory: Condo is fine, argumentative tension is okay but can be convinced on contradictions being bad.

*If you are reading this before a debate. Stop. Set up your email chain, include me - mgregg@dallasisd.org. I would also like to sit far away, near an outlet. Thank you for respecting me and my space <3

I am currently the Analytics Coordinator and Director of Debate at the Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet High School in Dallas. I am also a teacher - AP Statistics, AP Seminar, Government, and Debate. Short version: I was deeply involved in high school and college debate (as a competitor and coach) a decade ago. I am now a teacher/administrator and work closely with the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance to create curriculum, files, coach support, and more.

This is too lengthy, but better to overdo I suppose...

Background:

-High School: 3 years at Oak Park River Forest HS (IL) - 2005-2007 (TOC)

-College: 4 years at Northwestern University 2007-2011 (top-ten first round, 2 time NDT elims)

-High School coaching during college: Oak Park River Forest HS (2007-2011)

-High School coaching after college: Glenbrook North HS (IL), Niles North High School (IL) (2012-2013), Stephen F. Austin High School (2013-2014)

-High School coaching as a teacher: The Science and Engineering Magnet High School, 2014-2019, The Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet High School, 2019-present (Dallas Urban Debate Alliance)

-I've taught at the Northwestern Debate Institute, the Jayhawk Debate Institute, and the University of Texas National Institute of Forensics. Too old for that now.

Two general things:

1. I will not read along with you. I would like to be on the email chain for after the debate. Keep this in mind as you make decisions about clarity/speed.

2. I value evidence quality very very much. I will vote on no link.

(3.) If this is UIL state, I do abide by UIL rules regarding speed that interferes with communication. If I think that you're doing that, I'll say slow or something once.

While I have been actively coaching and researching the past eight years, I have not participated much in "national circuit" debate. I attend UIL state and NAUDL nationals with my students, but aside from those debates, I do not typically judge high-speed or high-tech debate. I still think that I can flow and understand advanced debates, but if I'm honest with myself I know if I were your age I would be skeptical of that claim. I will say that I try my best, really enjoy judging debates, and get it right more often than I'm wrong.

My experience has mostly been with traditional policy-making debate, but I also debated critical arguments. I tend to default to deciding whether the status quo is better than the aff or a competitive alternative presented by the negative. Pretty open to what the aff, competition, and alternative mean.

I think most people are looking for insight in how a judge resolves debates, so here's some information on that:

-Topicality: T isn't big in DUDA because we have a disclosure system that basically makes it unnecessary. I don't see many T debates, but I tend to default to competing interpretations and think that the neg needs to have pretty good interpretation evidence. Not really willing to vote for a topic that while limited, is not predictable for the aff. I recommend reading fewer interpretation cards - just read your best ones, quality not quantitiy. In the 2NR, it's really helpful if you stick to the 1AR structure/line by line, I know that can't always be done but ideal.

-Ks: I like them. I find them interesting. Much more interesting if you slow down a little, and definitely interested in how you apply your philosophy/thesis to the affirmative, resolution, and policy-making. I'd advise having an alternative (see above). Winning root cause does not mean you win. Tell me the role of the judge/ballot. I also really like arguments about how the K turns/interacts with the case. Evidence - it's fine to have really long cards, but I appreciate tags that preview what's going on, much more so than rhetorically powerful statements or analogies.

-Plans: I prefer them, but I have voted for affs with no plans many times. If you go for framework, I'd advise reading evidence on how the education offered through policy simulation on this particular topic is useful, and comparatively apply that to the education debate.

Speaker points - I really value partner communication and kindness towards your opponents (like a lot a lot). I don't like to read along with you, and I tend to get grouchy when you don't attempt to flow (if your order is "overview, link debate, impact debate, new sheet, underview", rethink that). Please keep the round moving in terms of tech, use people's names/pronouns, and just generally be an enjoyable person to hang out with for two hours. Always time yourself and each other. Not into hand shakes (pre-COVID) but now I'm just not into being near anyone, but do appreciate using your legal-sized copy paper :)

Misc - Ethics challenges means we stop the debate, so make sure you can support your claim/if I were to investigate it that you would be correct. Card clipping, cross-reading, evidence fabrication/misrepresentation are all reasons you lose (the round, speaker points, my respect). Clearly mark your evidence by saying "Mark the card at" or something like that and physically mark your speech doc. Provide a marked copy to me and the competitors immediately after your speech.

Email chain: mgregg@dallasisd.org

Questions? Ask before the debate. Have fun!

I debated for Grapevine High School and then at the University of Texas.  At UT, I majored in philosophy and economics.  I am a big fan of existentialism (Neitzsche, Camus, Sartre) and Karl Marx.  That doesn't necessarily mean that I like the way these philosophers are used in debate--debate typically presents bastardized versions of philosophers.  I have coached CX at Grapevine High School for the past 4 years.  I coach debate for fun--my full time job is as an Internet lawyer where I help individuals and businesses who have been attacked online.  I earned my law degree from the University of Chicago Law School.

My decisions are often influenced by my legal background.  I view topicality as a debate over what the resolution is as opposed to what it ought to be (and I vote on T more than most judges).  And because I deal with nasty people every day, I do not like to see it when I judge debates.  I will vote you down for being a jerk.  That should not be a difficult burden to meet.  Be respectful of everyone in the room and in the community.  If I am on a panel with one judge who doesn't like spreading and one judge that is okay with spreading (I prefer spreading), if you spread to appeal only to the two spread judges, I will not like it because by doing so, you will have disrespected the non-spreading judge.  I get it--it sucks when you have a judge that doesn't like speed, but that is life and the non-spread judge is a person too.  Also, please make sure your disclosures on the wiki are up to date and easy to navigate.  If you play games on the wiki, I see that as the same as being a jerk before the round begins.  Please don't be a jerk.  And if you like to bash people in the debate community on the Internet or otherwise, you are a bad person and should not be in the activity.

If you were to ask my debaters what they should do in the round with me judging, here is what I think they would tell you:

1. I love topicality.  I vote on T more than most judges, and I generally have a much more narrow view of the resolution than other judges.  If your plan has non-topical tricks to evade specific DAs, then I see that as distorting the debate by excluding that specific DA.  You can run the most common Aff on the topic, but if the other team runs T based on a trick in the plan, and they win that debate, I am happy to vote you down.  T is never a reverse voter.  I will only vote on that if the argument is completely dropped by the Neg, but you will get terrible speaks.  All the Neg has to say is "that's stupid."

2. If you are trying to decide between running your critical aff and your policy aff, you should probably pick the policy aff.  If you only have a critical aff or want to run it out of principle, good for you.  You may enjoy the debate, but you probably won't find my RFD very satisfying.  It's not that I have anything against critical affs--I don't--it is that I do not understand most of them and how they can function within a competitive debate setting. Let's say that you affirm that the Holocaust is a bad thing--I would agree with you, but I don't see why that has anything to do with the resolution or how that leaves any ground for the Neg.  I know there are people much smarter than me that love critical affs and think they are good for debate.  I wish I was one of those people, but sadly I am not.

3. Go out of your way to go line by line.  Sign post your arguments.  If you are the 2NC or the 1NR, say something like 2AC #1 says "No Link" - We say ______.  2AC #2 says "Uniqueness overwhelms the link" - We say ______.  Standing up and reading a bunch of arguments without actually applying them to the other team's arguments is not good debate.  In fact, it is sloppy.  I think "embedded clash" is interesting in theory, but in practice I see it as an excuse to not go line by line.  I suggest that you avoid embedded clash in front of me.  That being said, feel free to group arguments, especially in the 1AR.  So you can say, "Off 2AC #3, Group It (the Neg's arguments against 2AC #3). 1. ___ 2.___ 3.____".

4. I enjoy theory debates so long as they are not blippy.  If you take the time to really explore a theory argument and explain how it applies in that specific debate, I will vote for you more than other judges will.

5. Rhetoric Ks make a lot of sense to me, more so than other Ks.  I am not a fan of Ks with Candy Land alts.  Because of that, I rarely vote for the Cap K.  I agree with the thesis of the Cap K - Cap definitely exploits people on a worldwide scale.  But the alts I have seen seem to be simply wishing problems away.  I do not find that very compelling when the Aff identifies specific problems and ways to solve them.  That being said, if you can attack the Aff's epistemology and show why their knowledge is flawed, and thereby take out the premise of their harms, that I can find compelling.

6. Please be clear on who the actor is for the alt.  If the Aff can show that the alt uses a different actor from the Aff, and says, "Perm do both," then the Neg better have a really good reason why two different actors cannot do different things.

7. I generally do not find Ks based on the fact that the Aff uses the USFG compelling. 

8. Open CX is fine, but please do not abuse it.  I'm not a fan when one partner dominates all of the CX for the team.  Prep time stops when you pull the flash drive out or when you hit send on your email.

9. Tell me what to do in your 2NR and 2AR.  Tell me why you win.  I like reading cards, and I think I read cards more often than I should.  So if you are winning the evidence comparison debate because the other team has not explained their evidence and you have, tell me to not read their cards.  If I agree with you that they have not explained their evidence, then I will not read their evidence.  If you tell me to read certain cards, I probably will as long as you have explained the cards in the round.

10.  I do not enjoy framework debates, but I blame that on the Aff instead of the Neg.  Framework should have a T component, and that is really how I evaluate framework.

As a final comment, I generally think mutual judge preference is a bad idea.  While I think sharing judge philosophies is a good idea, I think judge preference has encouraged debate on the extreme ends of the spectrum.  If you are a policy team, you can pref policy judges.  If you are a critical team, you can pref critical judges.  Given the way the system is structured, you would be foolish not to do that.  But the result is that we end up siloing ourselves within echo chambers that conform to our own philosophical or political views.

Hi! I'm Derek Liles, the Executive Director of Dallas Urban Debate. I look forward to judging you.

Things I used to be: Debate Coach at Law Magnet (2016-19), Director of Programs at Dallas Urban Debate (2012-2016), Debater at UTSA (2007-2012), Debater at Dallas Jesuit (2003-2007).

Please add me to the email chain: dzliles@gmail.com.

<.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.>

Reactive, mostly grouchy updates for Spring 2018:

1) Clash: Paperless prep is great, but...I feel like in-round clash and judge adaptation is subpar these days. Learn. To. Flow. On that note, you are under no obligation to send analytic arguments when I am judging.

2) Prep time: I think that any time that is not speech time is prep time (barring things like the time it takes your speech to travel through magic tubes and arrive in the other teams' computer). However, I can't be bothered to enforce a prep policy except in the worst cases, so I'll stick to using speaker points to incentivize best practice. Bonus points to people who run a tight ship when it comes to prep time use. Minus points for those who dilly dally. Generally speaking, prep stealing occurs when you use time from some cosmic bank of prep time beyond your allotted 8 minutes. Specific scenarios that irk me: (a) "pre cx" where you ask what evidence was read - that's CX time (b) adding ev mid speech and sending it without taking prep (c) organizing flows/blocks after prep has ceased...more may be added later.

3) Stop asking me if I disclose speaker points. More than half of you don't even disclose your 1NCs. I will subtract speaker points if you ask me and my ballot hasn't already been submitted.

4) Stop throwing all of your arguments at the wall and hoping I work it out for you. Thoughtfully select a strategic end game and present me with a definitive victory path - don't leave it up to me to find it amongst the weeds. Scott Deatherage, late director of Northwestern Debate, says it best:

"CHOOSE. Choose...The first most essential lesson of effective rebutting is choice making. No matter the speech; be it the 1NR or the 2AR or any point in between...Young debaters, so anxious, every argument they think to be important, especially in rebuttals...instead it is the best arguments and the strongest points that make the effective rebutalist the winning champion in the debate...You...must in the end decide on an effective strategy for the judge. Choose for them what is the best avenue to prove conclusively that the coherent set or complete package of arguments you present as a totality in the last speech constitutes a way, a road, an avenue by which they achieve the effective end of concluding for the [aff/neg]."

<.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.>

General info about me and my feelings about debate:

Some overarching ideas will shape my answer to just about any question you could have about my predispositions: I've been around debate a long time and have judged/coached/debated from just about every angle. I debated at the national level in college (elims at CEDA/NDT). I have a background in policy argument from high school, but shifted very aggressively towards kritikal literature in college...that is to say, I'm receptive and fairly knowledgeable about most approaches to the topic at hand.

I think debate is best when teams effectively clash with each other, so I like when teams prioritize depth over breadth in their strategies and take time to flow/directly engage each others' ideas. I think preparation makes for good debate, so I default to the belief that teams should engage in some form of disclosure (it helped me prep at my small college team, I'm biased). I believe the value of debate comes mostly from the form of analysis it teaches you to make - less so the content of what you are advocating (barring some extreme circumstances). Make your argument as best you can and I will be happy to judge you. I'm not here to tell you what arguments to read.

I tend to be unmotivated to vote on theory - debate should be hard and focused on substantive issues. It's easy to convince me to reject the argument, not the team - so in front of me, you will be better off using theory to close doors on key components of your opponents' strategies. If you plan to go for theory, develop your objection early, rather than starting with a 10 second blip. Theory seems like even more of a cheap shot when it becomes a serious issue only in the last speech.

Bad arguments: Some arguments - impact turns that have "jumped the shark," ASPEC, contrived scenarios, etc. - are just bad (at least I think so). I feel like we all know when it's a bad argument, and if you don't, my reactions will probably make it clear how I feel. I'm likely to intervene or allow a lot of flexibility for your opponents to add arguments in rebuttals against them. "It's not new if it's true!"

Speaker points: I generally range between 28-29.5. Some things (not described in update section) that affect my calculus:

• Act like you want to be here - after judging several rounds, nothing is more refreshing than watching someone who is passionate, engaged, friendly, etc. I also appreciate humor, and unlike some people, respect the beauty of punny wordplay.
• I think debate is a communication activity - lack of clarity in terms of speaking style or strategic endpoint will impact your speaker points and my ability to give your argument the consideration it's due. Concerning speed, start at 80% so I can warm up to your voice and ease into full tilt over 30 seconds.
• I prefer strategic depth over breadth. See rant at top - but in more detail: if starting with several sheets of paper, I'd prefer you resolutely condense the debate to a handful of core issues by the end. Less moving parts = less for me to resolve after the round = less likely I'll have to resolve it for you = more likely you control my perception of what happened in the debate. This also means you need to actively close doors in the last speeches, and I reward debaters who find unique ways to cross-apply concessions to their advantage.
• AFF side bias/musings of a slighted 2N - I think 2ARs get away with murder when it comes to resuscitating advantages that were completely absent or barely in the 2AC & 1AR. I will have no hesitation to entirely dismiss or assign overwhelmingly low risk to advantages that re-appear/weren't fully developed until the 2AR.
• I am very open to the idea that there is zero risk of an argument/averse to the ".01% risk of extinction = extinction" form of impact calculus - sometimes, it only takes a smart analytic/CX question about an internal link to get me to reject a preposterous terminal impact. If I'm smirking while flowing, it means you're doing well and can probably expect me to back you up in the post-round.
• Bad evidence - old man moment: there are so many terrible cards in debate. Speaker points to anyone who publicly shames bad ev & the people that read it.

Small soapbox moment: I try to be attentive to the ways in which normative structures of gender, sexuality, race (and so on) affect student participation in this activity. Debate should be fun, respectful and accessible. Our activity shouldn't lose voices out of a stubborn commitment to remaining aloof of these dynamics, so don't participate in those systems in round and we're good.

I look forward to judging you!
Questions? Email me: dzliles@gmail.com

Love to be on the chain.... sfadebate@gmail.com

LD---TOC---2024

I'm a traditional leaning policy judge – No particular like/dislike for the Value/Criterion or Meta-Ethic/Standard structure for framework just make sure everything is substantially justified, not tons of blippy framework justifications.

Disads — Link extensions should be thorough, not just two words with an author name. I'm a sucker for good uniqueness debates, especially on a topic where things are changing constantly.

Counterplans — Counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive but I'm willing to change my mind if competition evidence is solid. I love impact/nb turns and think they should be utilized more. Not a fan of ‘intrinsic perms’.

Kritiks — I default to letting the aff weigh case but i'm more than willing to change my mind given a good framework/link push from the negative. I’m most familiar with: Cap, Biopolitics, Nietzsche, and Security. I'm fine voting for other lit bases but my threshold is higher especially for IdPol, SetCol, and High Theory. Not a fan of Baudrillard but will vote on it if it is done well.

K Affs — I'm probably 40/60 on T. If a K aff has a well explained thesis and good answers to presumption I am more than willing to vote on it. A trend I see is many negative debaters blankly extending fairness and clash arguments without substantial policymaking/debate good evidence. I default to thinking debate and policymaking are good but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise absent a compelling 2NR.

Topicality — Big fan of good T debates, really dislike bad T debates. I don't like when teams read contradictory interps in the 1NC, you should have good T evidence, and I like a good caselist. Preferably the whole 2NR is T.

Theory — Not a fan of frivolous shells but i'm willing to be convinced on any interp given a good explanation of the abuse story. I default to In-round-abuse, reasonability, and have a high threshold for RVIs.

Phil — As an Ex-Policy Debater, my knowledge here is very limited. I'm willing to vote on it if it's very well warranted and clearly winning on the flow. But in a relatively equal debate I think I will always default to Util.

Tricks — Don't

edited for LD 2022-3

I have not judged a lot of LD recently. I more than likely have not heard the authors you are talking about please make sure you explain them along with your line by line. Long overviews are kind of silly and argumentation on the line by line is a better place for things Overview doesn't mean I will automatically put your overview to it. If you run tricks I am really not your judge. I think they are silly and will probably not vote for them. I have a high threshold for voting on theory arguments either way.

edited for Congress

Speak clearly and passionately. I hate rehash, so if you bring in new evidence and clash you will go farther in the round than having a structured speech halfway to late in debate. I appreciate speakers that keep the judges and audience engaged, so vocal patterns and eye contact matter. The most important thing to me is accurate and well developed arguments and thoughtful questions. For presiding officer: run a tight ship. Be quick, efficient, fair, and keep accurate precedents and recency. This is congressional debate, not congressional speech giving, so having healthy debate and competition is necessary. Being disrespectful in round will get you no where with me, so make sure to respect everyone in the room at all times.

Edited 20-21

Don't ask about speaks you should be more concerned with how to do better in the future. If you ask I will go back and dock your speaks at least 2 points.

Edited for WSD Nats 2020

Examples of your arguments will be infinitely more persuasive than analogies. Please weigh your arguments as it is appropriate. Be nice, there is a difference between arrogance and excellence

Edited for PF 2018-9

I have been judging for 20 years any numerous debate events. Please be clear; the better your internal link chain the better you will do. I am not a big fan of evidence paraphrasing. I would rather hear the authors words not your interpretation of them. Make sure you do more than weighing in the last two speeches. Please make comparison in your arguments and evidence. Dont go for everything. I usually live in an offense defense world there is almost always some risk of a link. Be nice if you dont it will affect your speaks

Edited for 2014-15 Topic
I will listen to just about any debate but if there isnt any articulation of what is happening and what jargon means then I will probably ignore your arguments. You can yell at me but I warned you. I am old and crotchety and I shouldn't have to work that hard.

CXphilosophy = As a preface to the picky stuff, I'd like to make a few more general comments first. To begin with, I will listen to just about any debate there is out there. I enjoy both policy and kritik debates. I find value in both styles of debate, and I am willing to adapt to that style. Second, have fun. If you're bored, I'm probably real bored. So enjoy yourself. Third, I'm ok with fast debates. It would be rare for you to completely lose me, however, you spew 5 minutes of blocks on theorical arguments I wont have the warrants down on paper and it will probably not be good for you when you ask me to vote on it. There is one thing I consider mandatory: Be Clear. As a luxury: try to slow down just a bit on a big analytical debate to give me pen time. Evidence analysis is your job, and it puts me in a weird situation to articulate things for you. I will read evidence after many rounds, just to make sure I know which are the most important so I can prioritize. Too many teams can't dissect the Mead card, but an impact takeout is just that. But please do it all the way- explain why these arguments aren't true or do not explain the current situation. Now the picky stuff:

Affs I prefer affs with plan texts. If you are running a critical aff please make sure I understand what you are doing and why you are doing it. Using the jargon of your authors without explaining what you are doing won't help me vote for you.

Topicality and Theory- Although I certainly believe in the value of both and that it has merit, I am frustrated with teams who refuse to go for anything else. To me, Topicality is a check on the fringe, however to win a procedural argument in front of me you need specific in round abuse and I want you to figure out how this translates into me voting for you. Although I feel that scenarios of potential abuse are usually not true, I will vote for it if it is a conceded or hardly argued framework or if you can describe exactly how a topic or debate round would look like under your interpretation and why you have any right to those arguments. I believe in the common law tradition of innocence until proven guilty: My bias is to err Aff on T and Negative on Theory, until persuaded otherwise.

Disads- I think that the link debate is really the most significant. Im usually willing to grant negative teams a risk of an impact should they win a link, but much more demanding linkwise. I think uniqueness is important but Im rarely a stickler for dates, within reason- if the warrants are there that's all you need. Negatives should do their best to provide some story which places the affirmative in the context of their disads. They often get away with overly generic arguments. Im not dissing them- Reading the Ornstein card is sweet- but extrapolate the specifics out of that for the plan, rather than leaving it vague.

Counterplans- The most underrated argument in debate. Many debaters don't know the strategic gold these arguments are. Most affirmatives get stuck making terrible permutations, which is good if you neg. If you are aff in this debate and there is a CP, make a worthwhile permutation, not just "Do Both" That has very little meaning. Solvency debates are tricky. I need the aff team to quantify a solvency deficit and debate the warrants to each actor, the degree and necessity of consultation, etc.

Kritiks- On the aff, taking care of the framework is an obvious must. You just need good defense to the Alternative- other than that, see the disad comments about Link debates. Negatives, I'd like so practical application of the link and alternative articulated. What does it mean to say that the aff is "biopolitical" or "capitalist"? A discussion of the aff's place within those systems is important. Second, some judges are picky about "rethink" alternatives- Im really not provided you can describe a way that it could be implemented. Can only policymakers change? how might social movements form as a result of this? I generally think its false and strategically bad to leave it at "the people in this debate"- find a way to get something changed. I will also admit that at the time being, Im not as well read as I should be. I'm also a teacher so I've had other priorities as far as literature goes. Don't assume I've read the authors you have.

Background
I debated for the University of Oklahoma for five years (Semis of the NDT and CEDA in 2013) and Jenks High School for four years. I graduated from OU in 2014 and have had limited exposure to debate since then. I have not judge any rounds on the current topic.

Topicality
I'm willing to vote on topicality. If you go for topicality then it should be your entire 2NR.

Framework
I'm willing to vote on framework. I don't think you have to win a topical version of the aff, but it usually helps. The main problem I see when teams run framework is that they often do not respond to the aff's criticism of framework directly. Whichever team does the best job contextualizing their offense with the offense of the other team will usually come out ahead in a framework debate in front of me.

Theory
I generally have a pretty high threshold for voting on theory, and you will almost certainly need an interpretation and to win that competing interpretations is good to win my ballot. Don't go full speed reading your theory blocks or I won't be able to catch all of your arguments.

Counter Plans
If it is competitive and has a net benefit it is probably fine. If it is a CP that competes over something really small like a process CP, I tend to lean aff on questions of competition, but that doesn't mean those debates are not winnable in front of me for the negative. Slow down somewhat in the 1NC when you read your counterplan text, especially if it is more complicated than have x actor do the plan or do the plan without x.

Disads
I think the negative should generally try to win that the disad turns and outweighs the case. I find that teams often choose to go for the politics disad in the 2NR even though they might have a better topic specific disad just because they are used to going for politics.

Kritics
Most of my strategies in college were kritics. I am fairly well versed in most of the literature, but I still want you to explain your argument. I generally think it is more strategic for standard policy affirmatives to impact turn most kritics rather than link turn. The more specifically each team can apply their arguments on the k flow the better.

Case Debates
The negative usually needs some way to mitigate the affirmative's offense in order to win, and if that is not a counter-plan or a kritic then it has to happen on the case. I think solvency and advantage answers/turns are generally the most effective case arguments. It is almost impossible to win zero risk of the affirmative, so make sure you extend some offence in the 2NR. I probably won't vote on inherency unless the negative can demonstrate that the affirmative plan has literally already been done. However, many arguments that are generally placed in the inherency category are actually uniqueness take outs to advantages which are effective as defense in front of me. I'm not impressed with arguments such as "this card says maybe solve, not will solve."

General Comments
I prefer good analysis to an unexplained card. I generally don't like to call for evidence after the round and will not do so unless I can't settle the debate based on what was argued in the round. Specificity and explaining your argument in the context of what the other team says is almost always good. Speed is fine but be clear. Don't read into your computer, place it at an angle so I can hear what you are saying. Sitting while you speak won't affect my decision but it will lower your speaker points.

Email Chains

No thanks

Brief Debate History:

Debated for Texas 2001-2005; College: Coached New York Coalition 2005-2006, occasional coaching for Texas 2014-2016; HS debate coaching Kinkaid 2003-2014; worked for NYUDL 2005-2007; worked for a CDC (Chicago Urban Debate League) school 2007-2010

Personal stuff: I am an assistant professor of government and gender, sexuality, and women's studies at the College of William & Mary. I specialize in feminist, disability, and democratic theory and reproductive politics.

Update 10/7/2023: I have not actively coached debate since 2016. That means I don't have feelings on any particular fault lines that define contemporary debate controversies. It also means I may not be on the same page as you in terms of shared implicit understanding. Best to clarify explicitly if it's important to your argument.

Update: 2018

Some notes:

I try to maintain close fidelity to the debate I see. If evidence doesn't support or add to the claim and warrant being forwarded, it isn't very useful for me.

Debate is engaged in narrative construction and then deconstruction, which means if you have developed an insufficient narrative or deconstructed it in a way that is not helpful to you and only helpful to your opponents, your performance will suffer (as in, you might lose).

I am very tied to reasoning through an argument; if what has been presented doesn't make sense to me, I won't vote on it. What makes sense to me, as in the case of any sense-making, is probably not entirely transparent, but I will try my best to follow the argumentative threads presented to me. I am raised in debate which means I am familiar with the logical leaps that are commonly accepted; if those are questioned and not defended, then that's a problem. But I also won't vote of something just because it's tricky/unexpected/sophistic. Logic without application is just as bad as illogical application.

The HS paradigm has nitty gritty about arguments, but as with most philosophies, is more about teaching what I think debate is and less about how I judge. I still don't read a ton of evidence; the flow matters unless you explain to me why it doesn't; I don't have ego investment in debate so it's ok with me if you don't like me. I'll still try my best in every debate and I consider my role to be primarily that of an educator, so my post-round comments will be about the round itself and advice I would give to improve one's performance.

Old high school wikispaces philosophy:

Philosophy:
A caveat- I think I'm kind of bad at writing these things because what becomes important in a debate matters so much on what happens in the debate in question. I'll try to be helpful though. Philosophies require a degree of introspection and consistency that I'm not sure I quite possess.

First, do not make fun of your opponents and don't steal prep. Beyond those things, I love debate and I want everyone to enjoy their experience.

Preparation time ends when you have pushed "save." This is aspirational, because sometimes I forget.

Also, if you would like me to disclose points and my reasons for giving them, just remind me and I will. My points are solely a reflection of my evaluation of the performance I just watched. Also, if you or your coach would appreciate a written RFD, let me know, and I will prepare and email one.

I think defense alone can win a debate; that is, it is possible to win no risk of a disadvantage or no risk of solvency. I vote on presumption and my belief is that if the 2NR contains a counterplan or a kritik alternative (even if they were conditional), presumption shifts affirmative unless the debaters contest this point with a warranted argument.

Evidence Evaluation: I will not read every card you reference in the 2NR and 2AR as a general rule. I only read evidence if a) there is no other way to resolve the debate, b) substantive parts of the debate rested on good evidence comparison, c) I am curious what the evidence actually says and/or d) I think reading the evidence is necessary for making my oral critique better. I am averse to the style of debate where the 2NR and 2AR substitute evidence citations for warrants, but when both teams do this, I default to my subjective interpretation of the quality of evidence. I prefer instead 2NRs and 2ARs that go for less but do more explanation and comparison of warrants. I reward those debates with higher speaker points, but I won't refuse to evaluate the debate just because it is in a style I dislike.

Below are my predispositions. I can be persuaded in the debate to think otherwise. I write the below in order to let you know when I will need to be persuaded.

Theory beliefs: Except for a couple of exceptions, I evaluate theory debates based on a disad-esque paradigm. That is, what is the link, internal, and impact? Is the impact unique? Do the turns outweigh the impact to the theory objection? I also need meta-issues to be debated, such as offense-defense versus reasonability, whether I am evaluating abuse claims or questions concerning what debate ought to look like. When these don't happen, I think I tend to be on the reasonability side of things and I am evaluating what debate ought to look like.

The exception to this is permutation theory, which I will be hard pressed to ever consider anything but a reason to reject the argument, even if the theory is dropped. I realize this is judge intervention because my standard for this debate is so much higher than for other theory debates, but given how perm theory proliferates in a debate and how poorly debated it usually is, I think this is more a rational response to a debate that rarely rises to the level of argumentation.

Impact comparison: Impact comparison in the last two rebuttals is indispensable, but it must also start before then for me to consider things like "magnitude outweighs probability" or refutations to the other team's impact calculus that began in speeches before the final rebuttals. Comparative risk analysis has to take into consideration how much counterplan solvency can be expected or how much solvency of the aff has been mitigated. Not taking this into account usually leads to me inflating the value of defense more than you probably want.

I am open to however you want to make use of the time you have to speak in debate. If you want me to evaluate a debate in a way that integrates a direct evaluation of performativity, methodology, ethics, or knowledge production (or anything else), you must communicate that to me. You also have to demonstrate why you win in either a new framework or a more traditional framework.

My theoretical biases in terms of counterplans are most pronounced against process counterplans, including consultation counterplans.

I like discussions of the case, though I'm often stymied in my decisionmaking by the lack of clash or meta-level questions, such as uniqueness or inevitability, for many case arguments.

Counterplan perms: If the aff wins the permutation, I default to thinking that this has proved that the counterplan was not competitive and thus goes away. While contemporary debate considers this "judge kicking," absent another explanation of what happens when the aff wins the perm, allowing "perm shields the link" to mean that the disadvantage goes away as well strikes me as allowing the aff to advocate the perm. I'm not really wedded to this interpretation because I feel like there is a logical inconsistency in how we think about perms/tests of competition/shifts in advocacy. If the aff, in going for the perm, argues that the counterplan doesn't go away, and that winning the perm means that the existence of both options shields the link to the net benefit, without a counter-argument from the neg, I'll vote aff. When no discussion happens, though, the neg gets to lose counterplan competition and still win on a disad that was a net benefit.

Politics DA: I think I have an idiosyncratic interpretation of what it takes to win the politics disad as the negative. I think arguments that deal with either the larger political climate or the meta-theoretical notion of how politics functions are more important than compartmentalized claims of the direction of uniqueness, link, etc. This means that if the affirmative wins these meta issues with no contextualization of how I ought to evaluate things like the direction of uniqueness by the negative, I will find that the politics DA is incoherent. As the negative, you may win some arguments that X will pass, but if your claim is that in order for these things to pass, X,Y or Z must happen, and the aff proves those impossible, I'm not going to vote for the politics DA. This may be the result of my training as a political science or my desire for logical coherence in arguments. Regardless, understanding my bias in terms of these arguments will help you do what is necessary to win politics on the neg. How to win Politics as the neg: understand the meta-theoretical basis of your argument/wider political climate; explain that to me so that I understand your vision of the political process, and answer any counter-theoretical understandings of political functioning. OR explain to me why these things are irrelevant to issue specific uniqueness or the other first order claims you make.

Kritiks: I think kritiks are a valuable part of debate, and so I think it is a legitimate expectation for teams to respond to the kritik offered. I do not exclude kritikal affs (I don't presume a team has to fiat the plan). But I do think kritikal affs ought to have some relation to the topic and am hard pressed to understand why the aff gets to reject the resolution in most debates.

I do not value framework (vs. neg Ks) debates very highly. Their value, in my eyes, is to get the entire K excluded (which is functionally like going for "no neg fiat" in my mind), get certain links or alternatives excluded (which seems less fruitful than just debating the merits of the alternative or link), being allowed to weigh your impacts (which is a misnomer in most good kritik debates) or protecting yourself against an increasingly abusive shift in the evaluative criteria of the debate (the most strategic use in my mind). Usually, people invest either too much time for their limited goals, or too little time for their grandiose goals.That being said, you usually do need to engage in a framework debate; otherwise, you leave yourself open to a debate that shifts in rules decidedly against the one who is answering the kritik.

I am relatively well-versed in many critical literatures. I say this not to encourage you to go for a kritik, but to signal to teams less familiar with the kritik that some of what you may consider incomprehensible jargon makes sense to me. For the team going for the kritik, do not make jargon your crutch because usually you aren't saying anything or are talking in circles. You still need to be making arguments.

I really dislike the kritik being debated like a disadvantage, or the kritik turning into a vehicle for a variety of tricks that avoid debate (eg, Kappeler-style no fiat claims, multi-verse/reincarnation debates make impacts irrelevant, Floating PICs with no rationale, etc). If you are running a kritik and want good speaker points, win the substance of your link and impact claims, contextualize the politics or ethics of your alternative, and win why they prove the aff is counter-productive.

Framework versus non-plan/non-USFG implementation affs: These debates discourage clash more than any other debates I see. If your impacts to why excluding a particular type of affirmative advocacy are not contextualized vis a vis the aff's claims for inclusion, you will lose these debates. Affs, the less responsive you are to the negative's claims or the more nebulous your cross-ex responses, the more likely I am to vote neg on framework.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Beyond that, I believe a judge is meant to facilitate the debate you want to have, so all this is open to criticism and revision based on what actually happens in your debate. Have fun and I'm glad you're participating in this activity!

Point Scale:
Below 26.5 - you have done something offensive in the round
26.5-26.9- The debater either made it structurally impossible for the team to win the debate or had such limited participation that it is difficult to evaluate their contribution.
27-27.4- The debater demonstrated some capacity of argumentation but fails to demonstrate an ability to win the debate through their own strategic initiative
27.5-27.8- Demonstrates some capacity of strategy but little understanding of execution
27.9-28.1- Average
28.2-28.5- Demonstrate strategic vision and execution
28.6-28.9- Excellent execution and displays of intelligent strategic vision.
29-29.4- Excellent execution and displays strategic vision well beyond prepared strategies
29.5-29.7 (I don't think I've ever given above a 29.7)- Near flawless execution, displays of intelligence and excellent strategic vision.


Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm:

All the above still applies in LD. As is common, because of my policy training, I think I have a higher threshold both for what constitutes an argument and for evaluating theory. I think the shift of Lincoln-Douglas to adopting many of the conventions of policy debate is unfortunate; I genuinely enjoy seeing LD debates that offer me something other than utilitarianism. That being said, when a debate is in the vein of utilitarianism, I will use policy-debate conventions of risk analysis to evaluate your impacts.

Last updated: September 2022

Background:

• 4 years policy debate in high school (Churchill HS, San Antonio, TX, 2005-2009)
• 4 years policy debate in college (USC, 2009-2013)
• 3 years coaching at Highland Park HS (St. Paul, MN, 2013-2016)
• 3 years coaching at University of Minnesota (2013-2016)

TL;DR: Do what you want, I'll flow the debate and do my best to render a decision without allowing any biases to affect it.

I'm not an active debate coach any more, and I haven't judged very much over the last few years, so: 1) my flowing ability has probably deteriorated; and 2) I haven't thought about how I lean on particular types of arguments in a long time (my old thoughts are below, if you're interested).

I tend to make decisions based on what I've flowed rather than what I think the logical extension of an argument is, or what a card says absent in-round explanation. So, make sure you actually explain what you think is important–and why–and don't assume I'll give you credit just because your evidence is really good or because it's a logical leap from what you did say in-round.

I've got a PhD in political science and research/teach about race & representation in Congress and Latinx politics for a living, if that matters.

Specific arguments

Performance, Identity, similar arguments: I am not opposed to these arguments and think that including them in debate is beneficial. When debating these arguments, teams will be better off in front of me if they attempt to engage the aff/neg substantively, rather than reading their entire framework file. That doesn't mean I won't vote on framework - my preferences for how teams answer these arguments will not influence my willingness to vote on the arguments teams choose to make.

Topicality: I tend to think of topicality as a question of competing interpretations. I'm typically most persuaded by limits type impacts. RVIs are silly. I can be persuaded by a k of topicality, but the argument should be more nuanced than "t is genocidal".

Disads: Uniqueness doesn't determine the direction of the link or vice versa. I prefer links to be as specific to the aff as possible. Quality of evidence > quantity of evidence - one really good card is better than five terrible one-line cards. There can be zero risk of the disad.

CPs: Counterplans are best when they have good solvency advocates and are functionally competitive with the aff. I really only lean aff on the theoretical legitimacy of consult and conditions CPs. Other than those, i don't have strong predispositions and think that the legitimacy of the CP is up for debate. I will NOT kick the counterplan for the 2NR unless this option is explicitly explained in the 2nr.

Theory: I probably lean neg on conditionality, even if there are contradictory positions (I was a 2n, so yeah). But I'll vote on conditionality if the aff out-debates the neg on it, my own predispositions be damned. I don't really have strong predispositions on other theory arguments.

Ks: These are the arguments and the literature that I'm most familiar with, but don't assume that i've read all of the stuff you're talking about - the burden is on the debaters to explain their argument. Specific links are always better than generic ones; specific links that allow for specific "turns case" analysis are even better. The aff needs to make sure to answer the stock k tricks - if they don't and the neg is able to execute, then I'm fairly likely to vote neg. I don't think that the k necessarily needs to have an alternative, but there needs to be some other way of generating uniqueness for your arguments.

2A at Westwood high school in Austin Texas for 4 years (2011-2015).

(shout out to sam bhagwandin, I basically just copied 70% of his judge wiki. But please still read mine)

Whatever you want to say I will evaluate.
Please read the tips/preference section at the bottom if that’s all you have time for.



+Which arguments are best in front of you?


I’d prefer critical ones, but I’m cool for any argument that you can make interesting. Just know that while I’m cool with everything, I can’t promise that I will be super proficient in what your politics DA is about, but I’m not going to take it any less seriously.

Make sure I get it, but also that I care. While it’s easier to embellish a critical debate with rhetorical flair and intrigue (I’m looking at you – Deleuze or Baudrillard folks), that doesn’t mean you should do it. Any flow is good as long as you put in time to explain and defend though.


I’m best for the arguments you can connect to your opponents’ ideas, be that by comparing impacts, turning case, or creating K links. I’m best for arguments you can explain accurately, but without contrived misdirection (perhaps “embellishing” the debate with “rhetorical flair” isn’t always the move—you gotta put in your explanatory work first).

*If you’re just wondering what arguments I’m most knowledgeable about/proficient in: afro-pessimism, disabilities/crip theory, anthro, queer theory, all that jazz

Also if you’re reading a K aff against the Cap K, you should read internal link turns, perms, method comparisons, and DA’s to the alt instead of spending a lot of time debating the root cause flow cause honestly they’re probably going to win it, so you should just spend more time on what I’m likely to vote for.



+What stuff do you assume?

good defense *can* completely mitigate offense, and try-or-die is going to make-me-die if I hear it again. There’s a 1% risk I’ll vote on that argument.- sam’s joke but it still applies to me

you should flesh out competing interpretations/reasonability debates. I don’t want to have to default to competing interpretations.

:--Good--: perms, dropped arguments = true (if explained), reject the arg not the team, fiat, counterplans, open cx, speed, the use of evidence, and things that are coconut-flavored.

:--Bad--: (and real): Try-or-die, severance, intrinsicness, death, pain and suffering, misgendering opponents

Those are all negotiable by way of warranted arguments (except for misgendering opponents and coconut-flavored things being good)



+Talk about your beliefs on debating framework/T

Explain the link between your interpretation and your offense—why are you the only side that accesses that stuff. Treat this flow like a big impact comparison debate and also understand that I’m probably pretty biased against framework.

Inclusiveness is generally good—limitless ground is generally bad. Please navigate the waters in-between with care.




+What did you go for?

Neg --- On the negative we went for 1-off afro-pessimism every round

Aff --- The 2 aff’s I wrote and read were a fugitivity aff about slave pirates and a disabilities/crip theory aff about finding nemo

+Language K’s
misgendering your opponents is never cool
ableist metaphors are also never cool but only to certain words ( See – fine. Blind – bad. Stand – fine. Cripple/Paralysis – bad. Etc)

+Tips (preferences):

If you’re going for politics DA, please make sure you explain to me what the bill/act actually does. I don’t know what arguments people are running on this topic and it will go a long way for you if I know what it is you’re talking about.

Learn your opponents’ names and use them (sometimes). 

Don’t misgender opponents

*THIS >>>> *Don’t say things are conceded or that your opponent “doesn’t have a warrant.” Both hurt your case by setting a low threshold for their response (all they have to muster is one cross application or one warrant….). Just say your stuff I’ll figure the rest out.***

Tags shouldn’t summarize evidence; they should be an argument, made by the debater. Evidence is merely support for what *you’re* saying. Debate is about you, my friend.

Verbatim sam’s but still applies à Do comparison, not explanation. Saying “our evidence is amazing because it [has these characteristics]” doesn’t *compare* it to another thing, it explains something. If you need help, use the word “whereas.” For instance, “our impact is bigger because it [has these characteristics], WHEREAS theirs does not, BECAUSE it’s [from The Onion].” (hopefully your comparison is a little more complex than that...)

Say “chance” instead of “risk”

TO QUOTE MY FRIEND SCOTT: "TABULA RASSAAAAAAA"

I was a policy debater for 4 years at westwood high school. I have no ideological preferences, i'll judge as objectively as possible and i'll evaluate every argument. tech>truth.  

Look @ Akhil Gandra's judging paradigm if you have any questions. 

I prefer K debate, I like high theory, and I know how to flow T.  Policy, in its most traditionally understood form, is not my cup of tea, but it is the majority of what I judge so go figure. I will vote on the team that wins the round- framing is just as important to me as impact calculus.  There is not an argument I wont vote on- except for distinctly new arguments in the rebuttals. Spreading is great, just don't get mad if I yell speed- I rarely have to and when I do I HAVE to.

More about me:

My pronouns are they/them- I will give bonus points and maybe candy to teams that ask everyone's pronouns before the round :)

I debated for four years in high school and a little over one in college. I only did LD in HS, and I mostly did K debate once I joined collegiate debate. For the past three summers I've worked at UTNIF- and the majority of my judging experience happened there.

I'm studying Latin American Studies, and LGBTQ studies at the University of Oklahoma.  I have a decent understanding of Global economics, current events, and Political Policy in general.

Varun Reddy

Wake Forest University 15-19

Westwood High School

Since writing this, I have experimented with debating both kritikal and policy arguments as well as combinations of both. I will do my best to judge whatever arguments you choose to deploy to the best of my ability.

T

I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise specified. The standard on T is limits and I will filter much the 2AC as well as the 2NC explanation of the violation through this guiding frame. When going for Topicality in front of me, it would help to treat the argument like a disad in terms of ordering.

CPs

Explain why the counter-plan solves at least some or all of the aff that is important. Aff needs solvency deficits and theory arguments to defeat the CP. Criticizing the process of the CP and the logic of a net-benefit is also welcome.

K

Good k debates are won with specific micro level impacting at the link level and alternative defenses. I am highly persuaded by an aff team that spends a good time on the permutation and fights some of the link arguments. Similarly, a negative team with good framework arguments about why I should not weigh the aff are compelling as well. As far as strategy, 2ACs should have 1. perm 2. link turn/ no-link 3. alt solvency deficit 4. theory argument 4. impact turn/no impact. 2NCs should have the following 1. impact overview 2. framework argument 3. alt explanation 4. link debate

FW

Negative, Have a competing interps argument. Explain why the form of the affirmative is more important than the content in terms of debatability. Secondly, have strong explanations for why limits and jurisdictional constraints on debate are important for preserving the predictability and debatibility of the topic.

DA

Good Disad debates are good. I am of the opinion the politics disad are maybe suspect in the conjunction of link and internal link chains and an aff team that is good on this question may be persuasive. Justifications for probability, magnitude, and time frame can really make or break alot of these close debates and I think spelling out the direction of the link debate for me is good as well.

Concluding Notes (Must Read :P)

Debate is TOO serious sometimes. Be a fierce competitor and come to win but also don't lose sight of the subtleties in debate that make it fun. Enjoy yourself. Believe in the process and good things will come. Otherwise, good luck!

---I strive to be as fair as possible. Meaning, I take this (my job as a judge to assign a win/loss) seriously and I pay attention.

---Arguments get as much attention from me as the debaters gave them in the debate. Explain, give warrants, read high-quality evidence.

---There's nothing I won't vote on or listen to. Convince me what's important, what's of value, what my ballot means, and why I'm voting the way I'm voting. Do the work.

---I like to be entertained by persuasive speakers, smart arguments, creativity, humor, etc. etc. (doesn't everybody?) and those things are usually rewarded.

---Don't be a sore loser or a smug winner.

I’ve finally been forced to make one of these, my hesitancy in making one is I paid way too much attention to these when I was a debater and they rarely actually predict how someone evaluates debates, your intuition about how someone feels is often more accurate than their self representation.

Believe it or not, I’m open to judging a variety of debates, not just ones that involve the kritik.

Anyways, add me to the email chain: theqnr@gmail.com

I believe that the debate should be guided by the debaters, not the judge. I believe this implicates the way that I judge debates, I am very persuaded by anyone who frames the debate and explains how I should be evaluating the debate, so I would opt in for more judge direction than you might for another judge. Embedded clash is fine, but I think there are limits to this before we get to judge intervention, and I have to feel comfortable feeling like these arguments existed prior to my evaluation.

Speed: make sure I’m flowing at the rate you’re speaking, I will be clear with facial cues if I am not.

Topicality, I feel competing interpretations are easier to evaluate. Do not spread too quickly through the 2ac, it’s important I catch these arguments.

Clash debates, apparently as punishment for my career because I didn’t get enough of these for myself I’ve been summoned to judge all of them. Just kidding, I’m happy to be here and genuinely do not mind a good clash debate. With that being said, I’m very familiar with both sides of the arguments and I feel the issue in a lot of these debates is that people operate from extremely ideological standpoints that I don’t find persuasive.

I think I’m less persuaded by the “we solve your stuff better than you by making you better advocates stuff” and more interested in what your model of debate does outside of solve the affirmatives impacts.

I think that affirmatives should be grounded in the topic. I like when debates are early breaking. Both in terms of how your affirmative interacts with framework and more broadly whatever your critique of topicality is make it clear earlier than later.

Fairness is an impact. With that being said, many iterations of this argument do not make it to the point that it can be voted for as an impact.

Not that persuaded by the idea of rev v rev debates, and similarly am not that persuaded by third and fourth level testing.

I do not think that the neg has to win a TVA to win topicality, it can be helpful but often times find it leaves too much open for the affirmative and is not your responsibility to provide a way to solve the affirmative.

K’s

I’m familiar.

Links are important, you should have some.

Debating the case matters, I could be persuaded that debating the case does not matter but that would require a significant investment in framework.

If you are reading a K that’s a hodge podge of K’s make sure you’re making an argument that’s consistent, I am very open to the argument that incompatibility of kritiks means _____ for the debate.

aff v K: win framework arguments. Don’t just repeat your framework shell from the 2ac, that won’t go very far for me.

DA’s - I would love to see you go for a disad and case in the 2NR.

CP’s do your thing, I will say I don’t prefer overly complicated counterplans with terribly under highlighted evidence.

Some people are convinced that it’s completely true politics discs and certain CPs are terrible for debate, I am not in complete solidarity with that.

Love a good case debate

I don’t believe in a politics of respectability, I’m not going to ask you to be respectful to your opponents but what I will ask of you is to engage each other in good faith, what that means is genuinely try to engage with each others arguments and don’t make characters of them with strong ideological claims.

Bill Russell Judge Philosophy

Overview- I love good debates of many kinds. I try to decide debates solely on what is said in the round. I love good evidence, but love good explanation, and evidence comparison even more. I will give a lot of weight to the way you argue the evidence. Everyone works very hard to get where you are, and I know these rounds are very important to you, so I try to work hard as a judge also. It is important that you treat your opponent and your teammate with respect, so that everyone can enjoy the debate. Doing otherwise will be reflected negatively in your speaker points.

Paperless debate and flowing- I usually will ask to be included on your file sharing email, but, I am generally not reading along while you read. I will look at cards after the debate to the extent that I need to, and in light of how the evidence is debated. As a result, you need to make sure you are debating your arguments and evidence with the understanding that-unlike most of the debaters-I am not reading the cards as you go. Debating the details, and making evidence comparisons will go a long way in how I view the evidence after the debate. If you don't do that, I will interpret the evidence as I see fit.

Topicality- For the most part I prefer limits arguments over ground arguments. In other words, I prefer interpretations argued in terms of the predictability of the research burden, to any asserted right to particular ground. Case lists are important. My default standard on Topicality is likely reasonability, with the debate about the interpretations determining what is reasonable. The phrase competing interpretations, as it is often used makes no sense to me, because often no standard is given by which to evaluate the “competing interpretations”, with the implicit assumption seeming to be most limiting. Similarly, the “topical version of the aff” argment, when applied to non-critique affs makes little sense to me. The point of the violation is the aff isn’t topical. If what you mean is the same ground can be debated (advantages, etc) say that, but I think it is unlikely to be useful.

I generally believe that the affirmative should be topical but I have been persuaded otherwise for numerous non-policy affs of differing types. I don’t have strongly formed opinions on this at this point on topicality/framework as applied to non-policy affs, so tend to judge it like any issue, and attempt to decide based on what I hear in the round, and who I think is more effective at impacting their arguments, and blunting the impact of their opponents arguments.

Theory- I don’t especially enjoy theory debates, and don’t vote on theory issues very often. I tend to default to “reject the argument” not the team. As a result, in order to win on theory issues it is likely that a team will need to commit time to it, get beyond tag lines, and do a good job of explaining why simply rejecting the team would not be enough under particular articulated circumstances in that round.

An Additional Comment on Theory and T Debates- One issue that I think contributes to problems in theory and topicality debates is the tendency to make 1NC shells as short and fast as possible, and due to the fact that often there are few cards, these can become unflowable. I think if the argument is one you might be going for, you will benefit in front of me if the argument has some development when it is first presented.

Counterplans-I generally think conditionality is okay, but have been persuaded otherwise. If the negative goes for a conditional counterplan in the 2NR, and doesn’t make specific alternative arguments as to how the status quo would compare or why I should consider the status quo, I won’t do that work for you. In other words, no "judge kick".

I tend to think that the affirmative plan is not automatically immediate, and that a counterplan that conditions the plan on something that isn’t explicitly in the plan is not competitive. However, that personal preference is not very strong, and must be considered along with what I said on theory issues: that I haven’t voted on them often. So, I think an affirmative can beat these counterplans on theory, but they will need to do the work.

Disads/Impact Comparison It is obviously useful to have “offense” against a disad-or case advantage-but that it is not essential if a team does a very good job debating the uniqueness and link can win on that alone. Impact comparison is important, but I often hear more about the minutiae of “magnitude” when the relative risk seems like the place where better inroads can be made.

It should also be remembered in your impact comparison that when I evaluate the round at the end, I don’t usually decide “neg won the link” or decide most issues as yes/no, win/loss, but instead on some continuum of how much I thought you win on that, so the more comparison you do assuming the worst case, the better.

Critiques- I enjoy good critique debates the same as I do good policy debates. I don’t see critiques as a different way to run a disad, or counterplan, so debating it like a disad or counterplan makes little sense to me. That said, the more the negative treats it like another disad or counterplan, and doesn’t articulate some reason why they should win on the argument, or provide some explanation for why the judge should be doing something different than comparing policies, the more leeway the affirmative has in treating the argument that way as well. The more the critique can be related specifically to the aff, the better, and the reason to vote for the critique should be related as closely as possible to the type of argument presented in the critique. Feel free to ask me questions if that does not make sense to you.

Add me to the email chain: pia.sen@utexas.edu

Did some coaching for Texas + judging through the NDT 2020-2021 season

Texas Debate 2016-2020

UT Dallas Debate 2015-2016

LASA Debate 2011-2015

Updated 09/16/2023

Online Debate:

Please go a bit slower (80% of normal speed) on tags and analytics to account for video lag. If you're willing, maybe put in analytics for the doc to mitigate tech issues.

Short of it:

Probably best for clash or K v. K debates - not super good for policy v. policy debates except for T (not an ideological thing, just lack of experience with those situations), but I will do my best to evaluate those as instructed. Please explain topic specific acronyms and jargon for now. I believe debate is more about combat than collaboration - there's a competitive incentive to win so though we do learn from each other and have important discussions, I don't feel super persuaded by claims about how we should all work together in a debate (yes, I am persuaded that debate is a game). My role as a judge is to evaluate the arguments in front of me unless given an alternative role.

I think debate is not about me (the judge) but about the debaters - college debate gave me my voice and so much more, helping me grow as a person. It is a game with implications that shape our lives, and I want you to debate the way you are drawn to and find those benefits in whatever form is most important for you. I will do my best to help make your time as fulfilling as possible. That being said, I have certain biases/ ways of seeing debate/ limitations which I will try to describe below - however, I can be persuaded otherwise.

Judge instruction is crucial. My most extensive involvement has been with NDT and CEDA college debate, so I will probably try to adhere to those norms when judging. Fine with framework arguments, fine with K's and K affs. Will probably not vote on theoretical objections to intrinsic or severance permutations. Do impact calculus. I will follow along with your ev. and read the cards as much as I can.

Judges I try to judge like: Brendon Bankey, Will Baker, Michael Barlow, Scott Harris, and David Kilpatrick.

Speaking:

If you spread through analytics with no warrants, I may miss something. I will say 'clear' twice then put down my pen. My flow is okay, but online debate has made that harder so take that as you will. I believe CX is speech time, and accordingly, you will be rewarded/penalized for good CX moments and smart questions. CX concessions and moments need to be brought up and explained/ impacted in speeches to be considered arguments on which I will cast my ballot.

My speaker point scale (I adjust to the tournament): I award speaker points for speaking style, strategy, CX, etc. I do tend to have a soft spot for clever strategic turns and CX moments so I think I probably tend to penalize speaking slips like "uh" or "um" less than most judges.

28.8 - average

28.9-29.3 - Quite good, I think you'll break even or be in early elims of the tournament

29.4 -29.6 - Probably top 15 speaker at whatever tournament (D3 regional)/ outrounds of a major

Case Debates:

Do it.

For policy affs - harder to get me to vote on presumption. For K affs, I am not afraid to pull the trigger on presumption - especially if you don't have a reason why the introduction of the aff into debate is a good idea, or why deliberation around it is good/ why the reading of the 1AC is insufficient to access the aff's educational project. If you just play music in the 1AC and claim that's the aff solvency mechanism, I need to know why this is a departure from the status quo or why the introduction of that pedagogy should be evaluated as something to be affirmed with the ballot. However, if you are going for presumption I would like to have an interpretation for what the aff should do to meet the burden of presumption (whether that be material change, or whatever).

Framework Debates:

I enjoy framework debates on both sides, and think they can be some of the most interesting debates when we discuss the value of debate and what education should be obtained from the deliberative process of the activity. Similarly, they can also be the most stale and least responsive regurgitation of blocks (on both sides).

I think fairness is just an internal link to education, but can be convinced otherwise.

If you go for CIs with framework (Aff teams):

While debate is probably just a game, the education produced is not neutral. I think that limits and clash as internal links to deliberation are persuasive when adjudicating a framework debate, so the aff should provide a counter-model of debate and what the debates that should occur within debate look like under the aff's model (what is the role of the aff? the neg?). Probably, there's a reason why the aff's introduction into debate is a good idea and why discussion over it is good- otherwise we wouldn't be here. Do that work to parse out your role of debate - I think it's best done through a model of competition. Additionally, do good work on the internal link turns to the neg's model of education (debates occurring under that model)

If you go for Impact turns vs. FW (Aff teams):

I'll vote on args like 'debate bad' but you need a reason why I should vote for you/ not vote on presumption/ what voting aff does.

For the negative reading FW:

Ground isn't really a great impact for framework debates in my opinion, because ground is sort of inevitable so going for a limits k2 deliberation impact is probably better.

Topicality Debates (other than T USFG):

T is fun! Do your impact work.

CP & DA Debates:

All good. Do what you need to do. I love Politics DAs and topic DAs. I don't feel super equipped when judging the theory components of consult or delay CP debates but I'll try. I love good advantage CPs.

Kritiks:

Contextualize the link and impact work to the aff you are debating, have a solid alt or a good framework explanation for why I don't need to vote on an alt for you to win the debate. I believe that debate is a question of scholarship production that shapes how we see the world, and so 'revise and resubmit' framework arguments are more persuasive to me than some. I think examples are awesome for contextualizing impacts and how the aff uniquely makes things worse, which is a question I need to be able to answer at the end of the debate to vote for you.

Please do your impact work in terms of the aff, and explain why those are relevant.

Misc:

Probably won't adjudicate based on things that happen outside of the round that I don't witness. Will evaluate in round impacts about performative aspects of the debate. Please no slurs for subject positions that you do not occupy. Decent judge for gendered/ableist/racist language arguments. You must impact out your theory arguments, and I will not vote on an argument that is not well explained with warrants.

Accessibility:

Let me know if there's anything I can do to help- feel free to email me or pull me aside if that is easier.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I do not judge this very often, will adjudicate it similar to a policy debate. Will probably not vote on cheap shot theory or "tricks" unless it is well explained.

I like parts of both David Kilpatrick's and Ryan Malone's paradigm, so a lot of this is taken from the two of them.

I will also add this note from Kevin Clarke as the TL;DR: "Do what you do best and I will make a decision afterwards"

Things to Know

1. I believe debate is fundamentally about persuasion and communication. If I can't understand the argument that you are making (whether it's because you're unclear or the argument doesn't make sense), it likely won't factor into my decision. There are pretty much no arguments that I think are off limits. If you think an argument is egregious, rude, or absurd, you should be able to beat it.

2. Framework: I liked going for framework and I liked debating against framework a lot in college. Some trends I've noticed:

- A lot of aff's seem to not pick a side as to whether or not they're going to impact turn the resolution or go for a middle ground. Picking one is crucial to developing a coherent strategy against framework.

- A lot of neg's seem to not do terminal impact calculus in the 2NR. This is absolutely imperative to you winning the debate, because the aff is never going to forget to do it in the 2AR.

- It seems like a lot of teams just end up saying "procedural fairness is an impact" or "procedural fairness isn't an impact" and just hope that the judge is on their side at the end of the debate. I don't believe either one of these things to be fundamentally true. Debate the value of procedural fairness and the value of clash instead of just hoping I'll dogmatically agree with you.

- Sound topical versions are important. For the aff, it's important to debate the merits of topical versions that have some chance of solving some of the aff's impacts. For the neg, it's important to explain which of the aff's impacts the topical version specifically solves for.

3. Theory: much like framework, I think teams can win just about anything if well-warranted and impacted. That being said, it shouldn't be too hard for you to beat a counterplan that competes based off the certainty or the immediacy of the plan.

I won't kick the counterplan or the alternative unless told to do so by the negative.

4. Zero Risk: It seems more realistic to talk about the negligibility of a risk either in and of itself or vis a vis another impact, instead of totally-nullified-zero-% risk. Defense-heavy responses would seem to benefit from arguments about how risk should be assessed and problems with the other team’s assessment.

How I Make Decisions

1. What arguments have either been identified as or appear to be the most important arguments in the debate and what is comparative impact to those arguments is?

2. Are both teams winning the arguments they claim they are? This involves evaluating whether or not a team has identified clear links/internal links to their impact and whether or not the opposing team has played sufficient defense against those arguments.

It also can involve evaluating whether or not the arguments in the 2NR/2AR resemble those from the block/1AR. Unless there are arguments about how I should or should not flow, I appreciate when debaters are attentive to line-by-line, but I understand that strategy sometimes calls one to deviate from it. That being said, for arguments that appear to be new in the final rebuttals, I'm much more inclined to evaluate those arguments when a line is drawn to previous arguments.

If necessary, this step can also involve evaluating evidence, although it's pretty rare for me to do so to avoid reconstructing the debate.

3. After evaluating all of these things I get to a general decision and then try to do some even-if scenarios. I run through a few even-if scenarios: what, if any, central arguments the losing team could have won, but still lose the debate, and what arguments the winning team would have had to lose or the losing team would have had to win for the losing team to win the debate.

4. I decide any independent voting issues and theoretical objections to determine if winning any of those issues would help the losing team win the debate.

5. I deliver a reason/list of reasons that compelled me to vote the way I did. I'll then explain how I arrived at that conclusion as well as some of the issues that gave me pause. I try and do this fairly quickly to give you as much time as possible to vet my decision.

Email: stransky.alex@gmail.com

The Kinkaid School (2014)
University of Texas – Austin (2011)
Mercedes High School (2007)

I probably approach debate with a little more interest in how you are communicating ideas to me than simply the ideas you are communicating. I tend to place a stronger emphasis on persuasion, clarity and depth of analysis than debate “strategery,” i.e. reading as many cards as possible as quickly as possible without much analysis beyond that. This isn’t to say I’ve never voted quantity over quality, but it doesn’t happen often.

You’ll find that I will follow, flow and like your debates better if these things occur:
- You are organized and signpost well.
- You slow down on tag lines and, at the very least, pretend to care about the arguments you are reading
- You don’t rush through one-line hyper-technical arguments like theory 
- You frame the debate clearly, by telling me what arguments matter and why
- You are responsible with your arguments and kind to your opponents

I like debates the best when there is a clear explanation of what it is I’m supposed to do. Tell me what to do. Tell me how to vote. Tell me why you want me to vote that way. Absent those kinds of instructions, I’m likely to defer to however it is I defer in any given debate round, and this could frustrate you. So, tell me how you want me to view and understand things. I’m not telling you to read framework, but I am telling you to frame the debate. Do that kind of meta-analysis that explains how arguments interact and how they should lead up to a decision in your favor and you’ll make me as happy as a clam. As a result, you’ll rarely hear me complain about an overview in the 2NR/2AR. 

I despise debates without clash because I’m ultimately left debating the issues myself and that annoys me greatly. 

While I’m likely to prefer a good “K” round over a good “policy” round, I would prefer a good “policy” round over a generic/bad/confusing “K” round. At the end of the day, I want you to be smart, avoid cheap shots and make good arguments. 99% of the rounds I debated involved “K” arguments, so I tend to approach debate with that kind of background.

I imagine this philosophy may leave something to be desired, so you should feel free to ask atsydney.vanberg@gmail.com and I’ll adjust my philosophy as need be.

Don't assume I can handle your speed (clarity > speed) or understand the topic. I ran a lot of kritiks in high school, and debated for LASA in Austin, Texas.

I was an anthropology major in college.

Flashing doesn't count as prep to me. I don't always bring my computer to my rounds.

PS Please keep in mind that safety will be my #1 priority in the debate room.