Debated: Alief Taylor High School (2004- 2007), University of Texas (2007-2010)
Coached: Dulles High School (2007-2011)

Winston Churchill High School (2011-2012)

Hedrickson High School (Present)

If you are looking at my paradigm from https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Agha%2C+Samin the way I think about debates has changed since my Freshman year of college when I created that wiki. 

Initial Notes

-DO NOT CLIP CARDS - I have had to adjudicate several debates these past years where it was a question if cards are cut to stop this I ask to be put on the email chain samin07@gmail.com and actually mark your evidence in your speech document and send out a marked version of your speech document after the speech is done.

-Every argument you make must have a claim AND a warrant – saying that the impact to your advantage is “faster than the disad” is a claim, you need a reason WHY THAT IS TRUE. This becomes increasingly problematic in debates with multiple interacting parts such as a politics disad – you should make sure when you are extending “X bill will pass” uniqueness claims, you give reasons WHY THAT IS TRUE.

-TECH OVER TRUTH --- although some arguments are very silly, if you drop them – they are considered truth. Whether or not reading these arguments will adversely affect your speaker points is up to how well I thought the position was executed. That being said, most of the positions that come to mind when someone says “tech>truth” can easily be answered without evidence.

- Accomplish something in your cross-x time, keep me interested, have an agenda during your cx 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.

-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.

- The best judges will listen to any argument and style of debate. Do what you are best at. I try to leave predispositions out of decision-making as much as possible (it's not) and will work hard to adjudicate your round well. It's not my job to decide what you should debate, but to help you become better at how you choose to debate.

Technical Issues
-I won’t take prep time for flashing unless you are taking forever OR I think you are prepping when you are supposed to be flashing. (This may change the more I judge)

-I am pretty lenient on emergency situations – if you are having a massive coughing fit, or if your computer/stand breaks, just let me know and I can see what we can do. 

Topicality

Generic T shells are not something that hold my attention, however, a specific definition or a T in tandem with another position to get a link, is strategic. If you are going to go for T, then go for it starting in the block and make it a legitimate option and I will evaluate it. I find this to be an underused strategy

Disads

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 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.

Counterplans

I really like counterplans especially if they are specific to the aff, which shows that you have done your research. Although PICs are annoying to deal with if you are aff, I enjoy a witty PIC. However, make it clear that it is a PIC and explain why it solves the aff. 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.

Kritiks

Although, I am familiar with some kritiks, I do not pretend to be an expert on all, there are still many kritiks that I have trouble understanding. 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.

Clash of Civ. debates

I think that these debates can be really great because clash is kind of important. However, these debates tend to get really muddled, so you need to work extra hard to make things clear for me rather than just assuming I will lean one way or another. When it comes to K Affs v. FW, I think that you need to do a lot of work and don't just go for generic arguments like switch side without giving specific examples of things like in round abuse, etc. or interesting impact arguments. Ex: just saying roleplaying good/bad without a really good explanation is not going to be compelling.

I understand that I coach teams that are much more on the side of reading K affs that does not mean a good framework strategy is something I won’t vote for. I have voted for Framework more than teams that doing have an instrumental action.

Performance/Methodology debates

I am in no way biased in one way or another. I think that arguments need to be competitive. The things you may talk about in your performance/methodology may be true, but there needs to be a clear link articulated to the argument that you are debating. Many times competing methodologies start to sound really similar to each other, so teams need to establish a clear difference between the arguments. 

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.

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.

Name: Eric Beane

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

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

*Current for the 2023-24 Season*

Policy Debate Paradigm

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

Specific Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Information

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

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

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

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

Bellaire High school 2011-2015

University of Texas at Austin 2015-2019

Overall, read what you think you're best at. My job is to be as unbiased as possible. I rather see a cp+disad debate than a kritik debate, but that does not mean you should shy away from your favorite positions. 

Some general thoughts-

• Tech>truth for the most part. I will vote for something that is probably false or I don't believe in but you have to warrant it and do the work
• Zero risk is possible. There is such thing as terminal defense. 
• Framing issues often win close debates. Tell me why your impact controls their impact. 
• Actually slow down for tags or text you want me to acknowledge. If I don't write it down, then I probably won't remember it. 

T-

Not a huge fan of T debates (probably because I always read barely topical affs)

I default to competing interpretations unless you convince me otherwise

For 1nc, please don't blaze through the shell if you want me to flow your standards

If you want to go for it, make sure to contextualize the argument to the round (in round abuse is not necessary but always appreciated)

For aff, topical caselist is nice. For neg, topical version of the aff is nice. 

Disads- 

Aff, tell me why your case outweighs and/or turns the disad. Neg, vice versa. 

Politics was in my 2NR about 75% of the time senior year (just as a reference)

Often controlling spin is more important than having the right evidence. 

Counterplans-

Neg, win the net benefit and answer the perm. 

Specific CPs are more interesting than generic. 

Shady CPs like consult, delay, condition are probably cheating and "perm do the cp" is probably not severance (but everything is debateable). Agent and international CPs are also not great (although I ran these most rounds). 95% of the time theoretical objections to questionable CPs are a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

Kritiks-

They're fine. I didn't run many Ks outside capitalism and variations of psychosecurity so I'm not familiar with all of the literature. With that being said, they are obviously very strategic when run correctly. 

It is the job of the negative to explain to me the link-impact-alt story of the kritik (make sure the alt is explained well). 

For both sides, often the side that controls framework controls the round. Aff, make sure you weigh your aff against kritik. You read 8 minutes of offense in the 1ac. Neg, often tricks like "serial policy failure" wins rounds. I would advise reading those. Also contextualize to the aff. 

Even if fiat is illusory, you have to do substantial work to convince me that the aff can't weigh its advantages. 

Theory-

If you want to go for theory, don't spread through the 1nc shell as quickly as you can. I probably won't be able to flow it. 

Conditionality- One conditional world is fine. After that, it's fair game. If neg runs a contradictory cp and kritik, tell me where they contradict, how that makes it impossible to debate, and why it's a voting issue. Make your standards clear and your interpretation is always important. (Of course, I am still unlikely to pull the trigger on 2 conditional worlds)

Performance/non-traditional affs- 

I don't have a lot of experience with performance debates, but your speech is up to you.

The more the aff deviates from the direction of the resolution, the more likely I am to vote on framework. Because of my policy background, I'm probably more likely to vote on framework than most judges. 

I've coached LASA since 2005. I judge ~120 debates per season on the high school circuit.

If there’s an email chain, please add me: yaosquared@gmail.com.

If you have little time before the debate, here’s all you need to know:do what you do best. I try to be as unbiased as possible and I will defer to your analysis. As long as you are clear, go as fast as you want.

Most judges give appalling decisions. Here's where I will try to be better than them:

• They intervene, even when they claim they won't. Perhaps "tech over truth" doesn't mean what it used to. I will attempt to adjudicate and reach a decision purely on only the words you say. If that's insufficient to reach a decision either way--and it often isn't--I will add the minimum work necessary to come to a decision. The more work I have to do, the wider the range of uncertainty for you and the lower your speaks go.
• They aren't listening carefully. They're mentally checked out, flowing off the speech doc, distracted by social media, or have half their headphones off and are taking selfies during the 1AR. I will attempt to flow every single detail of your speeches. I will probably take notes during CX if I think it could affect my decision. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve a judge who works hard as well.
• They givepoorly-reasoned decisions that rely on gut instincts and ignore arguments made in the 2NR/2AR. I will probably take my sweet time making and writing my decision. I will try to be as thorough and transparent as possible. If I intervene anywhere, I will explain why I had to intervene and how you could've prevented that intervention. If I didn't catch or evaluate an argument, I will explain why you under-explained or failed to extend it. I will try to anticipate your questions and preemptively answer them in my decision.
• They reconstruct the debateand try to find themost creative and convoluted path to a ballot. I guess they're trying to prove they're smart? These decisions are detestable because they take the debate away from the hands of the debaters. If there are multiple paths to victory for both teams, I will take what I think is the shortest path and explain why I think it's the shortest path, and you can influence my decision by explaining why you control the shortest path. But, I'm not going to use my decision to attempt to prove I'm more clever than the participants of the debate.
• If you think the 1AR is a constructive, you should strike me.

Meta Issues:

• I’m not a professional debate coach or even a teacher. I work as a finance analyst in the IT sector and I volunteer as a debate coach on evenings and weekends. I don’t teach at debate camp and my topic knowledge comes primarily from judging debates. My finance background means that,when left to my own devices, I err towards precision, logic, data, and concrete examples. However, I can be convinced otherwise in any particular debate, especially when it’s not challenged by the other team.
• Tech over truth in most instances. I will stick to my flow and minimize intervention as much as possible. I firmly believe that debates should be left to the debaters. I rarely make facial expressions because I don’t want my personal reactions to affect how a debate plays out. I will maintain a flow, even if you ask me not to. However, tech over truth has its limits. An argument must have sufficient explanation for it to matter to me, even if it’s dropped. You need a warrant and impact, not just a claim.
• Evidence comparisonis under-utilized and is very important to me in close debates. I often call for evidence, but I’m much more likely to call for a card if it’s extended by author or cite.
• I don’t judge or coach at the college level, which means I’m usually a year or two behind the latest argument trends that are first broken in college and eventually trickle down to high school.If you’re reading something that’s close to the cutting edge of debate arguments, you’ll need to explain it clearly. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear new arguments. On the contrary, a big reason why I continue coaching debate is because I enjoy listening to and learning about new arguments that challenge my existing ways of thinking.
• Please mark your own cards. No one is marking them for you.
• If I feel that you are deliberately evading answering a question or have straight up lied, and the question is important to the outcome of the debate, I will stop the timer and ask you to answer the question. Example: if you read condo bad, the neg asks in CX whether you read condo bad, and you say no, I’ll ask if you want me to cross-out condo on my flow.

Framework:

• Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge onimpact calculus and comparison.
• When I vote neg, it’s usually because the aff team missed the boat on topical version, has made insufficient inroads into the neg’s limits disad, and/or is winning some exclusion disad but is not doing comparative impact calculus against the neg’s offense. The neg win rate goes up if the 2NR can turn or access the aff's primary impact (e.g. clash and argument testing is vital to ethical subject formation).
• When I vote aff, it’s usually because the 2NR is disorganized and goes for too many different impacts, there’s no topical version or other way to access the aff’s offense, and/or concedes an exclusion disad that is then impacted out by the 2AR.
• On balance, I am worse for 2ARs that impact turn framework than 2ARs that have a counter-interp. If left to my own devices, I believe in models and in the ballot's ability to, over the course of time, bring models into existence. I have trouble voting aff if I can't understand what future debates look like under the aff's model.

Topicality:

• Over the years, “tech over truth” has led me to vote neg on some untruthful T violations. If you’re neg and you’ve done a lot of research and are ready to throw down on a very technical and carded T debate, I’m a good judge for you.
• If left to my own devices, predictability > debatability.
• Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff.The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I amtowards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Kritiks:

• The kritik teams I've judged that have earned the highest speaker points givehighly organizedandstructuredspeeches, are disciplined in line-by-line debating, andemphasize key momentsin their speeches.
• Just like most judges,the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.
• I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview anddo as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. If your overview is 6 minutes, you make blippy cross-applications on the line-by-line, and then you drop the last three 2AC cards, I’m going to give the 1AR a lot of leeway on extending those concessions, even if they were somewhat implicitly answered in your overview.
• Framework debates on kritiks often don't matter. For example, the neg extends a framework interp about reps, but only goes for links to plan implementation. Before your 2NR/2AR, ask yourself what winning framework gets you/them.
• I’m not a good judge for “role of the ballot” arguments, as I usually find these to be self-serving for the team making them.I’m also not a good judge for “competing methods means the aff doesn’t have a right to a perm”. I think the aff always has a right to a perm, but the question is whether the perm is legitimate and desirable, which is a substantive issue to be debated out, not a gatekeeping issue for me to enforce.
• I’m an OK judge for K “tricks”. A conceded root cause explanation, value to life impact, or “alt solves the aff” claim is effective if it’s sufficiently explained.The floating PIK needs to be clearly made in the 2NCfor me to evaluate it. If your K strategy hinges on hiding a floating PIK and suddenly busting it out in the 2NR, I’m not a good judge for you.

Counterplans:

• Just like most judges, I prefercase-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.
• I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory.
• I will not judge kickthe CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue.
• Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

Disadvantages:

• I’m a sucker for specific and comparative impact calculus. For example, most nuclear war impacts are probably not global nuclear war but some kind of regional scenario. I want to know why your specific regional scenario is faster and/or more probable. Reasonable impact calculus is much more persuasive to me than grandiose impact claims.
• Uniqueness only "controls the direction of the link" if uniqueness can be determined with certainty (e.g. whip count on a bill, a specific interest rate level). On most disads where uniqueness is a probabilistic forecast (e.g. future recession, relations, elections), the uniqueness and link are equally important, which means I won't compartmentalize and decide them separately.
• Zero risk is possiblebut difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disad is probably background noise.

Theory:

• I actually enjoy listening to a good theory debate, but these seem to be exceedingly rare. I think I can be persuaded that many theoretical objections require punishing the team and not simply rejecting the argument, but substantial work needs to be done on why setting a precedent on that particular issue is important. You're unlikely to win that a single intrinsic permutation is a round-winning voter, even if the other team drops it, unless you are investing significant time in explaining why it should be an independent voting issue.
• I think thatI lean affirmative compared to the rest of the judging community on the legitimacy of counterplans. In my mind, a counterplan that is wholly plan-inclusive (consultation, condition, delay, etc.) is theoretically questionable. The legitimacy of agent counterplans, whether domestic or international, is also contestable. I think the negative has the right to read multiple planks to a counterplan, but reading each plank conditionally is theoretically suspect.

Miscellaneous:

• I usually take a long time to decide, and give lengthy decisions. LASA debaters have benefitted from the generosity of judges, coaches, and lab leaders who used their decisions to teach and trade ideas, not just pick a winner and get a paycheck. Debaters from schools with limited/no coaching, the same schools needed to prevent the decline in policy debate numbers, greatly benefit from judging feedback. I encourage you to ask questions and engage in respectful dialogue with me. However, post-round hostility will be met with hostility. I've been providing free coaching and judging since before you were birthed into the world. If I think you're being rude or condescending to me or your opponents, I will enthusiastically knock you back down to Earth.
• I don't want a card doc. If you send one, I will ignore it. Card docs are an opportunity for debaters to insert cards they didn't read, didn't extend, or re-highlight. They're also an excuse for lazy judges to compensate for a poor flow by reconstructing the debate after the fact. If your debating was disorganized and you need a card doc to return some semblance of organization, I'd rather adjudicate the disorganized debate and then tell you it was disorganized.

Ways to Increase/Decrease Speaker Points:

• Look and sound like you want to be here.Judging can be spirit murder if you're disengaged and disinterested. By contrast, if you're engaged, I'll be more engaged and helpful with feedback.
• Argument resolution minimizes judgeintervention. Most debaters answer opposing positions by staking out the extreme opposite position, which is generally unpersuasive. Instead, take the middle ground. Assume the best out of your opponents' arguments and use "even if" framing.
• I am usually unmoved by aggression, loud volume, rudeness, and other similar posturing. It's both dissuasive and distracting. By contrast,being unusually nice will always be rewarded with higher pointsand never be seen as weakness. This will be especially appreciated if you make the debate as welcoming as possible against less experienced opponents.
• Do not steal prep. Make it obvious that you are not prepping if there's not a timer running.
• Do not be the person who asks for a roadmap one second after the other team stops prep. Chill. I will monitor prep usage, not you. You're not saving us from them starting a speech without giving a roadmap.
• Stop asking for a marked doc when they've only skipped or marked one or two cards.It's much faster to ask where they marked that card, and then mark it on your copy. If you marked/skipped many cards, you should proactively offer to send a new doc before CX.

University of Houston B.A., Northwestern Pritzker School of Law J.D.

I defer wholly to the Tabula Rasa paradigm. I have no qualms about voting on any form of argument (including T's, theory, K's, or even inherency), so long as...
1-You win the argument and,
2-You give me a proper contextualization of how winning this argument wins you the round.
E.g., "Inherency is a voter b/c of stock issues" won't get you my ballot.
On a personal note, I think that many of the major issues with debate is that many teams try to conform to well-worn blocks and articulations of different voters, particularly with stock issues or T/theory. I'd much prefer an interesting voter or standard than a very discursive and unexplained "education or fairness claim." Be creative with your standards and answers.

I don't evaluate whether or not an action made by aff or neg is abusive or not unless the other team brings it up. I don't believe it's my job as a judge to pre-decide what should or should not occur in a debate, I see each debate as an independent construction unto itself. Therefore, if you make an abuse claim, structure it and impact it. The only exception is if the 2AR reads new arguments, (because the neg can't stand up and call aff out). If this happens, I won't evaluate any of the new arguments, I will dock speaks, but it won't be an automatic loss on it's own. If this team wins on the substance of the non-new arguments then they win the debate round.

Don't extend arguments as a singular entity ("extend the D/A"). On Adv's I expect analysis on the impact claim even if it is unaddressed.

Specific Arguments:
First, I've always been more comfortable evaluating straight policy arguments because a good half of my debate experience excluded kritiks. This said, I am familiar with the most common K's (cap, neo-lib, security, colonialism, nietzsche, biopower, gendered/discourse, ableism etc.). The more obscure the K, the more work that you should do explaining it because I am certainly not as familiar as you will be with the literature. (Give me a good overview in the 2NC).

Second, I was a T/theory hack in high school so I will pull the trigger on T/theory. My expectations are listed below,
1-If you go for fairness you either have to have an AMAZING potential abuse shell, or a good source of in-round abuse. A major issue for teams going for T is that they don't set up the abuse story in the 1NC. If you're going for ASPEC, read politics/agent solvency takeouts. T and theory are arguments that should be part of the strategic whole of the negative argumentation, not another floating source of offense.
2-Slow down on T-standards, full speed on T and I'll miss a few.
3-If you go for T I want it to be 1 off in the 2NR, same goes for theory. You should only reference your other arguments in order to generate abuse stories for a fairness voter or to contextualize the lost education. Going for T and another argument undercuts the legitimacy of your T argument and usually results in under-coverage of standards/voters. Irregardless, I will evaluate all arguments you extend (if you do T + other voters in the 2NR), I don't believe it's a good strategic decision though.

I always evaluate the round in terms of offense/defense (unless a conceded framing issue says otherwise), so extending impacts into the final rebuttals is crucial to winning my ballot. If you're going fully on a stock issue, please frame this within this paradigm.

On a final note, I have never judged a performance debate or even seen one. Again, this does not make me unwilling to vote on it, but explaining it in terms of voters may be an uphill battle. So if you are going to perform, please contextualize it.


Speaks, usually between 26.5-30.

25 if you're offensive.

If anything here is unclear, please ask me about it before the round. I don't want there to be any ambiguity in my paradigm and if you don't understand some part of this paradigm, I'll do a rewrite here on the wiki as well.

GENERAL:
I vote policymaker but am one to vote on K's if convinced. I need analysis on every argument and not just shallow extensions of the tagline. I'm fine with speed as long as you slow down on the tags and I can actually make out what you're saying.
I understand that policy debate is competitive so assertiveness is fine. Just don't overdo it.

IMPACT ANALYSIS AND CALCULUS:
This is very important. Debaters who compare evidence and impacts in round are more likely to get higher speaks. I like to see more than just debaters spewing card after card. Attacking the credibility of sources, finding contradictions in the opponents' evidence, and comparing the impacts in the round are all things that make it easier for me to vote.

TOPICALITY:
I will vote on T; I believe its an A-priori issue and that the aff has the burden to be topical. I primarily vote on competing interps when it comes to T. I will not vote on reasonability because it causes me to determine what I personally think is reasonable; I like to use whatever happened in the round as the basis for my decision. However, I WILL NOT vote on an RVI. I believe the aff's job is to be topical; you're not getting anything extra out of it. But a note to neg teams: if you're running a T just as a time suck, don't. I won't down you but your speaker points may be lowered.

THEORY:
I'll buy theory; just prove to me there's in-round abuse. Theory arguments I'll buy: condo bad, agent CP's, and multiple worlds, just to name a few.

KRITIKS:
Although I prefer to vote as a policymaker, I will vote on the K given that it is well explained and I have been given reasons to vote for it. Explain the link and how the alt functions and how it solves. Also, the role of the ballot debate needs to be discussed in the round by both teams. I will vote on pretty much any K except those "dirty word" K's. Generic K's are sorta in the gray area, depending on how well its argued and explained. When it comes down to it, I need to have strong analysis and reasons as to why the alternative provides a better world than that of the aff.

When it comes to kritikal affirmatives, I prefer you don't run them. But if you only run K affs, then I will still consider them as long as you paint the picture for me and show me why the world painted by the aff outweighs the squo/world painted by the neg.

DISADS:
When it comes to DA's, impact calculus becomes very important because if you're going to go for the DA in the 2NR, I need to know why the squo is better than the world thats created when the aff triggers the link to the DA.

And to the affirmative team, DO NOT RUN INTRINSIC PERMS ON A PTX DA! I will not evaluate them.

CP's:
I will vote on for the CP as long as its an untopical CP. I need there to be a clear difference between the plan and the CP and why the CP solves better.

CASE:
I will vote on case as long as there's both offense and defense.
For the neg, don't run straight up impact defense and no solvency. Offense is key to winning the case flow. I will not vote strictly off of defense.
For both teams, LINE BY LINE debate is crucial. It makes so much more easier for me decide who wins the case flow.

FINAL NOTE:
I do not and will not extend or analyze any arguments for you in the round, so you should always provide complete and clear analysis as to why I should vote a certain way. I will evaluate the round solely off of what was said in the round and whats on my flow. Don't expect me to connect the dots; thats your job.

Greetings, by way of introduction, my name is Eric Emerson. eric.emerson@kinkaid.org (for speech docs).

I coach debate (policy, LD, World's, congress, oratory and public forum) at the Kinkaid school. I have actively served on the Board of the Houston Urban Debate League since 2008, the year of its inception, and have also directed the UTNIF.

As a judge, I evaluate arguments (claim, warrant, data and impact). I prefer arguments grounded in literature rather than regressive debate theory (take note LD). My preferences are flexible and can be overcome by persuasive, smart debaters.

I take notes, sometimes quite quickly. If I think you unclear, I will let you know in my facial expressions and on the occasion, hopefully rare, when I yell 'clear'.

If I find you/your arguments, unpleasant then your speaker points will reflect that. I disagree with judges who give out high speaker points to everyone. You gotta earn my points.

I am easily distracted and I prefer debaters to be both engaging and entertaining. If I appear distracted, it may be your fault.

Debate is a powerful educational tool that should be accessible to everyone. I try to approach all of my interactions with empathy and concern for others. I find unpleasant debates to be just that, unpleasant. I would ask that you avoid being unpleasant to your opponents, spectators, and me. Unpleasantness that threatens debate, to me, should be avoided.

Revision Date: 09/13/2017

Affiliation: University of Houston

It's been awhile since I've been involved in the activity, but there are some things that I still maintain:

Topicality: It's a prior question, especially for the early season. I normally view topicality through a framework of competing interpretations. Negatives who want to go for topicality should have be able to tell (1) under their interpretation what affirmatives actually are topical and (2) what arguments the negative couldn't read. 

Disadvantages: What's not to like? Do the evidence comparison for me. Tell me why a disad outweighs/turns case and vice versa, or else I might impose my own worldview. Relevant sidebar: Saying "our evidence postdates" isn't enough. Make it contextual, and tell me how a sequence of events interact with one another. 

Counterplans: There should probably be a solvency advocate and a well articulated net benefit.  

Critiques: I used to be comfortable with critiques, but arguably far less now because I've been removed from the activity. If you want to win, your critique should be able to articulate why the critique turns case, and an alternative that resolves the links. 

Framework/Topicality: I don't particularly care for these debates. That being said, I understand why they happen. Affirmatives should probably read a topical plan in front of me just to avoid these questions. 

Conditionality is also probably good, unless there are 4 (arbitrary number) different positions. 

Andrew Garcia

I am an assistant professor at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi and the policy debate coach for W.B. Ray High School. I was a four-year NDT debater at Baylor University, though I have only recently returned to the activity after a law school hiatus.

GENERAL: I consider myself a strong Tabula Rasa judge. Ultimately, I do my best to minimize my role and preconceived notions about the world in the round. I will vote for virtually any argument (provided that it is sufficiently impacted). If the debaters fail to make comparative analysis regarding their versions of the debate or how the arguments interact, it forces me to uncomfortably connect the dots.  To prevent passing ships, debaters should pay particular attention to describing the role of the ballot and why their paradigm for the debate should be preferred in the 2NR/AR.

In college, I ran both traditional policy arguments and critical positions. Although not definitive, here are some preferences that I have:

CX: I consider it to be one of the most underutilized portions of debate. An incisive and strategic CX can be devastating and I value it highly. I pay attention to it closely and consider what is said to be binding.

Delivery: I don’t mind speed, but many debaters attempt to go faster than they should, losing both clarity and efficiency. Make clear distinctions between tags and cards. Provide proper pen time on analytical arguments, T, or theory. Realize that you have the speech doc flashed to you, but I don’t.

K debates: I feel comfortable with critical arguments, but I have high expectations for alternative work. Make sure you are clearly articulating the implications of the K and help me visualize the alt. Specific link work in the block will be rewarded. Performative contradictions are dangerous, so be careful.

Performance/Affect/Clash of Civs: Haven’t had a lot of experience judging these arguments, as I was out of the game during their rise to prominence. I am open minded, though, provided that you highlight the role of the ballot and judge.

DA/CP Strats: Sure. Impact analysis. Complement with case cards to short circuit the AFF impx. Be clear on the net benefit work. I will admit to be somewhat down on conditionality.

FINAL NOTE: Perhaps this is a consequence of getting older, but I highly prefer pleasant rounds. Although this wasn’t something I was really good at during my career, it has become increasingly important to me. I believe you can be passionate, ardently advocate your positions and criticize your opponent’s arguments without screaming at the other team for 90 minutes. It won’t affect my ballot, but it will affect speaker points (and my general demeanor). Vitriol is wack, so save it for the squad van.

AG

Richard A. Garner | Director of Speech & Debate | University of Houston | ragarner@uh.edu

Framework: Neg: topical version is very helpful; aff: probably okay if you defend the government doing a topical thing. One should be able to defend their model of debate. I put this issue first because it’s probably what you really care about. Everything else is alphabetical.

Case debate: Turning the case is my favorite thing to judge. Uniqueness is good here, but not always necessary with comparative evidence.

CPs/Competition/Theory: Comparisons win theory debates, along with impacts. I’m not sure that states or international CPs compete, but no one has ever put this to the test in front of me so it’s hard to say. No strong feelings about consultation or conditioning either way. K affs probably shift competition questions that rely on FIAT. Won't kick the CP unless you tell me to. Non-arbitrary interpretations are ideal.

Critiques: I understand these and am fine with them (understatement). From both the aff and neg, I enjoy narrative coherence, specific application, and alternative debates. New things under the sun are wonderful to see, but so too the old, artisanal ways upon occasion.

Disadvantages: I tend to think risk probability is never 100% absent drops, and that each internal link reduces certainty. Can have zero risk (though if the CP solves 100% of the case … probably need offense). Don’t tend to think that impacts automatically/100% turn case, or vice versa; instead, comparisons are evaluating risk probability bubbles/multiple competing worlds.

Judge Space: Judges are human beings, not argument processing machines; enjoyable debates matter. Evidence comparison is the highest art. Debaters’ flowing/line-by-line is generally terrible; embedded clash is nice, but at its root it depends on an organized approach to the flow. Drops: before the burden of rejoinder attains, there must be a full argument (claim/warrant/implication). I am displeased by a) subpoints with no b) subpoints, and by "Is anyone not ready?" because it is a linguistic abomination (see: bit.ly/yea-nay). I read a lot of cards, but, paradoxically, only in proportion to the quality of evidence comparison. Highlighting: needs to make grammatical sense; don’t use debate-abbreviation highlighting (ok: United States; not: neoliberalism). If I cannot understand the highlighting, I will not read the rest of the card for context.

Logistics: Add me to the email chain. I don’t read speech docs during the debate.

*Principles: Without getting too philosophical, I try to evaluate the round via the concepts the debaters in the round deploy (immanent construction) and I try to check my personal beliefs at the door (impersonality). These principles structure all other positions herein.

Speaker Points: I approximate community norms, and adjust each year appropriately.

Topicality: I evaluate it first. I enjoy T debates, and lean more towards ‘better interpretation for debate’ than ‘we have the most evidence’.

Brief Debate CV:

South Garland (competitor): 1995-1999

NYU (competitor): 1999-2003

Emory: 2003-2004

NYU/Columbia: 2004-2005

Harvard: 2006-2015

Houston: 2013-present

*

Random Poem (updated 3/30/23):

Strange now to think of you, gone without corsets & eyes, while I walk on the sunny pavement of Greenwich Village.

downtown Manhattan, clear winter noon, and I’ve been up all night, talking, talking, reading the Kaddish aloud, listening to Ray Charles blues shout blind on the phonograph

the rhythm the rhythm—and your memory in my head three years after—And read Adonais’ last triumphant stanzas aloud—wept, realizing how we suffer—

And how Death is that remedy all singers dream of, sing, remember, prophesy as in the Hebrew Anthem, or the Buddhist Book of Answers—and my own imagination of a withered leaf—at dawn—

Dreaming back thru life, Your time—and mine accelerating toward Apocalypse,

the final moment—the flower burning in the Day—and what comes after,

looking back on the mind itself that saw an American city

a flash away, and the great dream of Me or China, or you and a phantom Russia, or a crumpled bed that never existed—

like a poem in the dark—escaped back to Oblivion—

No more to say, and nothing to weep for but the Beings in the Dream, trapped in its disappearance,

sighing, screaming with it, buying and selling pieces of phantom, worshipping each other,

worshipping the God included in it all—longing or inevitability?—while it lasts, a Vision—anything more?

*

Previously

Dunya Mikhail, "The End of the World," The Iraqi Nights (3/30/23)

Sakutaro Hagiwara, "A Useless Book" (8/1/19)

Catullus, 101 (1/4/18)

e.e. cummings, "O sweet spontaneous" (1/4/18)

&c

Joshua Gonzalez

8th place in US Extemp my first time at NSDA Nationals.

iykyk...

Updated for TOC Digital Speech and Debate Series 2 :) --- I've been having issues with formatting while updating this paradigm, I'm sorry if this looks terrible on the device you are reading it on.

Email chains (add me): hunterharwoods@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him/His

I have been involved in high school and/or collegiate debate in some capacity for the last 13ish years. I competed on the Texas state and national LD circuits in high school and coached several nationally successful students in the few years after I graduated. I also competed on the policy team at UNT. I have a high level of experience judging circuit debate, although admittedly I don't judge very often anymore. Much of my judging history is not listed on Tabroom (shoutout Joy of Tournaments). I work full-time in software now, so I no longer coach, but I keep up with the community and judge the occasional bid tournament when I have free time. Debate has been the most impactful activity in my life since I started many years ago, and I feel the role of the judge is as an educator, to help instill the same "portable skills" that have helped me and countless other debaters achieve their goals. I balance that with the idea that debate is a game that should be fun for everyone.

I have always enjoyed reading judge paradigms to see how other people think about debate, but you may not feel the same way. Mine keeps getting longer - please at least read the tl;dr and the section about online debate at the bottom (if applicable). Whether I am judging you in a policy or LD round I will be thinking about the debate in largely the same way. If you have questions before the round, please ask. See also: Christopher Vincent's paradigm, I align closely with it.

tl;dr

(1) You must give a trigger warning if you plan on discussing a sensitive topic. If you're not sure if you should give a trigger warning, err on the side of caution.

(2) Debate however you're comfortable, as long as you can justify the practice in-round. I will evaluate any type of argument. At the same time, I could not realistically say I am a "tab" judge given we are all a product of social location and lived experience. Please don't make morally abhorrent arguments, and please be kind and professional.

(3) As the affirmative, I believe you need to tell me how to evaluate the round and then generate offense in this manner (this is intentionally broad). I love critical affirmatives and I'm always game for a straight-up policy debate. Whatever affirming looks like to you is most likely fine with me. I prefer the affirmative to at least refer to the topic. The negative can do whatever to disprove the affirmative, the topic, read a K or CP, etc. I like rounds where each team defends an advocacy. CX is [obviously] binding. Flex prep is fine and binding too. I think this year's policy topic and the Jan/Feb LD topic are both awesome - please feel free to break creative/out-of-the-box strats in front of me. Performance is great but please make sure I know how to evaluate it.

(4) I am fine with speed but please slow down a little if I'm judging you in an online round. Slow down on tags and author names, and please allow pen time in the appropriate places. I keep a detailed flow - please listen when I say "clear" or "slow" so I can do this. Please don't assume I know much about the topic or your authors since I do not coach or judge very often anymore (err on the side of overexplaining, try to minimize topic jargon where possible). I still feel confident I can evaluate most rounds but these factors are important to keep in mind.

(5) I will intervene as little as possible - when good weighing doesn't happen this becomes difficult, so please tell me exactly how to vote and why. I vote off the flow but I cannot help viewing the debate holistically, as a performance. Tech > truth, you can win with arguments that have untrue conclusions if you set them up properly and win the necessary planks. If you [technically] win with bad/dropped arguments I would rather give a low point win than intervene. LD rounds are very short so please keep that in mind when reading philosophically dense positions/high theory K's - I like these arguments but I like good explanations more.

(6) If you are making arguments off the flow/off the top of your head and you are not capable of spreading them without mumbling/slurring/jumping around, don't spread those arguments. It is [understandably] harder to spread "off the dome" than prewritten material, and it will come at the cost of me being able to understand you or be compelled by you. Slow down and group, cross-apply, weigh, make turns, win framing, etc - there are so many other routes to the ballot. I would prefer to follow your debate.

(7) I would much rather hear a round containing fewer arguments that are more complex, nuanced, and well-warranted than tons of arguments that are blippy, poorly explained, and hard to build a narrative around. I greatly prefer compelling arguments to bad ones. I also prefer engagement to evasion.

(8) If you have a position that was written by a coach, teammate, friend, etc, and you do not understand it as if you wrote it yourself, it is my strong preference that you do not read that position in front of me - if you read a position that I understand well and explain it poorly, that is not good for you, and if you read a position that I don't understand well and explain it poorly, that is also not good for you. It's a lose-lose.

(9) Please be very careful with evidence practices while assembling speech docs. Evidence ethics is important. When I debated we were very, very familiar with exactly how long it would take us to get through pretty much any file we had. During a policy round at Stanford I received a 31 page speech doc that ended up as a 15 page speech doc by the time we cut everything that wasn't read in the speech - that is ludicrous. This is the most extreme example but it was a trend and I don't like it.

(10) Please weigh so I don't have to do it for you. Tell me a good ballot story.

Longer Version

(1) Good debate starts with good research. Cheesy but true. You should feel confident walking into the round that you know more than anyone else in the room about the topic. Getting caught off guard is no fun. Being able to make awesome, carded, responsive arguments on the fly because you know your stuff is super fun. And a super topic-centric, contentious round is far more fun to judge than a super generic one. If I feel like you know a ton about the topic you're discussing (ie you explain it super well, don't have to constantly refer to evidence or quote it to explain warrants, etc), your speaks will be high.

(2) Theory Specific Stuff: I default to competing interps, no RVI's, drop the arg. You can change any of these defaults with arguments in-round. I ran a lot of theory in high school. Although my views on the subject have changed since then, theory is an important part of debate strategy, and I will vote for pretty much any theory arg. I will not vote for "wifi bad", "shoe theory", or really any shell that isn't about something that happened in-round. I generally think shells should be structured Interp-->Violation-->Standards-->Voters-->Implications (drop the arg v. debater). Justify why you should get an RVI if you're going for one. My threshold is pretty low on CI/I meet's for the 1A and 2A; if the affirmative is going for an RVI, the negative needs to do a lot more work to prove why the aff shouldn't get an RVI than the aff needs to prove why they should. I feel like this offsets the time burden placed on the aff should the neg choose to go theory-heavy in the 1N and 2N, but again, you've still gotta win why the RVI is a voting issue in both the 1A and 2A. I despise messy theory debates so pls don't be that person. I am okay with theory preempt-heavy 1AC's as long as the rest of the round is coherent.

(3) K debate <3: I ran a broad array of K's in HS and college. I don't love generic K's, I do love critical affirmatives that tell a great story, and I do love critical negative strats with extremely relevant link and impact stories and tangible alternatives. Please make sure the evaluative mechanism for the round is clear so I can vote on your K. Performance is great but please make sure I know how to evaluate it.

(4) Larp/policymaking: I love it when these debates go well/are extremely substantive and find generic ones to be excruciatingly boring. Please feel free to run creative/out-of-the-box plans and CPs in front of me.

(5) Tricks: I ran some tricks in HS. Not my cup of tea anymore, but I understand that they can be fun to run from time to time, especially if both debaters can throw down. I also believe that being able to answer them makes you a much better debater. If you're going to read stuff like this, don't be shady. I won't flow spikes that aren't clearly numbered. I will bomb your speaks if your strategy involves your opponent missing a tiny blip that you blazed through in the first speech, and if they missed it, I probably did too. That is not good tricks debate.

(6) I feel like this goes without saying, but arguments in bad taste or that justify bad things (racism good, genocide good), or use of rhetoric that I feel violates the safety of others (hate speech, slurs, sexism, etc), will cause me to immediately stop the round and have a serious, coach-involved discussion after I vote you down with the lowest speaks I can. Read this article by the legendary Chris Vincent if any of this is unclear (I'm sure you've already read the Vincent 13 evidence but the whole article establishes good norms)

https://www.vbriefly.com/2013/10/26/201310re-conceptualizing-our-performances-accountability-in-lincoln-douglas-debate/

(7) I think disclosure is a good norm. I obviously can't require you to do this, but I am pretty persuaded by disclosure theory as a result.

(8) Do not clip cards. It's easy to do it by accident, but I will hold you accountable regardless. If you're not 100% sure what I mean, https://the3nr.com/2014/08/20/how-to-never-clip-cards-a-guide-for-debaters/

If you follow those guidelines, you should not have any issues with clipping.

(9) CX is binding. I don't usually flow or take general notes during CX but I pay close attention. Flex prep is fine, but you may not use CX time as prep time. Any questions asked and answered during prep will also be binding. You must answer any question asked in CX, and if you and your opponent agree that flex prep is cool, any that they ask you during prep as well. If you are not okay with flex prep, please make that clear before the round begins.

(10) Be clear and concise. I'll say clear as many times as I have to. I don't think it's fair of me as a judge to stop trying to understand you just because I'm having to work a little harder at it. However, you're liable for anything I don't get the first time. Debate is a communication activity. If you're trying to extend an argument in the 1AR and I have no idea what you're talking about because the 1AC was 6 minutes of garbled tags and authors, that's on you. The speech doc will not save you in this regard. I feel like I've developed a pretty fair brightline over time for how clear and expounded upon I require an argument to be for me to vote on it.

(11) Being clear and concise doesn't just apply to spreading. Word economy and time allocation are super important. You'll be amazed at how much more time you have in your rebuttal if you weigh and do argument interaction concisely, while telling a good ballot story. Organization is crucial; consistently good debaters are not sloppy.

(12) Please weigh. Please. If you don't I have to do it for you, and nobody likes judge intervention. Avoid that situation entirely and do good weighing.

(13) Please stop reading generic, pre-written overviews in front of me. Your speaks will suffer. If you tell a good ballot story an overview is not necessary. A short overview at the end of your rebuttal is fine to wrap up key voting issues but that's not what I'm referring to.

(14) I might not know all of your jargon. I also probably won't know all your authors. Just explain things well and this will not be a problem.

(15) Speaker points: You'll start at a 28.7, and move in increments of .1. Good strategic decisions, conciseness, clarity, and confidence are all important to me. Pretty much everything I discuss in this paradigm will affect your speaks. At a bid tournament, 29 or above generally means I think you deserve a shot to break, above a 29.4 means I think you deserve a speaker award too. If the maximum increment set by the tournament is .5, I will round up and let you know that in the RFD. Although I start the round with all debaters at 28.7, I find I give speaks around an average of 28.3-28.6.

(16) Do not be mean to less skilled debaters. If there is a clear skill gap in the round, and you're a total jerk, spread them out of the room, intentionally make super complex args that they cannot engage with (basically doing things to exclude them from participating in the round in any way), you'll get the win but I will bomb your speaks. Debate should be inclusive, fun, and educational for everyone. Nothing is more demoralizing than getting dunked on while you have no idea what's happening. The flip side of this is that being kind, educational, helpful, mature, and still decisively winning a round against a significantly less skilled debater/novice will be a quick W30 from me, even at a bid tournament. We have to prioritize fostering an atmosphere in this community that will make people want to stay and get better, not quit. Relatedly, if your opponent asks you not to spread, and you do it anyway, I'm not going to vote for you. I don't care what their reason is. If you ask your opponent not to spread and then get up and spread the 1NC (why would you even try this), I'm going to down you too. I saw this happen at a local a long time ago and I've always kept it in my paradigm. It's mean and probably cheating.

(17) The case that you send in the email chain must be formatted identically to the one you're reading out loud. Same font size, highlights, stylization, everything. Don't be that person who sends their case in all caps or with the cards uncut or all highlighted or whatever. That's not cool and you shouldn't need to do that to get a leg up in the round if you are prepared.

(18) Time yourself and your opponent. I have noticed an increase in people not keeping time. Please make sure you keep your own time and time your opponent as well. Time prep and tell me how much you have left, and write it down yourself too. If you ask me "how much prep do I have left?", I'm going to take a speaker point away.

(19) Please flow.

(20) You should compile your speech doc during prep. I don't count flashing/emailing as prep but please do not abuse this; if it takes you longer than 20-30 seconds to get it done, I'm going to assume you're stealing prep and I'm going to remove the excess from your remaining prep time, or dock your speaks if you have no prep left.

Online Debate-Specific Stuff

a.) You MUST make local recordings of your speeches as you give them in the round. If you or I or your opponent drops off the call, please complete the speech without stopping, and immediately email the copy in the email chain. Failure to do this will result in any missed arguments not being considered. After reviewing community discussions on this issue, this seems like the best norm going forward.

b.) Pls don't steal prep.

c.) DO NOT GO FULL SPEED ONLINE YOU WILL PROBABLY LOSE!!!! Go 75% of your top speed max. Spreading is HARD to follow online. I'm tired of flowing off speech docs, if I miss an argument completely I will not even flow the extension and that's on you. Also, I often mishear/misspell the author names, and sometimes I'm way off, so it would benefit you to say "extend [warrant]" as opposed to "extend [author name]." This is a good habit to get into regardless, some judges don't even flow author names and it's usually more convincing if you don't need to tell me the name of the card for me to know what you're talking about.

d.) Email chains are required, if you're flight B please set it up before the round. Yes I would like to be added, my email address is at the top.

e.) Try to find a way to see both me and your opponent during speeches, and please keep your camera on if possible. Body language is important, and I'm pretty expressive as a judge, so you'll probably want to see me while you're reading to see if I look receptive or confused. If there is a bandwidth issue, equity issue, etc preventing you from keeping your camera on, a simple "I'd prefer to leave my camera off" is enough and I will not ask questions.

f.) Debaters can tell each other "clear" or "slow" (please do not abuse this) during speeches. Other than that please make sure your mic is muted while your opponent is giving a speech.

If you have any questions for me before or after the round, please don't be shy. If you have any questions about the decision or things you could've done better, please ask as many questions as necessary after the round (time permitting) or in the downtime between rounds.

Debate can be stressful, and life is stressful enough as is. You should always feel safe and cared for in the debate community, and if you don't, please speak up; there are always people listening. Good luck, and most importantly, have fun!

Name: Grant Heller
Affiliation(s)/Strike(s): None




Intro: I debated CXDebate at Katy-Taylor for 4 years on the national circuit. I'm a primarily K debater but that does not mean I'm against traditional policy arguments. I don't default to any sort of framework and have no preconceptions about what debate should look like. All those rules are guidelines.


Affirmatives - I do not have a preference as to how you conduct your affirmative speech. That is to say, I do not have an opinion on plan texts (or the lack of one) in a 1AC. I am open to non-traditional affirmations of the topic as well as traditional ones.


DA/CP/Case – These arguments are all fine, PICs are cool - make sure they are competitive and have a clearly articulated net benefit. Disads, whether they be critical in nature or not, are fine– make sure (obviously) they Actually outweigh and/or turn case. Reading case specific links will never hurt. I hate timeframe counter plans - they are truly one of the most anti-educational arguments I've heard, but I'll evaluate them if I have too. I just won't be happy about it. When reading a PIC or CP that has a long/in depth text, either slow down when you read it, or give it to me after you're done reading it so I can write it down.


Topicality– I think that against a Kritikal team, your best bet is to run FW and not Topicality (Maybe an embedded Extra-T violation is a good argument against K teams although I'm going to go ahead and say no). You can spread through your T shell in the 1NC, but if you plan on going for T (or at least extending it throughout the block), I would really appreciate it if you would slow down during the block on the standards debate. I understand there is always a time crunch, but if you go your usual (fast) speed, I may not get down everything you say which may harm you in the end. If T is in the 2NR, I expect you to impact out each standard. I don't default to either competing-interpretations or reasonability or whatever other metastandard you cooked up in your trailer park debate room. I generally think education outweighs fairness, but neither Have to be a voter. I'm open to the concept of voting on a RVI, but you will have to invest a good amount of time in the 2AC/1AR on the issue. I prefer voting on In Round Abuse, so please show me how the aff is "Totally screwing us over juuuddgggee" ... all of you are bad liars... I vote for good ones.


Theory - Generally, I think you should have a interpretation, violation, standards and voters, but embedded theory on a flow is fine too - for the sake of organization, I prefer theory on multiple sheets of paper (If possible). I prefer voting on In Round Abuse, but I will evaluate potential abuse as a voter with a much higher threshold. I truly do not enjoy getting into the ultra specifics of "should I grant someone leverage of a condo arg without an in depth extension of the standards against severance perm theory?" - Please try not to run too much theory.


Deb(K)ate – If you are filling out judge prefs and you rank me highly, I Expect you to have some sort of critical position to use at your disposal. I think as a general rule that Kritiks should have alternatives, however, I am open to evaluating a K without an alternative as a case turn to the 1AC. I love hearing good K debates – this is why I debate. Literature I am most familiar with – Continental Philosophy, Feminist Philosophy, Disability Studies, Queer Studies, Critical Race Studies – you get the idea. But I should be fine with evaluating whatever Kritik you want to run. It’s your game, do with it what you will. I like hearing K debates the most out of any other kind of position. But this does not mean that I will vote on a K just because you read a K; I expect in-depth analysis and contextualization on the K flow, particularly, how it relates and interacts with the affirmative not only on the link level (which is a must), but also on the alternative and impact level as well.

I’m also sympathetic to the idea that education outweighs fairness.

TL;DR - Kritiks are great - Contextualize your evidence to the affirmative, win the framework debate, have fun.


Framework - I WILL VOTE ON FRAMEWORK IF YOU DO POORLY. I default to allowing non-traditional approaches to debate be inclusive, and it will be an uphill battle to win an exclusionary reason for why I shouldn't allow the affirmative/negative to speak, but if a team is very far behind on the framework question, I will reluctantly vote on it. You need an interpretation.


Weighing - The earlier the better - I expect clear weighing analysis in overviews of the arguments you want me to vote off of.


Performance- Don't run these arguments just to run them - make sure they have a clear, meaningful message. I generally think that these arguments have their place in debate, but can be persuaded otherwise. Give me a role of the ballot or some mechanism in which I can make a decision.


Speed – I should be fine with however fast you choose to go, if not I will just shout clear.


Role of the Ballot - This shapes how I view every other argument in the debate. It shapes how I view things like framework and topicality, and how I view substantive things like impact comparisons and impact framing questions.


Flowing - I will flow unless instructed otherwise. Like, "don't flow the other team judge." Ok mate, got it.


Speaker Points – The range from which I give speaker points is from 25-30. 25 is the lowest speaks that I will give, even so it probably won’t happen that often (I hope). How do you get better speaks? Organization during a speech

Quick and painless paperless debate (flashing ev)

Humor

Intuitive CX Strategies

Prioritizing framing issues at the top of a speech

***FORMERLY THE ARTIST KNOWN AS ANGELA HO ***

Experience: 4 years policy in HS, former policy debater for UH, former PKD President of UH

FIRST, keep in mind that my husband and I do not talk excessively about theory, k’s, etc. in our daily lives. If you are preffing me because you hope I adjudicate with the knowledge depth of literature, you are in for a surprise.

Secondly, I'll tell you that being polite is the key because I don't think rudeness is necessary for debate and takes away from the actual education, being sassy is fine.

Third is that I judge based on logos. Make sure all arguments are logically thought out instead of just running them for the sake of running an argument and not being able to explain the argument. Make me want to vote for you. DO NOT scream over your opponent. I will also NOT vote for something I do not understand, you have failed to persuade my ballot.

*I CANNOT STAND excessive waste of time. As soon as the constructive is over, CX starts. As soon as there is silence, prep time needs to be used. Failure to be efficient will result in flashing counting as prep. No need to ask me if I am ready, I am ALWAYS ready once the debate begins.

Overall: There are no arguments that I won't vote on. I look at whatever you present to me. I am looking for a clear explanation of the function of the argument in the round, evidence comparison, and a clear impact calculus. I enjoy both K and traditional debates. I would like that both teams are clear on which side of the argument they are for. I have voted on plenty of arguments that I don't like so feel free to run whatever you are comfortable with but I will list what I tend to look at in my decision.

Do not get WILD if I cannot fully explain a theory/k background to you. I do not claim to be an expert in literature for different theories/k but if you fail to explain it to me or debate it, that will be how my decision is based. If I do not understand your theory/k then you have failed to explain it to me.

Flowing: I don't have a problem with spreading; however, I draw the line when you have to gasp and have become even incomprehensible to yourself. I personally think it's worthless to spread if you don't use up all of your speech time or not be able to explain your cards. Emphasize taglines. Make sure you pronounce words that will be repeated throughout the round correctly because it does get annoying hearing words incorrectly said over and over and over again. Do not "spread" if you are not able to cover more than regular reading, points deducted.

CX: I don't flow CX, but listen so you can bring it up in your speech for it to be included in my flow. I also don’t count flashing as prep as long as you aren’t abusing it. Include me if you are doing an email chain.

Things I like: Clash of evidence. Impact calc with proper weighing. I love a good statistic.

Topicality: Make sure you uphold standards and voters and give me a reason to prefer your definition.

Disadvantages: The uniqueness and link to the case are important to me. Push your impacts and weigh your impacts.

CP: Make sure you explain why it solves better than the Aff and why it is mutually exclusive.

Things I don’t like: Ks, Theory and Framework. It also doesn’t mean that I won’t vote for them. I just prefer concrete evidence as opposed to analytical.

K: I am okay if you run a K (In fact, I enjoy seeing which K is used for the round and how it is executed). I will only evaluate Kritiks if they are run properly otherwise I'm not the biggest fan of them. I will vote for them even if I personally do not agree with them. I do want a quick overview of the K being run, just because I am not fully read on all the different philosophies (but I have dabbled into them so I am not completely in the dark). If you run a K just make sure to explain the ideology of the author. Make sure the ALT is explained, carried throughout the round, and that it is a better outcome for the scenario. Once again, I do not claim this area to be my expertise so do not get wild if I cannot give you a long winded rfd because I do not know the literature.

Theory/Framework:It probably will bore me, not going to lie. I’ll listen but it’s not my number 1 voter. I will make an exception if you are able to prove to me that it should be weighed first. I will vote for it if one side drops the debate of theory being a prerequisite.

LD:

I think it's important to uphold your arg and carry them through the entire round. If you have a more modern approach then I still expect you to attack the value/crit if your opponent is more of a traditional debater. I will not vote for RVI, so do not waste time with that. I tend to enjoy the modern single policy debate style more. Please do not delay the debate round with preflow, if would like to do that then do it in advance.

PF:

My main voter is the outcome of the round and the weighing of points. I like to be explain what does the pro/con world look like. Read at whatever pace you would like. In order to win my ballot you will need to be big picture and line-by-line as well as explain why your side outweighs the opponent.

Speaks: For speaker points I don't pay attention to the quantity of the argumentation: I look for fluidity, demeanor, tone and courtesy. I will give a low point win if the winning team is being disrespectful, racist, and/or offensive with profanity or anything I deem as inappropriate. I do enjoy humor, sass, Disney and pop culture references so if you can incorporate that appropriately into your speech, then your points will reflect (+.1).

Speech:

Extemp/Info/OO: I am previously a national finalist for extemp. Again, I love a good statistic. Looking for proper analysis of sources and evidence. Usually the one in the room has told me a fact that I did not know.

HI/DI/DUO/DUET/POI/POETRY: Synchronization into character with fluid delivery is key. I am looking for the emotion(s) of the piece to be conveyed effectively. I often do not react visibly so please do not be discouraged. I do have a hard time ethically evaluating a physically abled bodied contestant that chooses to portray a physical disability or interprets a physical disability onto a character, strike me.

**I will provide a quick key recap of my paradigm before the round starts, please listen because I will be VERY annoyed if you continually ask me if I am ready or anything I make a point to readdress from this paradigm. If you have any specific questions, ask me before/after the round starts. If not then have fun and run whatever you feel that is best for the round. Good Luck!!

- Affs probably should be topical, I’m just as willing to vote for impact turns against framework.
- I view most of these debates like a checklist. Affs probably need some answer to the following (and negs should be making these args): limits turns the aff, switch side solves, topical version of the aff. I have trouble voting aff if these are not answered. Similarly, I have trouble voting neg if these arguments are not made.
- The best affs generate their impact turns to framework from the aff itself. A bunch of random external criticisms of framework like just reading Antonio 95 or Delgado and calling it a day is not persuasive to me
- The debater that best defends their model of debate is the one that tends to win. Aff debaters who win their model of engagement/debate/education is better than the neg's will win more often than random impact turns to framework
- Should you read a non-topical aff in front of me? You can check my judging record, I think I have voted for and against these non-t affs about equal amounts.
- If you're going for FW: answer k tricks, don't drop thesis level criticisms of T, reading extensions for more than 3 min of the 2nr is an easy way to lose in front of me
- If you're answering FW: you need answers to the args I listed above, I think defense on the neg's args are just as important as development your offense against T, less is more when it comes to developing offense against T

- Defaults: Competing interpretations, drop the arguments, RVIs justifiable, not voting on risk of offense to theory
- Weighing standards is the most important to me
- I will miss something if you blaze through your theory dumps
- I’m probably a better judge for tricks than you might think. I’m just as willing to say “these theory arguments are silly” as I am to say “you conceded that skep takes out fairness.” If you go for tricks, go for tricks hard.
- I will vote on 1 condo bad in LD

- I think frameworks are usually artificially impact exclusive where they preclude all other arguments for virtually no reason. I'm inclined to believe in epistemic modesty but you can win confidence in front of me.
- I default comparative worlds, but it's not hard to convince me to become a truth-tester. What truth-testing means, you will have to explain it to me.

- I’m slightly more convinced by the state being good than bad, but don’t mind on voting on state bad
- I’m a little better read on identity type arguments as opposed to high theory arguments
- I’m not afraid to say I didn’t understand your K if you can’t explain it to me
- I don’t know why negs don’t have a prewritten perm block given that I vote on the perm a lot
- Specific link analysis is better than generics
- There has to be a lot of weighing done in the 2nr
- Case defense is underrated in these debates
- Case K overviews that aren't entirely pre-scripted are undervalued
- Performance is fine
- There should be more debate about the alternative
- The aff gets to weigh their aff, what that means is up for debate

Email: jjenningscrosby@gmail.com

Last updated: 10/4/20

General:

Summary - Read basically anything you want, go for what you're good at, try new things if you want, Don't be rude.

About me - I debated at Crosby highschool and middle school for a collective 6 years and I debated policy at University of Houston for 3 years. I used to help as an assistant coach for The Kinkaid School for about 3 years.

I am fine with almost any argument, so if you want to read it I'll listen, unless it's things like racism or patriarchy good.

Speed - Go for it. I will not say clear if you're partially unclear, unless its egregious.

Edit for online: remember, not all microphones are created equal, so make sure your microphone can adequately pick up how fast you’re going (maybe record you practicing a block to test it), because your mic may only be able to pick up about half of the syllables you say if you’re going too fast for it.

Cx: (LD is below this)

On topicality and theory, I default reasonability if there is no discussion of this in the debate because it's much less of a risk for the neg. Make sure to make it very clear what your interpretation is and exactly what portion of the plan violates that and explicitly apply what ground/predictability/education/etc you lose from their specific interp compared to yours. A lot of T debates get lost in the impacts of standards/voters and don't contextualize it vs the counterinterp.

On kritiks, You HAVE TO explain the alternative, in debate people get away with not doing that too much, which is annoying as a judge. The only exception to "not explaining the alt" is when you kick it and go for just the k as a k of policy framework/policy debate itself (I don't think is applicable to every kritik, but it is to some). I like when the link is contextualized to the aff (give specific analysis about how the aff makes the system of oppression worse or prevents it from changing).

On Counterplans, I love good counterplans, as long as your story on the world of the cp is clear and you're winning a net benefit that you solve, you should be fine. Do clear solvency/net benefit comparison.

On Disads, have a logical story as to why the aff links and how that causes the impact. Do impact comparison.

Non-traditional Affs - I will evaluate any affirmative even if it's non-policy, just make sure if you're untopical, you have a reason to be untopical.

Framework – I am not afraid to vote on this, I think there are benefits and disadvantages to policy debate and benefits and disadvantages to kritik aff debates. Make sure you weigh the Interp vs the counter Interp because a lot of people weigh the debate in terms of there being no counterinterp.

For LD:

I’ve judged a lot of LD debates. I have coached a few students in LD as well. I am a CX coach/judge/debater normally so do what you want with that info.

I will evaluate almost any argument, I tend to think of the debate round on the bigger picture focus (mainly because the 1ar I feel is rough and it allows better debates for LD), although I have no real predisposition against technical debate, the debaters should tell me how to frame the debate in the context they desire.

Framework: I'm fine with policy, whole resolutional or k debates, just debate out how I should evaluate who wins.

Topicality: I will evaluate T, I default to reasonability if no arguments are made but I will evaluate it either way. Make sure to make it very clear what your interpretation is and exactly what portion of the plan violates that and explicitly apply what ground/predictability/education/etc you lose from their specific interp compared to yours. A lot of T debates get lost in the impacts of standards/voters and don't contextualize it vs the counterinterp.

Theory: I will evaluate most theory, but it has to make sense and I tend to have a higher threshold on what I think is a voter, meaning most theory I've seen in LD doesn't rise past the level of reject the argument, while some LD judges would reject the team. I will not vote on RVIs. I also probably won't vote on frivolous theory (which I think is a very subjective term), which all I really mean is make sure theory has a legitimate reason to reject the team. I default to reasonability if no arguments are made but I will evaluate it either way.

CP: I think CPs make the most sense vs plans and I can be convinced Topical Cps are illegit if you’re winning whole rez should be the focus of the debate (all up to debate).

K: On kritiks, You HAVE TO explain the alternative, in debate people get away with not doing that too much, which is annoying as a judge. The only exception to "not explaining the alt" is when you kick it and go for just the k as a k of policy framework/policy debate itself (I don't think is applicable to every kritik, but it is to some). I like when the link is contextualized to the aff (give specific analysis about how the aff makes the system of oppression worse or prevents it from changing).

Updated - 11/18/2023

Email: njenningsuh@gmail.com,

Experience:

Coached debate at HAIS (1), Crosby (3.5), Dulles (3.5), and Niles West (2.)

Debated policy for 4 years at Crosby (2004-2008), In College at UMKC (Fall 2009), and Houston (Spring 2009, 2012-2015)

Non-negotiables

• If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.
• If you think the appropriate response to other people explaining how they need to be included in debate is to say "West is best" or "Violence towards people like you is good" please strike me.
• Purposeful or dismissive acts of misgendering will result in a full speaker point loss and if the other team makes it an argument the possible loss of a ballot.
• All permutations must have a text.

What is Debate?

I think that we need to understand we are a community of people responsible for the activity, We are responsible for teaching and guiding students to make decisions that are descriptive of the community they wish to compete within.

Framework

Framework is very normally in high school debate used as a way of excluding debaters. Framework doesn't have to be this but unfortunately in the vast majority of HS debates it is used this way. The framing is an exclusionary one and doesn't have the nuance to get out of most of the aff offense.

If you read framework this way then I'm not the judge for you, not because I would be upset with you but rather because I will likely be very sympathetic to aff arguments about exclusion. If you think your TVA is a silver bullet it's not, and your SSD arguments a lot of time are overhyped. I think I agree fundamentally that most of these debates devolve into meaningless hyperbole on both sides. The aff is always debatable and somewhat predictable the question is how does the expansion of predictable limits make it so that the debate is worse and how that change is bad. In this way limits are generally an internal link to clash or fairness and I really think that a clear weighing and impacting out of these is of the utmost importance. I am substantially more likely to vote for clash if it is used as an impact filter/impact than I am persuaded by fairness.

Framework is best when it's simply a disagreement about the meaning of the topic/roles and the negative impact and weighing is about the relative change in the way that debate functions. The expansion of limits and the recognition of the affs value is important. Questions about the roles of the sides and preparedness for those roles. About the ground that the negative has under each interp and why one interp is better than the other. To me, the most important question the negative can push forward is "why negate?" a lot of the affs answers to this question seem problematic. This is not a question of value in fact it seems to assume if the affirmative is right about their normative claims about the resolution why should anyone have to affirm it and if that's the case how do we determine what we are debating about? Why is the negation of negation good? This puts a higher burden, in my mind, for the affirmative to win the framework debate. Most affs have great reasons why they are good but they do not tend to have good reasons why they should be negated.

Critical Affirmatives

Critical affirmatives should have a solid defense of both their importance but also the importance of debating it. There should be a clear area of debate that the negative can and should engage in. That being said I really enjoy watching good Kritikal affirmatives deploy the various ways of relooking at debate structures and topics. I find affirmatives that are either very small but willing to engage with whatever strategy the negative chooses, or conversely, very large structural affirmatives that will engage on a theory level with everything to be the best. Be ready to answer the core questions negation should ask you. Why this aff? Why this round? Why negate this? Why this ballot? If you think you have good answers to those then I'm likely going to enjoy watching the debate.

The Kritik

Kritiks need to have a clear link-impact scenario with a way of resolving those claims. That could be the framework Interp, or the alternative in most debates.

Framework debates can be very important. I think interps that ask me to wish away the affirmative impacts are lackluster. I'm more interested in how we should be weighing things than an argument that says we should artificially bracket off the affirmatives 8 minute speech. You can definitely win we must prioritize ontology, epistemology, or Ethics, or we should bracket off certain types of considerations if they are bad, however, I'm not generally willing to bracket off the aff's ability to advocate for their should statement but rather if their impacts are important or not.

I am way more willing to vote for specific instances of link-impact scenarios than I am for an uncontextualized larger theory of power claim. Specificity will almost always be important to win my ballot. I am a bit pessimistic about what we can achieve in debate rounds but also believe the entrance of different scholarships into debate can and do have value. It however is up to the debaters to make those arguments in a compelling way.

Non-Kritikal Debates

Theory

Theoretical rejections of the team have an incredibly high burden in my mind. Theoretical rejections of the argument have a much lower burden. For me to vote for a team entirely on theory they must prove that the debate was borderline impossible. Contrarily to win reject them argument you only have to prove the debate would be better without the argument. To me using theory to force a condensing of the round is a sound strategy. Also, generally, if you're conceding that conditionality is good then you're highly unlikely to get me to vote down the team on another theory argument.

DA's

Disadvantages are the core of all aspects of debating. Make sure you extend all three components when going for a DA. This includes when going for Disadvantages from any perspective.

CP's

Calling into question the legitimacy of many different types of counter-plans should be a portion of your strategy. Too many affirmatives allow the negative to get away with a lot of abuse on the counter-plan that they shouldn't. CP must have a text, a clear solvency mechanism and a net benefit. Please make sure you extend each if you go for the argument.

Coach for the University of Houston, Langham Creek High School, and Memorial High School

A couple of thoughts before I address specific arguments

for Wake/UT - I haven't judged very much this year and don't know what the norms/args are yet

If it’s important say it more than once, I don’t necessarily mean that you should just repeat yourself, but make the argument in more than one place with more than one application.

Highlighting should be able to be read - I think that your evidence should be highlighted in a way that makes at least some grammatical sense - this is kind of subjective but if its a true abomination of words slapped together I won't read around your highlighting to understand what you're trying to say.

please time yourselves

I would like to be on the email chain, clarkjohnson821@gmail.com

CX

T debates (and theory debates) are already very blippy, if you want me to evaluate it, slow down. I like it when teams use T strategically in other areas of the debate.

DA's: good spin > sepcific ev > generic ev. I like intuitive turns case arguments and I love when you can implicate the aff’s internal links and solvency using other parts of the disad. I think that

CP's: These are fine, if you want to know my thoughts on judge kick see Rob Glass's paradigm.

K’s: As long as you approach the debate assuming I won’t understand your version of baudrillard we’ll probably be fine. 2nr (and 2nc to some extent) explanation of what the alt world would look like, how the alt solves the links to the aff, and how the alt solves the impacts are important to me, I find myself to be much more persuaded by neg teams that can do this well.

K affs v fw: I think your aff should in some way be related to the topic, that's not to say that you have to be, just that it will make it easier for you to win those debates.

K affs v k's: this is by far the debate that I have the least experience with, something that's really important to me in these debates is clarity of how the alt/aff functions and how it interacts with the links to your opponent's argument, I tend to find myself being persuaded by detailed alt analysis.

if you’ve noticed a common theme here, it’s that I think the alt debate is important

Theory: Default neg and reject the argument, you should give me reasons to do otherwise, don't expect me to vote on it if you don't slow down and explain your argument, most debaters spread blippy blocks that make it difficult to flow and evaluate, if the 2nr or 2ar want to go for theory in some form or fashion you're going to have to do a modicum of work, saying severance perms bad for 10 seconds at the top of your 2nr is not enough to get me to vote on it as long as the 2ar makes any sort of response.

Counterplans bad is probably not a reason to vote aff

LD

I don’t judge this event as often so I may lack a more nuanced understanding of how things function in LD compared to policy, but with that being said I’m open to however you want to do it, be it traditional or progressive. Your phil and theory debates are a little alien to me coming from how we approach similar arguments in policy, so if that’s what you think you’ll be going for in your 2ar or nr be super clear. Most of my thoughts about args in cx will color my analysis of the arguments you make in LD.

PF

I dont consider the time it takes for your opponents to provide you their evidence as prep time, and I don't think you need to take cx time for it either. If you can’t tell, I am primarily a policy judge and as such I probably have a higher standard for evidence quality and access than your average judge.

other than that I don't have strong opinions when it comes to what arguments you want to read as long as you justify them (read: impacts matter!)

im not familiar with pf norms when it comes to whether you should or shouldn’t answer opponents args in summary or 2nd constructive. And sometimes I feel like I’m inconsistent in trying to figure out and apply what they are in my rounds judging it. As such I will treat it as I would a cx round unless you tell me otherwise - new args can be made in first two speeches, summary should not be new args (but can if they are answering a new argument, ie 1st speaking team makes an argument that directly answers a new arg made by 2nd speakers in the last constructive speech) in terms of extensions through to ff I don't think that saying something in grand is enough for me to weigh it at the end of the debate if you dont extend it through your last speech.

I will probably call for evidence. If you paraphrase, expect me to not treat your evidence with the same level of veracity as someone citing specific parts of their cards.

Fall 2014 Update:

As I am entering my second year of law school and have joined a law journal that focuses on critical race theory, I have discovered a rich tradition of legal scholarship that focuses on utilizing critical race theory as a tool to evaluate U.S. policies. Translating this to debate, I think this means that "clash of civs" debates are actually very important and can be quite interesting if done well. I am willing to hear any type of argument, just win that your form of engagement is more productive (or explain to me why that doesn't matter).

A second result of law school has been my shift away from radical disengagement. I spend my time now (what little free time law school affords me) trying to create scholarship that can bring critical attitudes to the establishment and produce social change. Again, translating this to debate, I think this means I have a preference for criticisms that are paired with actions rather than total disengagement.

GENERAL THOUGHTS

Note: I think this section is actually the most important, so read this first before going on to read what I think about specific arguments. Thanks!

-In-round spin > “read this after the round”

-I’ll vote on terminal defense in some cases. I can be persuaded there’s such a thing as proving the aff has 0% chance of solvency or there’s a 0% risk of the disad. 

-Write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR.

-Do what you’re best at! I think I’m in the room to adapt to you.

-No ink next to an argument doesn’t mean it’s “dropped” – if the other team conceptually answers an argument elsewhere in the debate, the argument was still answered.  

-paperless and jumping times: I generally don't count jumping time as part of prep time, but everyone should try to be efficient with jumping. If you start taking too long to jump things, I'll only stop prep once the jump drive is in the other team's hands. 

ARGUMENTS

Case: Mitigating the case’s impact can’t harm the negative, so why not do it? 

Topicality: I used to default to competing interpretations absent any arguments to the contrary by either team but now that I'm in law school, I've found that reasonableness probably makes more sense, though I can be persuaded otherwise. I don't particularly enjoy these debates, but I'll certainly vote if you win it. 

Theory: I’m probably fairly willing to pull the trigger on theory, assuming you have a clear interpretation, a clear violation of that interpretation by the other team, and reasons why you should win the debate because of that violation. Don’t let the explanations come from your blocks. 

DA: I reward specificity in these debates. When I can repeat your link analysis after the round to tell the aff specifically why they lost, you’re doing a good job.

CP: On questions of competition, I find myself leaning aff in situations where the CP could result in the entirety of the aff being put into action. Consult counterplans are probably cheating.

K: I’ll do my best to follow your theory, but I’m not extremely well-read in every single branch of philosophy. The brief summary of my history with the K is as follows: Zizek, (mostly Lacanian) psychoanalysis, Taoism, Anthropocentrism, Buddhism, Nietzschean pessimism, Baudrillard, Agamben. Make of that what you will. 

K affs: If you’re not going to defend implementation of the resolution, tell me why you're doing what you do and why that means you get the ballot.

Eric Lanning

I've been involved in policy debate for 15+ years as a debater and coach on the national circuit, including at the highest levels at the Tournament of Champions and National Debate Tournament.

I do my best to evaluate arguments based off what's said in the debate, but like anyone else I bring some preconceived notions about the activity and world that create "default" positions. I'll do my best to detail these below. I am very expressive and communicative and often provide "instant" feedback in the form of non-verbal expressions.

In general you should feel free to make whatever arguments you'd like! Debate is for the debaters and I will do my best to adapt to you.

I think the best debates are between two well researched opponents, and that predictable limits on the topic are important for in depth debate. I don't think that means the affirmative must necessarily defend "implementation by the federal government". I often find framework debates stale and difficult to resolve.

I am often quite skeptical of negative strategies that focus on multiple conditional counterplans or process counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive . I wish more affirmatives would object to the proliferation of 2-3 conditional advocacies and strongly believe that "rejecting the team, not the argument" is the appropriate remedy.

Impact framing is essential for all arguments, regardless of content/form. I almost always vote for the team who better frames "what is important" and explains how it interacts with other arguments. The magic words are "even if..." and "they say ... but". Winning 2NRs and 2ARs use these phrases to 'frame' the big picture of the debate.

While I will often ask to see a card document - I tend to default to the explanation/spin of debaters in the round. IE its very important for you to explain and compare evidence!

Dan Lingel Jesuit College Prep—Dallas

danlingel@gmail.com for email chain purposes

dlingel@jesuitcp.org for school contact

"Be smart. Be strategic. Tell your story. And above all have fun and you shall be rewarded."--the conclusion of my 1990 NDT Judging Philosophy

Updated for 2023-2024 topic
30 years of high school coaching/6 years of college coaching
I will either judge or help in the tabroom at over 20+ tournaments

****read here first*****
I still really love to judge and I enjoy judging quick clear confident comparative passionate advocates that use qualified and structured argument and evidence to prove their victory paths. I expect you to respect the game and the people that are playing it in every moment we are interacting.

***I believe that framing/labeling arguments and paper flowing is crucial to success in debate and maybe life so I will start your speaker points absurdly high and work my way up (look at the data) if you acknowledge and represent these elements: label your arguments (even use numbers and structure) and can demonstrate that you flowed the entire debate and that you used your flow to give your speeches and in particular demonstrate that you used your flow to actually clash with the other teams arguments directly.

Some things that influence my decision making process

1. Debate is first and foremost a persuasive activity that asks both teams to advocate something. Defend an advocacy/method and defend it with evidence and compare your advocacy/method to the advocacy of the other team. I understand that there are many ways to advocate and support your advocacy so be sure that you can defend your choices. I do prefer that the topic is an access point for your advocacy.

2. The negative should always have the option of defending the status quo (in other words, I assume the existence of some conditionality) unless argued otherwise.

3. The net benefits to a counterplan must be a reason to reject the affirmative advocacy (plan, both the plan and counterplan together, and/or the perm) not just be an advantage to the counterplan.

4. I enjoy a good link narrative since it is a critical component of all arguments in the arsenal—everything starts with the link. I think the negative should mention the specifics of the affirmative plan in their link narratives. A good link narrative is a combination of evidence, analytical arguments, and narrative.

5. Be sure to assess the uniqueness of offensive arguments using the arguments in the debate and the status quo. This is an area that is often left for judge intervention and I will.

6. I am not the biggest fan of topicality debates unless the interpretation is grounded by clear evidence and provides a version of the topic that will produce the best debates—those interpretations definitely exist this year. Generally speaking, I can be persuaded by potential for abuse arguments on topicality as they relate to other standards because I think in round abuse can be manufactured by a strategic negative team.

7. I believe that the links to the plan, the impact narratives, the interaction between the alternative and the affirmative harm, and/or the role of the ballot should be discussed more in most kritik debates. The more case and topic specific your kritik the more I enjoy the debate. Too much time is spent on framework in many debates without clear utility or relation to how I should judge the debate.

8. There has been a proliferation of theory arguments and decision rules, which has diluted the value of each. The impact to theory is rarely debating beyond trite phrases and catch words. My default is to reject the argument not the team on theory issues unless it is argued otherwise.

9. Speaker points--If you are not preferring me you are using old data and old perceptions. It is easy to get me to give very high points. Here is the method to my madness on this so do not be deterred just adapt. I award speaker points based on the following: strategic and argumentative decision-making, the challenge presented by the context of the debate, technical proficiency, persuasive personal and argumentative style, your use of the cross examination periods, and the overall enjoyment level of your speeches and the debate. If you devalue the nature of the game or its players or choose not to engage in either asking or answering questions, your speaker points will be impacted. If you turn me into a mere information processor then your points will be impacted. If you choose artificially created efficiency claims instead of making complete and persuasive arguments that relate to an actual victory path then your points will be impacted.

10. I believe in the value of debate as the greatest pedagogical tool on the planet. Reaching the highest levels of debate requires mastery of arguments from many disciplines including communication, argumentation, politics, philosophy, economics, and sociology to name a just a few. The organizational, research, persuasion and critical thinking skills are sought by every would-be admission counselor and employer. Throw in the competitive part and you have one wicked game. I have spent over thirty years playing it at every level and from every angle and I try to make myself a better player everyday and through every interaction I have. I think that you can learn from everyone in the activity how to play the debate game better. The world needs debate and advocates/policymakers more now than at any other point in history. I believe that the debates that we have now can and will influence real people and institutions now and in the future—empirically it has happened. I believe that this passion influences how I coach and judge debates.


Logistical Notes--I prefer an email chain with me included whenever possible. I feel that each team should have accurate and equal access to the evidence that is read in the debate. I have noticed several things that worry me in debates. People have stopped flowing and paying attention to the flow and line-by-line which is really impacting my decision making; people are exchanging more evidence than is actually being read without concern for the other team, people are under highlighting their evidence and "making cards" out of large amounts of text, and the amount of prep time taken exchanging the information is becoming excessive. I reserve the right to request a copy of all things exchanged as verification. If three cards or less are being read in the speech then it is more than ok that the exchange in evidence occur after the speech.

Been involved with the game in some way since 2008, do as you wish and I shall evaluate it in the way that I feel requires the least interference from myself.

Put me on the chain please: debate.emails@gmail.com, for the most part I do not look at the documents other than some cursory glances during prep time if a card intrigues me. I still may ask for specific cards at the end of the debate so I do not need to sort through each document, I appreciate it in advance.

I believe that debate is a communication activity with an emphasis on persuasion. If you are not clear or have not extended all components of an argument (claim/warrant/implication) it will not factor into my decision.

I flow on paper, it is how I was taught and I think it helps me retain more information and be more present in debates. Given that I would appreciate yall slowing down and giving me pen time on counterplan texts and theory arguments (as well as permutations).

The most important thing in debates for me is to establish a framework for how (and why) I should evaluate impacts. I am often left with two distinct impacts/scenarios at the end of the debate without any instruction on how to assess their validity vis-à-vis one another or which one to prioritize. The team that sets this up early in the debate and filtering the rebuttals through it often gets my ballot. I believe that this is not just true of “clash” debates but is (if not even more) an important component of debates where terminal impacts are the same but their scenarios are not (ie two different pathways to nuclear war/extinction).

While I think that debate is best when the affirmative is interacting with the resolution in some way I have no sentiment about how this interaction need to happen nor a dogmatic stance that 1AC’s have a relation to the resolution. I have voted for procedural fairness and have also voted for the impact turns. Despite finding myself voting more and more for procedural fairness I am much more persuaded by fairness as an internal link rather than terminal impact. Affirmative’s often beat around the bush and have trouble deciding if they want to go for the impact turn or the middle ground, I think picking a strategy and going for it will serve you best. A lot of 2NRs squander very good block arguments by not spending enough time (or any) at the terminal impact level, please don’t be those people. I also feel as if most negative teams spend much time reading definitions in the 1NC and do not utilize them later in the debate even absent aff counter definitions which seems like wasted 1NC time. While it does not impact how I evaluate the flow I do reward teams with better speaker points when they have unique and substantive framework takes beyond the prewritten impact turn or clash good blocks that have proliferated the game (this is also something you should be doing to counter the blocktastic nature of modern framework debates).

It would behove many teams and debaters to extend their evidence by author name in the 2NR/2AR. I tend to not read a large amount of evidence and think the trend of sending out half the 1AC/1NC in the card document is robbing teams of a fair decision, so narrowing in and extending the truly relevant pieces of evidence by author name increases both my willingness to read those cards and my confidence that you have a solid piece of evidence for a claim rather than me being asked to piece together an argument from a multitude of different cards.

Prep time ends when the email has been sent (if for some reason you still use flash drives then when the drive leaves the computer). In the past few years so much time is being spent saving documents, gathering flows, setting up a stand etc. that it has become egregious and ultimately feel limits both decision time and my ability to deliver criticism after the round. Limited prep is a huge part of what makes the activity both enjoyable and competitive. I said in my old philosophy that policing this is difficult and I would not go out of my way to do it, however I will now take the extra time beyond roadmaps/speech time into account when I determine speaker points.

I find myself frustrated in debates where the final rebuttals are only about theory. I do not judge many of these debates and the ones I have feel like there is an inevitable modicum of judge intervention. While I have voted for conditonality bad several times, personally my thought on condo is "don't care get better."

Plan-text writing has become a lost art and should invite negative advocacy attrition and/or substantive topicality debates.

Feel free to email or ask any questions before or after the debate. Above all else enjoy the game you get to play and have fun.

-------------------

Experience:

Competitor-- Winston Churchill (2008-2012)

Assistant Coaching--

Past: Jenks (2012-2015) Reagan (2015-2017) Winston Churchill (2018-2023)

Currently: Texas (2017-present)

I am a traditional stock issues judge. I am not a fan of counterplans or kritiks. I will vote on them if they are applicable to the round. I will also consider theoretical arguments as well. I believe that Debate is first and foremost a communication event. Therefore, speed is ok but if you notice that I am not taking notes/flowing that means the argument doesn't exist for me.

Current coach/DOF at Lindale High School.

For email chains: mckenziera @ lisdeagles.net

CX - This is where I have spent the majority of my time judging. While I am comfortable judging any type of round, my preference is a more traditional round. Debate rounds that are more progressive (kritikal affs, performance, etc...) are totally fine, but you'll do best to slow down and go for depth over breadth here. I think that judges are best when they adapt to the round in front of them. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

LD - Despite judging policy debate most, I was raised in a traditional value and criterion centric area. Still, I think that policy debates in LD are valuable. See my notes above about progressive argumentation. They're fine, but you'll probably need to do a few things to make it more digestible for me. Again, though, you do you. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

PF - I judge only a few PF rounds a year. I'm not up-to-date on the trends that may be occurring. I naturally struggle with the time restraints in PF. I generally feel like teams often go for breadth instead of depth, which I think makes debate blippy and requires more judge intervention. I'd rather not hear 20 "cards" in a four minute speech. Framework is the most reliable way to construct a ballot. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

Congress - Speeches should have structure, refutation, research, and style. Jerky Parliamentary Procedure devalues your position in the round.

Speech - Structure and content are valued equally. I appreciate, next, things that make you stand out in a positive way.

Interp - Should have a purpose/function. There's a social implication behind a lot of what we perform. I value great introductions and real characters.

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.

Ben Mitchell
Kinkaid 09-13
University of Texas 13-17
Currently coaching Austin SFA

While debating for Kinkaid I spoke all four speaker positions. On the negative, I both extended and went for a variety of arguments, from topicality to politics to conditions to psychoanalysis. On the affirmative I have read both hard right affs and more critical affs while still defending a plan text.

1. While debating, my coaches would always tell us "have fun, be smart, and debate well," and if forced to choose, I would chose the first. As a debater, I found the being smart and debating well were frequently positively correlated with how much fun I was having. And as a judge, if you're having fun, I find the debate more engaging and am likely to reward that with higher speaker points. A corollary of this is be nice. Very few things hurt your ethos more than when you're unnecessarily mean to your opponents and/or your partner. You don't all have to be best friends, but it also shouldn't feel like a war zone.
2. For the Oceans topic - I've judged the grapevine tournament, the greenhill round robin, and the greenhill tournament proper. I was not involved, however, in summer camp on the oceans topic, so outside of the aff's I've seen I know fairly little about the topic. If you're reading some hyper specific strategy on the neg or a small squirrely aff assume a fairly low level of background knowledge on my part. Try to be extra crisp on explanation, if you do so I will be happier and more likely to vote for you.
3. While I have done all speaker positions, I've found that when reading evidence and evaluating rounds I can sometimes think like a 2N. This is something I try to avoid as much as possible, however it still lingers. What does this mean for you as a debater though? I find that my 2N tendencies come about most in rounds where the final rebuttals include very little evidence comparison or impact analysis, and I'm left to decide with very little weighing mechanisms provided by both teams. If either the 2nr or the 2ar are able to provide me with a lens to view the debate (try or die, timeframe, which impacts control the escalation of others, filtering the entire link debate through the permutation, necessary vs sufficient, etc.) then I will be much more sympathetic to their position, less likely to intervene, and more likely to vote for them.
4. Evidence is not necessary or sufficient to make arguments. Many positions can be mitigated substantially by pointing out logical inconsistencies or reading ununderlined portions of the cards, and cross-x is probably the best time to set this up. Similarly, if all you do in the 2ar is tell me that X piece of evidence is super hot and I should call for it after the round without explaining its warrants or impacting it, you have not made an argument, and would have been better off substituting that for analytics.


I find myself judging clash of civilization debates fairly often. It's safe to assume that I would always prefer to hear a negative strategy that attempts to engage the affirmative in these debates, however I am sympathetic to the framework position and am willing to pull the trigger if I think the negative has done a better job in that debate.


Speaker Points

Basic rundown of how I view speaker points
29 and up = I think you should be top few speakers
28.7-28.9 = Impressive debating, high speaker award, definitely should clear
28.4-28.6 = Few technical problems, in the running for clearing
28-28.3 = A number of technical problems, still excecuted a coherent strategy
Paperless

You should have a viewing computer available if the other team needs one
If your computer crashes, we can stop the debate, however I highly encourage you flash your speeches to your partner and will be marginally impressed if you can do a smooth transition in the event of your computer shutting down

Prep
You don't need to take prep to flash, please don't abuse that privilege though
Pleaseeee keep track of your own prep, I'm lazy and usually won't write it down

William P. Clements High School (Sugar Land, TX) 2006-2007 - Student
William B. Travis High School (Richmond, TX) 2008-2010 - Captain
Trinity University (San Antonio, TX) 2010-2012 - Student
Legacy of Educational Excellence (LEE) High School (San Antonio, TX) 2011-2012 - Assistant Coach
Texas State University (San Marcos, TX) 2013-2015 - Student/Coach
Westwood High School (Austin, TX) Spring 2016 - Consultant
George Ranch High School (Richmond, TX) Spring 2019 - Assistant Coach
Challenge Early College High School (Houston, TX) 2019-2020 - Interim Coach
Westbury High School (Houston, TX) 2021-2023 - Assistant Director/Coach
Lamar High School (Houston, TX) 2024-Present - Interim Head Coach
I list these because I think institutional affiliations inevitably inform pedagogical perspectives. I make an effort learn from every coach, teammate, and student I've ever been in association with.

Speaks range from 26-30, I'll only go further down if you're really unclear.

Debate is supposed to start off Tabula Rasa, so substantiate your a priori arguments and let them clash if they can. I'm not going to tell you how to debate and how to approach getting my ballot, because you should know how to win if you bothered looking this up. Do what you're comfortable doing. Go for winning arguments and be tactical with your ballot/flow strategy. I don't count flash for prep. Both sides generally should seek to engage in the discourse of the debate in front of them, not be overtly focused on reading prewritten extensions.

Speed - If it's not understandable, I'll yell clear. Otherwise, go as fast as you want (for L/D and C-X).

Theory - use it in accordance to the event. I won't mix L/D with C-X theory, etc. and as a result will invalidate the shell itself on the ballot unless you substantiate it with the standing of the current debate. I will take theory arguments substantiated on debate format, so be weary of being something the debate isn't meant for.

Kritiks - Make sure your link story is somewhat sound or you'll be disappointed with my RFD and what I gave your opponent the benefit of the doubt for. Have an alternative that is not just a default position and allows your opponent to interact with the discourse of the kritik. I won't assume any given ground, so unwarranted claims only hurt your own link-chain and its chances of getting upped.

Non-Round Voting Issues - I instruct my students to use self-created cards targeting invitational debaters, so I will only wash your argument if you fluff it up and attempt to run a nonsensical persuasive position when you know you can't actually win the argument. I can also never be repped out to look the other way. If you don't do your work in the round, I'll vote you down now matter what school you come from or how much winning has been a given for you. That being said, who your coach is or what school you come from has no impact on my ballot, so never think you've won my ballot based on the pairing.

Been asked to clarify what things are in my realm of nonsensical persuasive positions: disclosure, speed, tricks. You set the norms of this community by debating the way you want to debate, not consuming your speech time saying how you want to debate; there's a difference between this and substantive metadebate. Having said that, I don't care for the trend to willfully lie to your judge about ethical reality unless your framing allows for it just for me to draw a blippy arrow on the flow, so you could say I'm truth over tech because I actually want to see debate happen and not you reading the same thing no matter what the topic is without finding how you link to any of the ground.

L/D
The framework debate is a cop-out for most judges; I refuse to be one of those judges, but at the very least run a standard of some sort. If you win the impact analysis as a whole, you've won the debate...it's that simple. That being said, your storyline needs to stay consistent to follow your big picture or I'm not gonna buy what's inconsistent to your on-case. You can win the line-by-line, but it won't make any sense if you don't stick to your side's burdens and presumptions. Aff, Burden of Proof; Neg, Burden of Rejoined Clash; and both sides have a discourse burden. I presume the other way when these burdens aren't upheld/fulfilled, no matter how the debate boils down even in technical terms and theory nor will I care how many voters you decide to put out there. I spent a majority of my high school career in this format, so I want things done the right way regardless of if you're traditional or progressive; I, myself, self-identified as neotraditional. I dread definition debates, please don't make it one.

C-X
I will accept almost anything except blatant abuse. Fulfill your inherent burdens. Make an attempt to set up stock issues properly; it's fine if you don't, just make sure it's implied somewhere in the constructive that you have each covered in the constructive in some manner. Have a cogent storyline on-case that keeps to consistent stance or it's going to be difficult to know what to vote off of, most of your disads will link against the on-case anyways so it's not a huge concern. It's called Cross-Examination Debate, Cross-Examination is binding including flex prep. It helps to tell me how you want things weighed and what you think is important; there's so much content to evaluate and it makes the decision easier if I knew where your direction was going. Use your impact calculus and don't make it a line-by-line wash, the debate just gets dull and boring.

PF
This was the very first format that started me on my debate journey way back in 2006, so my paradigm feels oddly traditional to most competitors. Keep your debate stuff from other formats out of it; call crossfire by its name or just say cross, it's not cross-examination. Both sides have the same burdens. No Kritiks, No Plans, public forum is not the place for progressive style; I will not accept open crosses or flex prep, I will down you for spreading. I don't want to hear a definition/T debate; if your opponent is abusing framer's intent, call them out on it and substantiate it devoid of jargon so you can make it a ballot issue. Solvency deficits don't exist in the debate, you're fishing for terminal defense if you're making a solvency argument. I prefer Logical Analysis/Reasoning over cards because I want you to make your own argument, not someone else's. If you favor line-by-line too greatly, you will be disappointed with my ballot. Crossfire activity/decorum/momentum is my most common ballot tiebreaker. Funnel your arguments down as the debate goes into later stages. Be civil but entertaining and have fun. Just stick to what Public Forum Debate was originally supposed to be and you've fit my paradigm.

Congress
My rankings typically go: speech quality first, chamber command/involvement/knowledge second, C-X frequency/quality third. These do become more fluid when decorum gets messed with too much. The higher quality the room, the lower the PO will usually rank: POs have a relatively easy time getting through my prelim chambers if they know what they're doing but a much more difficult time not straddling the break line after. In speech quality, I look at content, fluency, structure all equally. I'm a relatively lax scorer or parliamentarian, but I value inclusivity in the chamber above gamifying whomever is in the chamber; if I sense favoritism of any kind, along school lines or not, my ballots WILL reflect how egregious it was: as much as you feel like you've gotten away with it in front of other judges, you won't with me.

WS
My love for this activity wasn't cultivated through this event, but this event, as well as other parliamentary formats, were by far what I was best at on the college level. As such, I have lost count of how many times I've been in your position as well as chaired rounds. I have personally represented the United States on a handful of occasions in this format, so I actively evaluate what I want to see from American debaters skill-set-wise to give us the best opportunity to win on international stages. This format is THE definitive way to debate outside of the United States, so I expect your rhetorical representation of the American perspective to be legitimately credible and well-founded if you were to debate anywhere else in the world. As such, you should check any communication mannerisms that convey ego at the door: this is format forces us Americans to take on rhetorical positions of humility, not brashness.
I will flow just as intensely as I do for any other debate, but I'm actively looking at the line-by-line to evaluate the least of any debate. Even though I lean towards the big picture in every style, I'm a tab judge through-and-through, even in this style. Your strategy score is determined by the skill in which you apply your content and how it's tactically used on your side of the aisle. The comprehensibility of the prop model is something I evaluate using a common sense / eyeball rule: don't come in with a full-blown policy implementation and expect that to make sense when this debate interrogates more of the why of a social action than the what or how.
I like teamwork and a consistent storyline down the bench. Generally speaking, you should enter the debate with conversational yet intellectually genuine rhetoric and implement strategy in a way the average academic could understand (avoid jargon in favor of adding more backing to a warrant). Cross-Application is great because the debate turns into mush without reaching across the table for resolutional dispositon; try to avoid introducing New Matter during 3rd speaker speeches unless it has a direct application to an argument across the aisle. I will enforce Rules of Order and will let you know if I feel you missed a trigger warning / did anything problematic during round. Final/reply speeches should aim for resolutionmore than voting issues.

***Rambling on the state of high school WSD***

There is something fundamentally broken about the way our conceptions of this event get warped into an American-schools debate by forcing a reward for taking such hard-lined positions to delineate offense that loses all semblance, meaning, and nuance in a lot of debate spaces making honest attempts at implementing post-resolutional analysis at a high level. Taking something at its highest ground has lost most meaning because it's normalized to teach students to utilize the phrase in the space without real application. In my view, it's to the extent most individuals born last century have fundamentally flawed judging habits they default to if their intercultural competency hinges on simplistic guidelines like "you can't be as America-focused" or "you have to explain to me why X ontological harm exists" (when said harm is intuitive to the motion). These types of binaries are what's turning this format into something disgusting and the reason why the international debate community jests us for our interpretation of how to do this style of debate. With all that in mind, I make a concerted effort to not be an old-head and meet you on the level you want frame your ground in, because mimicry into emulating majoritarian styles of debate is why this format has failed to catch on stateside until now to begin with [since it tends to be complicit towards an insidious sort of cultural stigmatization]. The subjectivity of this event should be guided through rhetoric, not mincing default evaluative tools from other formats. I scarcely see any evaluators whose background stays in other events actually get this right. My recognition and criticism of this factor ought to secure I try not to make those mistakes, but if you come from a program that encourages the race-to-the-bottom methodology which functionally values novelty on an intrinsic level as the modus operandi, I'll flow things the way you want me to but I'm not going to be happy about it. Predictability serves zero good for the debate if you're dancing around the spirit of the motion, but that's exactly how degenerative (as opposed to restorative) pedagogical perspectives on this debate manifest themselves which, sadly, is becoming the norm. I wasn't actually able to contextualize this take until I started to see my own students' ballots with written feedback containing coded language for political bias or xenophobia.

***rambling over***

Plats/Speaking
Speech cohesion is a huge thing that can push you over the top, floating attention-getting devices make your approach feel canned or ill-composed. I'm a stickler for structure and look heavily at time management. I hover around 7-11 sources as my ideal in most events. These events are about balancing on a tightrope between content density and entertainment value, your speech shouldn't have to tradeoff between the two if you put proper care into it.

Interp/Performance
Blocking & Spacing are the most objective measure for how refined your piece is, so I evaluate the choices you made with the piece moreso than the content you chose. There is a certain level of gesturing and facial control that can push you over the top, but those are minor details compared to how you're creating tone/mood with what you cut and the way you're delivering lines. Character shifts should be apparent but not jarring to how you've presented yourself. Don't let your theming emphasis be unclear to make a scene with more gravity hit harder, it feels really cheap.

You're supposed to debate because you enjoy it, keep that in mind and have some level sportsmanship.

Updated 04/28/2024

Email: msyesha@gmail.com

1. I’m fine with speed, just be clear.

2. Kritiks and kritikal affs are fine (not my favorite) but make sure to explain everything because I don’t read K literature in my free time nor did I debate the K in high school.

3. I love Disads (especially politics) and CPs (except for abusive ones)

4. I like good Topicality debates but please don’t just reread your 1NC/2AC standards in rebuttals. I’ll default competing interpretations but if you debate it right, I can do reasonability. I give the aff a lot of leeway in terms of T.

5. I love theory debates so feel free to go for conditionality, international fiat, 50 state fiat, anything really where the negative is abusive.

6. Other things: I’ll look at tech over truth.

There’s always at least a 1% risk of the DA

If the neg goes for CP+DA and I think the DA outweighs the case, I’ll kick the CP for the neg

Edits - minor 11/13/14

Director of Speech & Debate - University of Houston

Previously coaching at (Iowa, Miami (Ohio), Wake Forest)

As of the 2014 Shirley - I have judged (according to Debateresults + tabroom):

475 - College Debates

I have voted AFF in 226 of those debates (47.5%)

I have voted NEG in 249 of those debates (52.4%)

First rule of judging - judging is subjective. 
Second rule of judging - get over it. 

Judge philosophies are in fact an attempt to compensate for this inevitably subjective activity. We try to minimize personal opinions, but in the end who you vote for is more than often related to how you feel and the style of the debaters as much as it is about any particular argument. You have to convince the judge (me) to vote for you. This is as subjective as really any other activity. 

T - A paradox - I am a bad judge for T. I love T debates. 

Competing interpretations doesn't make much sense to me because the aff can't win on T. Reasonability is largely good (I am not a good judge for trivial interpretations like "and/or means both") - see above re: subjectivity. Reasonability is also a good answer to most affirmative theory complaints.

Legal topics are ideal for T debates, given that the law is all about definition. I find these questions interesting, but in order to win on T with me as a judge, you typically need to have insightful argument and some decent evidence about the educational harm (and not just to negative ground) of the affirmative's interpretation. These arguments, of course, can take many forms, but be careful.

Avoid specification arguments. Please. While implementation might be 90% of whatever, ASPEC is still not a reason to reject the affirmative. 

I think T is an important check against non-topical affs, you have to read a plan and defend the federal government and your plan, reading the resolutions does not seem to be enough. Switch-side debate is a good thing. 

Framework/Non-plan Topicality arguments - 

Framework debates are not fun. I judge them a lot.I think that these debates have both gotten stale and also very detached from the actual arguments at hand. Both sides would do well to connect their arguments to the actual positions relevant to their debate. My previous statements about reasonability tend to apply in these questions as well. A small advantage to an very limiting interpretation is often not enough for me to justify a ballot. 

The best framework debates don't read the Shively card.

My suggestion is to try to have a good interpretation that takes the middle ground, this will make me much more sympathetic and open to listening to your arguments. A violation is often overlooked by both sides, but is often where the crux of the decision lies - don't neglect this (or the "we meet")

Theory – I think in general most aff theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument not the team. That means theory is rarely rarely a voting issue for me.

Conditionality - I think conditionality is a good and necessary thing. Dispositionality is not a thing. I am open to kicking CPs on my own (without the encouragement of the negative) - I do indeed possess that power.

PICS (or whatever) is not a reason to reject the team, only the position, in these cases if the CP goes away the aff would still win. 

International agent fiat, in some cases, may be a legitimate test of the necessity of USFG action.

50 State Fiat - eh?

Disads – Politics DAs are my favorite.

I won’t vote on 1% risk.

Magnitude and probability are far more important than timeframe.

"DA turns the case" by itself is not a full argument.

Also "DA turns the case" is often wrong, the DA impact must complicate the aff's ability to solve or access the internal link to the impact, not just be the same impact. The aff should point this out. 

Don't read a bunch of new impacts in the block unless you've got a real reason to do so. Most teams won't have a reason beyond, we didn't feel like answering their arguments.

Case debate. I think debate should be more in depth debating of the specifics of an aff, I will reward hard work and understanding on the topic, which is often demonstrated in good case debating. The more specific your strategy is, the better.

Reading impact defense to all of their impacts does not count as a case debate (maybe necessary, but certainly not sufficient).

There are rules for debating the case - http://goo.gl/FliJY The treaties topic was awesome because of case debates. 

CPs – Most are good. I really like a smart advantage CP. Consult CPs and Condition CPs are cheating. How much cheating? It depends. See above on theory. 

Ks - 

Critiques are often times strategic and I also think can be won very easily because the aff doesn’t attack the argument at its weaknesses. Weakness include, the alternative, the links to the aff (and not to the law, society, etc), other stuff. I often end up voting for Ks when the aff fails to contest these issues.

Framework arguments are usually underdeveloped on off-case Ks, this makes me not vote on these arguments.

Like any other argument, it has to be well explained. I also have an inherent distaste for generic backfile Ks (or consult CPs or Framework ....) that you have resurrected year after year because you were too lazy to do any work. I like debating new topics, don’t just cut one new Zizek book and consider your work done. 

As an academic, I think I know a bit about critical theory and so forth -as a rhetorician there are things I like by trade - critiques of rhetoric, language and discourse, well executed understandings of theory, that is to say criticism of actual instances of things that are objectionable. Things that I don't like (or understand very well) include vague psychoanalytic theory (ie Zizek) or rabbit-holes of very complicated post-structuralism - the event of the non-part or something. 

Other things – I don’t like reading a lot of cards after the debate, although I know I will at times, I change my mind on this every couple of months. Right now, I'll probably skim a lot of cards and read some carefully.

I will also probably be open to getting emailed your evidence during the debate, but won't really want to look at it until the end of the debate. Maybe during CX or prep to figure out something I missed. Maybe. I do think it is incumbent on the teams in the debate to communicate to the judge verbally, not via email.

If I have to reconstruct the debate I might not see it like you think it happened. The final speeches MUST do this for me. 

I've taken to answering some questions in CX, particularly informative questions, especially if I think an answer might be confusing. How many perms? I'll answer. If you are just wrong about something, I might say something. 

I'm very emotive during debates, you should look up and see if I'm scowling or nodding, this can be a clue (to what? I don't know, but to something).

Underviews are the worst thing ever. 

I also think the 1NR should not be used to make new arguments. It is a rebuttal not a constructive.

Terms that have lost meaning to me - "Role of the Ballot," "the debate space" (more later)

Speaker Points – I think I give fairly good points, simply because I think most debaters deserve a chance at clearing if they have the wins.

My scale goes something like this;

26.5 and below – bad debating,

26.6 - 27 - Needs a lot of work,

27 -27.5 – average, but has a way to go,

27.5-28 - better than average, some things to work on,

28-28.5 – Good varsity debating.

28.6 - 29 - Very good - should be in contention for a speaker award.

29-29.5 – Excellent debating 

29.6 - 29.9 - Almost Gabe.

30 – Gabe

I will punish your speaker points for lack of clarity, rudeness, or inappropriate language (these issues could also result in a loss). 

I think clipping is bad, though I'm not sure what the threshold is to warrant a ballot. These questions stop the debate. If you are making an accusation of cheating, I will decide the debate on that question. You need to be fairly certain to make this kind of claim, so be ready to explain.

I like to say that I am tab and I do my best to judge the round via the flow, but I realize we all have biases of one degree or another. Therefore I will try to explain how I think to help you evaluate if you would like me to be the judge in the back of the room.

Some background. I attended Miller High School in Corpus Christi, TX. For those of you unfamiliar with Corpus Christi. In my day it was known as the "ghetto" school where the "hood" and "bario" intersect. I debated LD for 4 years in high school from 1987-1991. In 1991, I was the top speaker and quarterfinalist at TFA state.

Currently, I own a wealth management firm in Corpus Christi and have a radio show called "Fit to Retire". I have two sons that have participated in debate for the last 7 years mainly in policy. This is who I have voted for President; 1992 Bill Clinton, 1996 Bill Clinton, 2000 Al Gore, 2004 John Kerry, 2008 John McCain, 2012 Mitt Romney, 20016 Donald Trump. I tend to vote Republican, but consider my real political ideology to be libertarian.

LD philosophy

I like traditional value, criterion, contention level debate.

I like critical arguments. With this said, please know that I am strong believer in capitalism and freedom. However I have found that I often vote up critical arguments because the debaters running them have typically debated better.

I am not a fan of theory unless true abuse is occurring. I really do not like debates about debate. I think the appropriate place for changing norms in the space is the rules committee not the debate round. With that said I will vote for theory, but it has a higher burden. If a debater runs theory and has a claim, warrant and impact on the flow and blows it up in the rebuttal, I will probably vote on it.

I am fine with LARP, but I could be persuaded by theory that policy does not have a place in the world of LD.

I am fine with CP's, PIC's, and PIK's, but I want to know what the net benefit is.

Arguments = claim + warrant + impact

Cards do not equal warrants. Warrants justify the claim. Impacts tell me why and how the claim is important to the resolution and our world.

The easiest way to when a round in front of me is comparative worlds. Tell me what the world of the AFF and the world of the NEG look like. Tell me why I would prefer to live in the world that you are advocating for over the world of your opponent’s advocacy.

My kids have told me that I need to disclose how I flow. I typically do not flow tags. I flow warrants. I often find that the tag vs. how the card is cut is different. Therefore I am flowing the warrant coming out of the card instead of the tag that is being used.

I am not a fan of prewritten overviews. I would really prefer to see the time spent analyzing and impacting the arguments that are on the flow. I love contextualization in the round.

I do listen to CX. I love when CX is brought into the round. When you extend and argument, please do not just say extend the Butler 12 evidence against my opponents 3rd contention, But tell me what the 3rd contention is and why the Butler evidence refutes or turns your opponent's argument.

17 years of debate exp.

Former college debater/coach, NDT octofinals. Last 3 to 4 years coaching public forum in China.
I was a K debater in college 2007-2012, but I'm more likely to think topic relevance matters if its not plan passage. I've been all over the ideological spectrum debate wise I think.

Top-level: 4 years of high school policy in Houston, occasional judge on local Houston circuit. Topic knowledge will rarely be in-depth and nuanced, but I am comfortable with general policy tech. My biggest priority is the flow, and how arguments interact on the flow. Thus, I am a huge fan of direct, efficient line-by-line. Overall, debate what you're comfortable with; while I would prefer a more policy-oriented round, kritiks/performance/whatever is fine and I would urge you not to compromise your strengths.

T - Fine. I feel like this is dependent on the topic, and since I have little topic-specific knowledge, I most likely would default aff unless it was especially egregious of a violation. 

DA's/CP's - The more case-specific, the better. Probably my favorite option (DA/case or CP/DA) if done well, but I will heavily rely on the flow to make decisions. 

K's- Great! I think more and more debaters have become proficient at kritik debating on both sides, and I find these debates much more interesting and thought-provoking as an intellectual. I don't have the most expertise in kritik debating, so I would appreciate elaboration and explanation at all points of the round as necessary, something that should be a priority anyways.

Theory - I'm fine with theory, but not fine with the speed at which theory is usually vomited out. I would rather you slow down especially on theory if you're going to make substantial and real theoretical objections.

At the very core, I am a flow judge - regardless of the topic, I can always rely on the flow to tell me who won/didn't lose. By extension, you need to tell me who won or lost so that it can get to the flow. Whether this means impact comparison or role of the ballot arguments, tell me explicitly.

Misc. - Speed is fine, prep ends when flash exits, open/closed CX at discretion of debaters. 

I debated for 4 years for Clear Lake H.S., reaching 5 TOC Bid Rounds in total and graduating in 2015. I debated frequently on the Texas Circuit and National Circuit, and am pretty well-versed in the nuances of debate. That is, I will be able to make sense of most of what you say. However, that being said, I am now not actively debating or coaching, which means I will probably be unnfamiiliar with the particualr vocabulary surrounding this year's topic and please take that into account by explaining these terms to me. Secondarily, as new judges will tell you, please enunciate tags; listening to spreading as a judge takes a bit of getting used to.

As for particular parardigmatic choices, my philosophy mostly aligns with that of Alex Miles, Layne Kirshon, or other debaters from Northwestern University, so if you need specifics, please read those paradigms. But in general, I believe that tech > truth in every case. I vote on what is presented to me in a debate round, and try to discount ideology from the decision as much as possible. All I require is that I can understand the argument.  I tried to embody this during my debate career, going for arguments as wide as Coloniality, Psychoanalysis, as well as Framework and the Politics DA on the negative, and reading Natural Gas Exports and Drug Cartel Money Laundering affirmatives, as well as an affirmative about exploring intersectionality in the Indian Ocean historic spaces. I'm also much, much more likely to vote on Ks than anyone from Northwestern would be, given I actively used and debated against them in my career. 

Also, with the myriad of awful DAs that I have seen, I would like to say that zero-risk of a DA is hard to reach, but certainly not impossible and terrible DAs can usually be taken out with simple analytical observations. 

I hate the "1% Risk Means You Vote X" line of impact comparison, but if the opposing team doesn't point out the flaws in the argument, I will have no choice but to evaluate it. 

I'm absolutely fine with "non-traditional" affirmatives that don't defend the federal government, but be prepared to defend T/FW. It's a real debate and competitive equity can be an impact if implicated by the other team. 

If you have specific questions feel free to ask me in round. 

Explain your arguments and have fun!

I am Dyspolity@gmail.com on email chains.

NSDA update:

I love judging here. Principally this is because the schools who compete the most robust circuits have to slow down and I get to be a meaningful participant in the debates. I am not fast enough to judge the TOC circuit and even my home circuit, TFA can have me out over my skis trying to follow. But here, my experience has been that the very best schools adapt to the format by slowing their roll and this allows me to viscerally enjoy the beauty and rigor of their advocacy. Do not confuse my pace limitations with cognitive limits.

Who I am:

Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.

I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools and currently I coach at Athens in East Texas. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments.

I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.

Likes:

Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.

Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is almost never one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.

Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.

Dislikes:

Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.

Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?

Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.

Circuit level speed.

I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.

Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you are functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.

One More Concern:

There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.

Policy Debate:

I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.

LD Debate:

Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.

I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.

PF Debate:

I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.

Congress:

1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. 3)I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. 4)If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. 5) Your language choices should reflect scholarship. 6) All debate is about the resolution of substantive issues central to some controversy, as such clash is critical.