Tab judge so run anything you’d like as long as its nothing offensive ie impact turns to oppression. I don’t default to anything so all arguments must be communicated clearly in the round including the implications of those arguments. Spreading is fine but slow down and be extra clear on tag lines and author names. If you have any specific questions just ask me before the round.

Affiliations:
Former Los Alamos High School Debater, Debate Coach for Los Alamos.

General Notes:

Disads - Yup. Not much you say other than if you are running one I expect a polished link story and impact comparisons.

Counter Plans - really like them, but I especially love country plan theory. Process, conditional, delay, word pic, are all fine assuming you can win the theory side of the debate.

Kritiks - love them when they are done well. Really enjoy good kritik frameworks, and unique and interesting permutations and answers. Generally dislike pure rejection alts, need a tangible alternative. Not super familiar with Queer or Afro Pess, run them at your own risk.

Theory / T - fine with it, but don't expect me to stay interested if your strat is 9 off all on T.

Performance - Fine by me as long as it can be related to the topic.

Things I dislike:
Evasive Cross-x get to the point defend your position. Don't be rude.
Role of the ballot - find that these are generally a disservice to the advocacy, are generic, and boring.

James Allen
Hallsville '9-'13
University of Texas - Arlington '13-'17

I competed extensively on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits in North, East and South Texas as well as the TOC. Given the meta of that judging pool and its exceptionally diverse preferences on various aspects of debate, I highly value debaters' versatility and adaptability in meeting judges where they are most comfortable adjudicating rounds. Despite this, I believe my paradigm is more adaptable to debaters than is typical because I adjudicate based on what participants have to say, not on whether their content more closely aligns with my assumptions on a given topic. I frequently endorse debaters whose argumentation exhibits effectiveness and efficiency even though I might disagree with the logic of a particular argument.

Thusly, I am not predisposed to reject any particular stylistic elements of argumentation.

On that note, I do have certain predispositions given my experiences:

I consider myself tabula rasa. Lacking discussion on framework/paradigmatic theory, I will default policymaker/comparative worlds. Clarify before the round if necessary.

Topicality- Please shell and make flowing easy. High standard for T but will vote for the argument.

Disadvantages- My standard for DAs is very high. You will need to do a lot of work in establishing the argument for me to be able to feel comfortable voting for it. To help achieve that end, please give me the coherent thesis of the DA along with clear impact analysis.

Counterplans- I love counterplans. I especially love well-run, non-generic counterplans. I will vote for a utopian/dystopian CP.

Kritiks- I was a K debater in high school. I consider myself well-read on most K literature and many critical subjects. If you are skeptical of whether I am (un)particularly receptive, ask and I will clarify. I will vote for Ks introduced in a rebuttal if the argument is legitimate and strategic.

Theory- must be shelled. I will vote for RVIs. I won't vote for unwarranted arguments. Not a fan of frivolous theory, but what frivolous means is up to interpretation.

Narratives- I love hearing narratives, but you must warrant why they're offense within a framework, which for my taste, will revolve around argumentative agency.

Projects- You will need to do a lot of work to convince me to vote for your project, especially if I believe you are insincere or disingenuous.

Speed- I can handle a 10 of 10 but prefer a rate of 6-8 of 10. Clarity is most important.

Extensions- I will account for the time skew in the 1AR if I feel that it is necessary. You must extend the warrants and implications of arguments in the rebuttals for me to consider it as offense. If I end up having to intervene, I will be considerably displeased and will be lazy.

Flex prep- I am not opposed as long as a consensus is reached among the debaters.

To get 30 speaker points: Don't be excessively catty. Employ a smart strategy in the round. Write my ballot for me. Depict a cohesive story that explains how and why I should vote. Analyze offense, offense, offense. Technical speaking skills are of equal importance to the quality of argumentation.

Notes regarding the virtual nature of online tournaments:

I would advise disclosing advocacies in constructive and rebuttal speeches through file sharing to avoid the tragic scenario in which connectivity issues degrade clarity. I suggest utilizing OBS to record speeches so that they may be made available in the event of technical difficulties. I most strongly advise that you disclose all of your evidence and strategies on the open evidence wiki.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask them before we begin the round.

Most of all, I must express how grateful I am for the opportunity to listen to what you each have to say. Thank you for challenging yourselves, facing your fears, and letting your voices be heard. Cherish this opportunity and wield it on your journeys to becoming the best version of yourselves.

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.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Bengani%2C+Ruchika 

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

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

Strong arguments won beat weak arguments dropped (usually)

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

I competed in LD and PF at McNeill High School in Austin, Tx. 

I am very progressive when it comes to speed and technical arguments. I always prefer a substance debate over a K or theory. But I love counter plans and plan affs. 

I will say clear but if I dont understand you after that I can't vote for something I didnt hear or couldnt understand.

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

updated - april 2019

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

Some things to know:

- Be good to each other

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

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

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

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

some contextualization:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ask me questions.

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

I am a former policy debate from Parkway High School in Bossier City, Louisiana. I am currently a coach for Parkway High School in Bossier City, Louisiana.

I am more likely to vote for a policy option than a Kritik or Kritikal Affirmative.

I have always liked a good Topicality debate as well as traditional disad/counterplan combos.

Ok with open cx, I want to be in on the e-mail chain because I cannot flow spreading as I once could. I will ask you to slow down or be clearer if I cannot hear/understand what you are saying.

I also do not tolerate post-rounding. If you would like feedback, you should listen respectfully and ask appropriate questions. Otherwise, your speaker points and ranks will be consequently impacted.

Prefer creative/progressive arguments. I'm a little rusty (haven't really had time to judge since the beginning of the season), but can still manage moderate speed (faster than regular talking, but not full-out spreading; somewhere in between). Please be clear. If you're not clear, I will say "clear" once, and then stop writing if it continues. Prefer framework over contentional, but will still weigh both. 

Signpost clearly and give clear voters.

I need everything to explained to me and put out there clearly. If things aren't explained clearly and simply, I might not understand it, and that's only to your detriment.

Tell me what the standard is and how I ought to weigh the round, why you've fulfilled it, and why your opponent hasn't.

Clash is also very important; if y'all pass each other like ships in the night, I'm basically obligated to just go with the argument I like best, and not the one that should win.   Any other questions, please ask!

Background: I was a Lincoln Douglas debater from 8th grade to my senior year in highschool, with some experience in extemporaneous speaking and knowledge in CX debate. I am now a junior at the University of North Texas.

Logistics of the round: I have no problem with how fast you choose to speak as long as you are clear and slow down on tags. I will say clear twice, if I still cannot understand you I will stop flowing. If you go over one minute, flashing evidence does count as prep-time. Flex prep is fine as long as both parties agree to it. Don't be rude to your partner, you will lose speaker points. Part of communicating is how you do it. The real world doesn't lend well to rude, badgering speakers. Also, be sure to extend your arguments! 

Types of Arguments: I enjoy off-beat K debates, well explained logic positions, or the traditional impacts/disadvantages debate. Although, I will not vote against you based on the type of argument you choose to run. If you must utilze theory, be clear as to how the theory should fit into my decision calculus. You have the power to tell me what matters in the round, do not be passive of that. 

How to win the round: FRAME THE DEBATE. Framing is very important. I must have a standard to weigh the arguments. If you do not provide me with such mechanism I am forced to intervene (which I hate to do) and you may not like the way I vote. If you do absolutely nothing else in the debate, tell me why your standard matters, why it's the ultimate standard in the round, and how your advocacy links back to that standard, whereas your opponents does not. 

Any other questions, please ask before we begin. I wish you all the very best in your rounds! 

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

1. I rarely read evidence after debates.
2. Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
3. Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
4. Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

1. I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
2. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
3. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

If anything is unclear, don't hesitate to ask me before the round starts. Email for chains: aac255@cornell.edu

About me: I debated at Colleyville Heritage High School (CX my first year and LD for 3) and graduated in 2015. I started competing more on the national circuit my senior year. I graduated from UT Austin in 2018 and Cornell Law School in 2021. It's been a while since I've judged but most of my paradigm is the same from when I graduated. 

Speed: I can understand most speeds as long as you're clear. It's been a while since I've judged, so don't go top speed and hope that I get everything down. The best thing to do is start slower so I can get accustomed to your voice and then speed up. Tag lines/Author names should be the most clear.

Speaks: A generally good speaker who is clear (doesn't need to be told clear more than once) will probably get a 28/28.5. If you want higher speaks here are some things I will look for: If you're passionate about your arguments, and I can tell, you will get higher speaks. This doesn't mean screaming at the top of your lungs, but just in general, it's about how you convey the argument and answer questions in CX. If you are particularly strategic, you will get higher speaks. If you give unique arguments that I haven't heard on the topic before (and are uncommon), you will get higher speaks.

Framework: I think this is especially important, whatever form it may take. Framework gives me a lens to evaluate arguments, so either present me with a framework or link into your opponents (whichever works best for you). Value- not necessary but thats cool if you have one. Standards/Criteria/Burdens- should tell me how to weigh impacts. 

Theory: I didn't run much theory as a debater, but I did answer it a lot. Be clear on the interp/ counter-interp and don't make it frivolous. I generally default reasonability, but if you justify competing interps, I will evaluate it. I'm open to RVI's but the justification for them needs to be there. I like unique voters, so give me something other than fairness and education if you want a more compelling ballot story. If you need to call out abuse, it doesn't need to be in shell format, but you need to warrant why certain arguments are abusive.

Kritiks: K's are great, but know what you're talking about. If you're running something that is pretty dense, slow down and try to crystallize it as much as you can.

Overall, run whatever you want but be clear with it and ensure that it makes sense. 

Some things in general:
Don't be offensive.
Don't assume things about your opponents private life (i.e. make comments on privilege, race, sexual orientation etc.)
Don't force your opponent to disclose information about them that they don't want to.

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

tl;dr

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

Specifics

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker point scale:

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

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

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

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

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

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

speed is fine as long as you make an email chain/speech drop - email is obinnadennar@gmail.com

im fine with all types of debate. i love critical arguments/case positions that engage with various types of philosophy. k debate is my favorite. cool with everything else.

one note on theory: i do not like frivolous theory (i.e. down my opponent since they are wearing socks - yes, i have seen this shell). if your opponent gets up in the next speech and says this is stupid and don't pay attention to it. i will discard it and i will not see it as a voting issues. that being said, if there is actual abuse in the round, theory is not only fine but welcomed. competing interps over reasonability.

please feel free to ask any questions before the round. ill be more than happy to answer them

I am a third year medical student and graduate from UT Austin. I was a PFer in high school (Kingwood HS '15). I placed highly at Harvard, TFA state, and several local tournaments in the Houston circuit. I have judged at Harvard, TFA State, and UT, among local Houston and Austin tournaments. Although it has been a while since I was a debater, I truly believe it shaped me and gave me the tools to pursue my future endeavors, which is why I've stayed active in the community. While I competed in PF, I've judged LD, PF, and WSD (which I LOVE and wish existed when I was competing!).

-I judge based on flow (friendly reminder, Cross X doesn't go on flow, all cards/new arguments must be presented in speeches)

-PLEASE, quantify your extensions - don't just tell me to extend something, tell me why that point still holds

these last few can apply to WSD as well:

-I love framework and will judge a round based on framework presented (if it is done well and proven, of course)

-Do your best to signpost and keep speeches organized so I can adequately flow. I of course judge based on the arguments and flow, but I appreciate good speeches. Tournaments and competing are fun, but to its core debate is a speaking exercise. Learning this skill is invaluable, why not use every speech as an opportunity to hone that skill and practice. Good speaking skills gets you far!

-Most importantly - I STRONGLY believe Public Forum debate is the "common man's debate", anyone pulled off the street should be able to understand what you are saying (I've had bus drivers judge me before). That being said, but I don't believe K's, CP's, etc. belong in this type of debate. If you want to run that, try LD or CX :-) sry I'm old school!!!!

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/DuPont%2C+Nathan

When it comes to Lincoln-Douglas Debate, I am a very traditional judge. My background was primarily in congress and public-forum, so I have no problem with competitors speaking quickly. I do, however, have an issue with competitors who spread to the point of incomprehensibility. Please, speak at a rate even a congressional debater can understand.

I believe value has its place in the debate, but I never once had a competitor win based off of value. I focus chiefly on the contention level debate, who can best defend and support their own points and refute the opponent. If the flow is balanced on both sides, I then look to who has the better impacts. Note, I said better and not bigger. If your impacts are infeasible and poorly supported, I'd happily vote for someone with more grounded impacts.

Clash is crucial to the debate and, who I decide wins. That being said, you'll make it a lot easier for yourself if you remain civil. I often see debaters appear annoyed when delivering refutation, treating the opponent as beneath them. I won't vote down off of this, but if you remain respectful and polite your're only helping yourself. 

I'll listen to anything but am generally not a great judge. Especially bad with philosophy and kritiks. 

Good luck and don't be late for rounds. 

I believe that judges should be objective and aim to be as tab as possible in rounds. Your arguments should be directed towards your opponents and convince me that your arguments are the better arguments.

Speed is fine with me, but make sure you're very clear on your taglines because if I can't flow your argument, you might as well have not made it. Open to progressive debate.

I debated for four years in high school and am in my 3rd year of college debate

During my high school career I primarily read kritiks and performance arguments, but I have also worked with and read traditional policy arguments. This means I won't automatically lean one way or the other-I expect you to frame the debate and make the arguments that tell me how to vote, so that I don't have to rely on my personal beliefs. 
The things I will not tolerate: card clipping, evidence fabrication, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc. 

I prefer truth over tech-I prefer in depth discussions of evidence comparison, warrants, and explanations of the thesis of arguments over the minutiae of the line by line-if you think you can win with a long, contextualized explanation of your argument that adequately addresses the main issues in the debate, go  for it. That being said, I still expect some kind of technical debating in the sense of providing warranted responses to specific arguments-this doesn't mean you have to go down the line by line, just address all the arguments in the debate somehow and let me know what you're addressing. 

Specific argument preferences:

Kritiks: These are some of my favorite debates-for me a K debate is good when it's well explained and contextualized, and aff-specific kritiks are even better. I am familiar with literature spanning from: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Afropessimism, Coloniality, Settler Colonialism, Queer Theory, basic Marxism, and Foucault. If your K is very high theory but not on my list, that doesn't mean I can't judge it-I can probably catch on pretty quickly given that you explain the arguments well enough. My familiarity with a literature base is not an excuse to slack off in your explanation or contextualization of arguments-Well warranted [not necessarily carded] arguments and explanations of your theory are necessary. I'm not a big fan of links of omission unless they are very specific [for example, if settler colonialism is intrinsic to the discussion of the topic then I am much more likely to buy that the aff's omission is problematic]. Always have a clear role of the ballot, framework debate, and impact calc. You should make explicit and specific turns case/root cause arguments, explain the specifics of why the aff's truth claims are false or should be rejected-I'm not likely to vote on generics. Have a solid explanation of the alt and what it does. I will vote on Floating PIKs if they are conceeded, but I err aff on floating piks theory. The best K debates come with contextual explanations, examples, and illustrate an in depth knowledge of the lit and its real world use.

Ks vs a K aff-have specific and clear links and places of contestation-have a clear explanation of what the alt does, how it's different from the aff-your should have specific explanations of how the alt resolves the aff/any of the aff's disads-for me this is distinct from having a root cause argument-I need an explanation of the reverse causal argument [example: even if you win cap is the historical root cause of racism, I need a warrant for why the alt would result in a transition that would eradicate racism.] 

For a policy aff to win against a K I think the most important thing is to win a solid defense of the aff. I give very little weight to shady or unexplained perms, by the 1ar you should have some explanation of what the permutation does and be consistent in your explanation. You probably won't persuade me that I shouldn't evaluate the K with framework, but you can probably win that you get to access your impacts.
For a K aff to win against a K I think you need a solid explanation of your aff in the context of the K with well explained link turns, an explanation of how the perm functions, and impacted out net benefits to the perm. I think a lot of time people will read really bad K links to K affs or Ks that dont address the specificity of the aff-you should point that out and use it to your advantage. 

Peformance/Method debates-I debated with these arguments and critiques for most of my last two years of debate-I love GOOD performance and method debates. A good performance debate should be one that clearly establishes competition between the performances/methods with specific disads and links to what you are debating. I believe that all debate is a performance, the question to be debated is just whether your performance is good. 

In these debates I think the aff should have a solid defense of the aff and their performance and education-roleplaying good, policymaking good- in addition to permutations, defense, disads to their performance. You're unlikely to persuade me that I shouldn't evaluate a criticism of the aff's performance.

K Affs:
I'm open to K affs-I don't believe the aff needs to have a plan text-I generally err towards the aff should have an advocacy statement but I can be persuaded otherwise. Similarly, I believe the aff should be connected to/in the direction of the topic, which will be much more persuasive in Framework debates, but again I can be persuaded otherwise. Just do your thing and tell me how to evaluate the round.

Framework against K Affs:
I am not a big fan of framework and would prefer to not judge that debate. However, that does not mean I will not evaluate it. Make your framework impacts specific to the aff and give examples. I am more persuaded by discussions of institutional engagement, policy education, switch sides, etc than fairness and predictability arguments. I prefer FW debates that end up more like method debates, in a way.

CPs:
I'm fine with most counterplans, and counterplans specific to the aff are even better. Generic solvency evidence isn't very persuasive. The permutation debate should be thorough [from the aff and neg] with an in depth explanation of how the perm functions/how the disads and net benefits to the perm function. 
I am fine with most counterplans. I err aff on process cps, word pics, delay, consult, and conditions CPs. For PICs am more persuaded to vote on the CP if it's specific to the aff and you win it addresses a key point of contention with the aff-I'm less lenient to random squirelly pics.

DA: The best disad debates have good, well warranted, comparative evidence-I prefer quality over dumping large numbers of short, speculative pieces of evidence. Impact calc and turns case debates are very important. Specific links to the aff are as well. I probably won't vote on 1% risk calculus if it comes to that, so make sure to win strong internal links and probability for your impacts. 

Theory: Slow down in theory debates-don't explain your standards at the speed you would read a card. I am not the most well versed or experienced in theory debates but I can follow one reasonably well. 
I default to evaluating conditionality as a reason to reject the team, everything else as a reason to reject the argument. I can be persuaded otherwise. Specific and well written interpretations will probably win you the day and makes the debate much easier to evaluate, especially on condo. Flush out and compare the standards, give contextual examples and point out abuse. I err neg on theory. 

Topicality- Well written T shells with specific interps, definitions, and standards are preferable to generic shells. As with theory, I am not very experienced with in depth T debates but I can follow it along. As with theory, comparative debates over the standards are a must, with contextual examples and all. Provide a case list, explain what the topic is like under your interp, explain in round abuse. Win framing issues-I default to competing interpretations but I can be persuaded otherwise. 

Miscellaneous: 
flash drives-for me prep ends when you're done with the speech doc and you're ready to flash it-I'll be fairly lenient on 
Clarity before speed-if you are unclear I will yell "clear".

grossly overqualified parent judge

Current affiliations: Director of PF at NSD-Texas, Taylor HS

Prior: LC Anderson (2018-23), John B. Connally HS (2015-18), TDC,UTNIF LD

Email chain migharvey@gmail.com; please share all speech docs with everyone who wants them

Quick guide to prefs

Share ALL new evidence with me and your opponents before the speech during which it is read. Strike me if this is a problem. A paraphrased narrative with no cards in the doc does not count. This is an accommodation I need and a norm that makes debate better. I have needed copies of case since I was a high school debater. Even with me complaining about this, it often doesn't seem to make a difference. The maximum amount of speaks you can get if you don't share your constructive with me is 28.4 and that's if you are perfect. This guideline does not generally apply to UIL tournaments or novice debate rounds unless you are adopting national circuit norms/speaking style

PF:

Tech > truth unless it's bigoted or something

Unconventional arguments: fine, must be coherent and developed (K, spec advocacies, etc)

Framing/weighing mechanism: love impact framing that makes sense; at the very least do meta-weighing. "Cost-benefit analysis" is not a real framework. Must be read in constructive or top of rebuttal

Evidence sharing/disclosure: absolutely necessary but i won't ever vote for a disclosure shell that would out queer debaters. I will err toward reasonability on disclosure if there is contact info on the wiki and/or the case is freely shared a reasonable time before round.

Theory: I am gooder than most at evaluating theory but don't read it if you don't know how. Evidence ethics is very very very very very important

Speed: Fine. Share speech docs

Problematic PF bro/clout culture: ew no

Weighing: wins the majority of PF debates, especially link weighing

Default: offense/defense if there's no framing comparison or reason to prefer one method of weighing

Flow: yes, i flow

Sticky defense: no

LD/Policy:

LARP/topicality/MEXICAN STUFF: 1+

1-off ap, setcol, cap/1nc non-friv theory: 1-2

kant without tricks: 1-2

deleuze/softleft/psycho/non-pess black studies: 2

most other k/nt aff: 3

rawls/non-kant phil/heavy fw: 3-4

Baudrillard/performance: 4-5

queer pess/tricks: probably strike although I'm coming around on spikes a little bit

disability pess/nonblack afropess: strike if you don't want to lose

UIL: Pretty much anything is fine if it gets us through the round with minimal physical or emotional damage. Try to stay on the line by line. Read real evidence. Weigh, please. For CX, maybe don't read nontopical affirmatives against small schools or novices. For LD, make sure your offense links to your framing and that you have warranted justifications for your framework. Read on for further details

TLDR: Share speech docs. Don't be argumentatively or personally abusive. Debate is a game, but winning is not the only objective. Line by line debate is important. No new case extensions in 2AR or final focus. I will intervene against bigotry and disregard for others' physical and mental wellness. I don't disclose speaks, sorry :). I promise I'm trying my best to be nice. LD and policy-specific stuff at the bottom of this doc. I love Star Wars. I will listen to SPARK, warming good, and most impact turns but I generally believe that physical death is not good. Pronouns he/him/his.

Speaks range: usually between 27 and 29.8. 28.5 is average/adequate. I usually only give 30s to good novices or people who go out of their way to make the space better. If you are a man and are sexist in the space I will hack your speaks.

Note on ableism: It is upsetting for me personally to hear positions advocating unipolar pessimism, hopelessness, or the radical rejection of potential futures or social engagement/productivity by the disabled or especially the neurodivergent subject.DO NOT read disability pessimism/abjection or pandering arguments about autism to get me to vote for you. You will lose automatically, sorry

Post-rounding: I can't handle it. This includes post-rounding in email after rounds. I am autistic and it is psychologically and behaviorally triggering for me. I'll take the blame that I can't handle it, just please don't.

Afropessimism: I will vote you down regardless of any arguments made in the round if you or your partner aren't Black and you read afropess. Watch me I'll do it

I have the lowest threshold you can possibly imagine for a well-structured theory argument based on the refusal to share evidence not just with me but with your opponents.

Long version:

Personal abuse, harassment, or competitive dishonesty of any kind is strictly unacceptable. Blatantly oppressive/bigoted speech or behavior will make me consider voting against a debater whether or not the issue is raised by their opponent. If a debater asks you to respect and use preferred pronouns/names, I will expect you to do so. If your argument contains graphic depictions of racial, sexual, or otherwise marginalizing violence, please notify your opponent. Also see mental health stuff below, which is personally tough to hear sometimes. You do not need to throw trigger warnings onto every argument under the sun, it can be trivializing to the lived experience of the people you're talking about. Blatant evidence ethics violations such as clipping are an auto-voter. Try not to yell, please; my misophonia (an inconvenient characteristic shared by a lot of autistic people) makes unexpected volume changes difficult.

Our community and the individual people in it are deeply important to me. Please do your part to make debate safe and welcoming for competitors, judges, coaches, family members, and friends. I am moody and can be a total jerk sometimes, and I'm not so completely naive to think everything is fluffy bunnies and we'll all be best friends forever after every round, but I really do believe this activity can be a place where we lift each other up, learn from our experiences, and become better people. If you're reading this, I care about you. I hope your participation in debate reflects both self-care and care for others.

(cw: self-harm)

Mental and emotional well-being are at a crisis point in society, and particularly within our activity. We have all lost friends and colleagues to burnout, breakdown, and at worst, self-harm. If you are debating in front of me, and contribute to societal stigmas surrounding mental health or belittle/bully your opponent in any way that is related to their emotional state or personal struggles with mental wellness, you will lose with minimum speaks. I can't make that any more clear. If you are presenting arguments related to suicide, depression, panic, or self-harm, you must give a content warning for me. I am not flexible on this and will absolutely use my ballot to enforce this expectation.

PF: Speed is fine. Framing is great (actually, to the extent that any weighing mechanism counts as framework, I desire and enthusiastically encourage it). Framing should be read in constructive or at the TOP of rebuttal. Nontraditional PF arguments (K, theory, spec advocacies) are fine if they're warranted. Warrants in evidence matter so much to me.

PF Theory: I agree with the thesis behind disclosure theory, though I am less likely to vote on it at a local or buy an abuse story if the offending case is straightforward/common. Disclosure needs to be read in constructive. Don't read theory against novices. I will have a low threshold for paraphrasing theory if the violation is about the constructive and/or if the evidence isn't shared before the speech. Don't be afraid to make something a paragraph shell or independent voter (rather than a structured shell) so long as the voter is implicated.

I will always prefer evidence that is properly cut and warranted in the evidence rather than in a tag or paraphrase of it, especially offense and uniqueness evidence. I have an extremely LOW tolerance for miscut or mischaracterized evidence and am just *waiting* for some hero to make it an independent voter.. So nice, I’ll say it twice: Evidence ethics arguments have a very low threshold.

DO NOT PERPETUATE THE TOXIC, PRIVILEGED MALE PF ARCHETYPE. You know *exactly* what I’m talking about, or should. Call that stuff out, and your speaks will automatically go up. If you make the PF space unwelcoming to women or gender minorities, expect L25 and don’t expect me to feel bad about it.

I absolutely expect frontlining in second rebuttal, and will consider conceded turns true. I will not vote on new arguments or arguments not gone for in summary in final focus. No sticky defense.

"It's not allowed in PF" is not by itself a warranted argument.

Crossfire: If you want me to use something from crossfire in my RFD, it needs to be in subsequent speeches. I am not flowing crossfire; I am listening but probably also playing 2048 or looking at animal pictures. I don't really care if you skip Grand, but I won't let you use that practice as an excuse to frontload your prep use then award yourselves extra prep time.

LD/Policy Specifics:

Speed: Most rates of delivery are usually fine, though I love clarity and I am getting older. If you are not clear, I will say "clear." Slow down on tags and analytics for my sake and for your opponent's sake, especially if you don’t include your analytics in the doc. For online debates, the more arguments that are in the doc the better. I will listen to well-developed theoretical or critical indictments of spreading, but it will take some convincing.

Kritik: I have a basic understanding of much of the literature. Explain very clearly why I should vote and why your opponent should lose. For me, "strength of link" is not an argument applicable to most kritik rounds - I ask whether there is a risk of link (on both sides). Your arguments need to be coherent and well-reasoned. "Don't weigh the case" is not a warranted argument by itself - I tend to believe in methodological pluralism and need to be convinced that the K method should be prioritized. A link is *not* enough for a ballot. Just because I like watching policy-oriented rounds doesn't mean I don't understand the kritik or will hack against them. If you link to your own criticism, you are very unlikely to win. I believe the K is more convincing with both an alternative and a ballot implication (like most, I find the distinction between ROB and ROJ somewhat confusing).Please be mindful and kind about reading complicated stuff against novices. It is violent and pushes kids out of debate.

Theory/T: Fine, including 1AR theory. Just like with any other winning argument, I tend to look for some sort of offense in order to vote on either side. I don't default to drop the debater or argument. My abuse threshold on friv shells is much higher. I will not ever vote for a shell that polices debaters' appearance, including their clothes, footwear, hair, presentation, or anything else you can think of (unless their appearance is itself violent). I'll have a fairly high threshold on a strict "you don't meet" T argument against an extremely common aff and am more likely than not to hold the line on allowing US/big-ticket affs in most Nebel debates. One more thing - all voters and standards should be warranted. I get annoyed by "T is a voter because fairness and education" without a reason why those two things make T a voter. I don't care if it's obvious. Don't abuse theory against inexperienced debaters. A particularly egregious example would be to read shells in the 1AC, kick them, and read multiple new shells in the 1AR. Underviews and common spikes are fine. Please, I strongly prefer no tricks or excessive a prioris.A little addendum to that is that I do like truth testing as an argument, but not to justify skep or whatever dopey paradox makes everything false

Frameworks: Fine with traditional (stock or V/C), policy, phil, K, performance, but see my pref guide above for what I am most comfortable evaluating. While I don't think you have to have your own framework per se, I find it pretty curious when a debater reads one and then just abandons it in favor of traditional util weighing absent a distinct strategic reason to do so. I think TJF debates are interesting, but I seldom meet frameworks that *can't* be theoretically justified. Not sure if there's a bright line other than "you need to read the justifications in your constructive," and I'm not sure how good that argument is. I will vote on permissibility/presumption, on which I often lean aff in LD/policy.

LARP: My personal favorite and most comfortable debate to evaluate. Plans, counterplans, PICs, disads, solvency dumps, case turns, etc. Argue it well and it's fine. I don't think making something a floating PIK necessarily gets rid of competition problems; it has to be reasoned well. I'm very skeptical of severance perms and will have to be convinced - my threshold for voting on severance bad is very low. Impact turns are underutilized, but don't think that means I want you to be bigoted or fascist. Cap/heg good are fine. I'm very skeptical of warming good but will vote for it. To the extent that anyone prefs me, and no one should ever pref me under any circumstances, LARPers ought to consider preffing me highly.

Condo: Be really, really careful before you kick a K, especially if it is identity-related - I think reps matter. I am more likely to entertain condo bad if there are multiple conditional advocacies. More likely to vote on condo bad in LD than policy because of time/strat skew. One conditional counterplan advocacy in LD or 2 in policy is generally ok to me and I need a clear abuse story - I almost never vote for condo bad if it's 1 conditional counterplan.

Flashing/Email/Disclosure: I will vote for disclosure theory, but have a higher threshold for punishing or making an example of novices or non-circuit debaters who don't know or use the wiki. Reading disclosure at locals is silly. Lying during disclosure will get you dropped with 25 speaks; I don't care if it's part of the method of your advocacy. If you're super experienced, please consider not being terrible about disclosure to novice or small-school debaters who simply don't know any better. Educate them so that they'll be in a position to teach good practices in future rounds. My personal perspective on disclosure is informed by my background as a lawyer - I liken disclosure to the discovery process, and think debate is a lot better when we are informed. I won't vote on disclosure theory against a queer debater for whom disclosure would potentially out them. One caveat to prior disclosure is that I do conform to "breaking new" norms, though I listen to theory about it. In my opinion, the best form of disclosure is open-source speech docs combined with the wiki drop-down list. Please include me on email chains. Even if you don't typically share docs, please share me on speech docs - I can get lost trying to listen to even everyday conversation if I'm not able to follow along with written words. Seriously, I have cognitive stuff, please send me a speech doc.

Sitting/Standing: Whatever.

I do not care how you are dressed so long as your appearance itself is not violent to other people.

Flex prep/open CX: Fine in any event including PF. More clarity is good.

Performative issues: If you're a white person debating critical race stuff, or a man advocating feminism against a woman/non-man, or a cis/het person talking queer issues, etc., be sensitive, empathetic, and mindful. Also, I tend to notice performative contradiction and will vote on it if asked to. For example, running a language K and using the language you're critiquing (outside of argument setup/tags) is a really bad idea.

I do NOT default to util in the case of competing frameworks. If the framing debate is absolutely impossible to evaluate (sadly, it happens), I will try to figure out who won by weighing offense and defense under both mechanisms.

I tend to think plan flaw arguments are silly, especially if they're punctuation or capitalization-related. I have a very high threshold to vote on plan flaw. It has to be *actually* confusing or abusive, not fake confusing. I do like interp flaw arguments as defensive theory responses in the 1ar

I won't ever hack against trad debaters, but I am what you’d call a “technical” judge and if a debater concedes something terminal to the ballot, it’s probably game over. If you’re a traditional debater and the field is largely circuit debaters, your best bet to win in front of me is probably to go hard on the framework debate and either straight-turn or creatively group your opponent’s arguments.

Warrant all arguments in both constructives and rebuttals. An extended argument means nothing to me if it isn't explained. “They conceded it” is not a warranted argument.

Policy:

New for 2022: I'm older than most judges and I don't judge policy regularly anymore; I need you to slow down just a tick (300 wpm is fine if clear). I generally don't get lost in circuit LD rounds; think of that as your likely standard.

I was a policy debater and consultant at the beginning of my career. Most of this doc is LD and PF-specific, because those are the pools to which I'll generally be assigned. Most of what is above applies to my policy paradigm. I am most comfortable evaluating topical affirmatives and their implications, but I am a very flexible judge and critical/plan-less affs are fine. That said, just like in LD I like a good T debate and I will happily vote for TFW if it's well-argued and won. One minor thing is different from my LD paradigm: I conform a little bit more to policy norms in terms of granting RVIs less often in policy rounds, but that's about it. Obviously, framework debate (meaning overarching framing mechanisms, not T-Framework) is not usually as important in policy, but I'm totally down with it if that's how you debate. I guess a lot of policy debaters still default to util, so be careful if the other side isn't doing that but I guess it's fine if everyone does it. Excessive prompting/feeding during speeches may affect speaks, and I get that it's a thing sometimes, but I don't believe it's particularly educational and I expect whomever is giving the speech to articulate the argument. I am not flowing the words of the feeder, just the speaker. While I'm fairly friendly to condo advocacies in LD, I'm even more friendly to them in policy because of norms and speech times. I'll vote for condo bad, but it needs to be won convincingly - I'll likely err neg if it's 1 or 2 counterplans. Much more likely to vote for condo bad if one of the advocacies is a K that links to the counterplan(s).

Everyone: please ask questions if I can clarify anything. If you get aggressive after the round, expect the same from me and expect me to disengage with little to no warning. My wellness isn't worth your ego trip. I encourage pre-round questions. I might suggest you look over my paradigm, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask questions.

Finally, I find Cheetos really annoying in classrooms, especially when people are using keyboards. It's the dust. Don't test my Cheeto tolerance. I'm not joking, anything that has the dust sets me off. Cheetos, Takis, all that stuff. I get that it's delicious, but keep it the hell out of the academy.

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!

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with. I will do my best to offer you the same consideration.

Doc Sharing

Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop.

Speed

I am old - likely 10 years older than you think if not more - this impacts debaters in two ways 1. I get the more triggered when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you are using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it to outspread your opponent then I am not your judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time. If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible. 2. I just cannot keep up as well anymore and I refuse to flow off a doc. I only have four functional fingers on one hand and both hands likely 65% what they used to be. This is especially true as the season moves along and at any tournament where I judge lot of rounds.

General Principle

I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).

Speaker Points

This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Do not docbot. If you do not intonate you are not debating you are reading and that is just frustrating to me. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.

Policy

Theory

I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.

Kritiks

A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).

Performance/Pre-Fiat

If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.

Competition

Arguments should be competitive otherwise they are just FYI. This means kritikal argument should likely be doing more than simply reading a topic link and moving on. All forms are perms are testable - I do not default to a view on severance/intrinsic - it's all debatable. I do default on perms do a test of competition. If you want to advocate the perm this should be clear from the get. A perm should have a text, and a net benefit in the opening delivery otherwise it is a warrantless argument.

Condo

In policy, (LD its all debatable) a few layers are fine - 4+ you are testing the limits and a persuasive condo bad argument is something I would listen to for sure. What I am absolute about is the default. All advocacy are unconditional unless you state in your speech otherwise. No this is not a CX question. You should be saying, I present the following conditional CP or the like, explicitly. Not doing this and then attempting to kick it means an advocacy shift and is thus debatable on theory.

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

I note above that I cannot keep up as much anymore. If your approach is to spam theory (which is increasing a norm in LD) I am not capable of making coherent decisions. I will likely be behind on the flow. I am trying to conceptualize your last blip in a manner to flow and you are making the 3rd or 4th. Then I try to play catch up, but argument is in the wrong place on the flow and it is written as a partial argument. I am not against theory - I loved theory as a debater, but your best approach is to go for a couple shell at most in the NC and likely no more than 1 in the 1AR if you want me to be in the game at all. This is not to say I would not vote on potential abuse/norm setting rather keep your theory to something you want to debate and not using it just a strategic gamesmanship is best approach if you want a coherent RFD.

Disads/CPs/NCs

I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.

Philosophy/Framework Debate

I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might be and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.

Public Forum

I have very frustrated feeling about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.

1. Debate

If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.

2. Speech

If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.

If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.

Theory

I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.

Framework

I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.

Finally Word for All

I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.

Experience:
I am the head coach at Plano West. I was previously the coach at LC Anderson. I was a 4-year debater in high school, 3-years LD and 1-year CX. My students have competed in elimination rounds at several national tournaments, including Glenbrooks, Greenhill, Berkeley, Harvard, Emory, St. Marks, etc. I’ve also had debaters win NSDA Nationals and the Texas State Championship (both TFA and UIL.)

Email chain: robeyholland@gmail.com

PF Paradigm

· You can debate quickly if that’s your thing, I can keep up. Please stop short of spreading, I’ll flow your arguments but tank your speaks. If something doesn’t make it onto my flow because of delivery issues or unclear signposting that’s on you.

· Do the things you do best. In exchange, I’ll make a concerted effort to adapt to the debaters in front of me. However, my inclinations on speeches are as follows:

o Rebuttal- Do whatever is strategic for the round you’re in. Spend all 4 minutes on case, or split your time between sheets, I’m content either way. If 2nd rebuttal does rebuild then 1st summary should not flow across ink.

o Summary- I prefer that both teams make some extension of turns or terminal defense in this speech. I believe this helps funnel the debate and force strategic decisions heading into final focus. If the If 1st summary extends case defense and 2nd summary collapses to a different piece of offense on their flow, then it’s fair for 1st final focus to leverage their rebuttal A2’s that weren’t extended in summary.

o Final Focus- Do whatever you feel is strategic in the context of the debate you’re having. While I’m pretty tech through the first 3 sets of speeches, I do enjoy big picture final focuses as they often make for cleaner voting rationale on my end.

· Weighing, comparative analysis, and contextualization are important. If neither team does the work here I’ll do my own assessment, and one of the teams will be frustrated by my conclusions. Lessen my intervention by doing the work for me. Also, it’s never too early to start weighing. If zero weighing is done by the 2nd team until final focus I won’t consider the impact calc, as the 1st team should have the opportunity to engage with opposing comparative analysis.

· I’m naturally credulous about the place of theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD/CX, I default reasonability over competing interps and am inclined to award the RVI if a team chooses to pursue it. Don’t be surprised if I make theory a wash and vote on substance. Good post fiat substance debates are my favorite part of this event, and while I acknowledge that there is a necessity for teams to be able to pursue the uplayer to check abusive positions, I am opposed to this event being overtaken by theory hacks and tricks debate.

· I’m happy to evaluate framework in the debate. I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default Cost-Benefit Analysis.

· Don’t flow across ink, I’ll likely know that you did. Clash and argument engagement is a great way to get ahead on my flow.

· Prioritize clear sign posting, especially in rebuttal and summary. I’ve judged too many rounds this season between competent teams in which the flow was irresolvably muddied by card dumps without a clear reference as to where these responses should be flowed. This makes my job more difficult, often results in claims of dropped arguments by debaters on both sides due to lack of clarity and risks the potential of me not evaluating an argument that ends up being critical because I didn’t know where to flow it/ didn’t flow it/ placed it somewhere on the flow you didn’t intend for me to.

· After the round I am happy to disclose, walk teams through my voting rationale, and answer any questions that any debaters in the round may have. Pedagogically speaking I think disclosure is critical to a debater’s education as it provides valuable insight on the process used to make decisions and provides an opportunity for debaters to understand how they could have better persuaded an impartial judge of the validity of their position. These learning opportunities require dialogue between debaters and judges. On a more pragmatic level, I think disclosure is good to increase the transparency and accountability of judge’s decisions. My expectation of debaters and coaches is that you stay civil and constructive when asking questions after the round. I’m sure there will be teams that will be frustrated or disagree with how I see the round, but I have never dropped a team out of malice. I hope that the teams I judge will utilize our back and forth dialogue as the educational opportunity I believe it’s intended to be. If a team (or their coaches) become hostile or use the disclosure period as an opportunity to be intellectually domineering it will not elicit the reaction you’re likely seeking, but it will conclude our conversation. My final thought on disclosure is that as debaters you should avoid 3ARing/post-rounding any judge that discloses, as this behavior has a chilling effect on disclosure, encouraging judges who aren’t as secure in their decisions to stop disclosing altogether to avoid confrontation.

· Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions you may have before we begin the round, or email me after the round if you have additional questions.

LD/CX Paradigm

Big picture:

· You should do what you do best and in return I will make an earnest effort to adapt to you and render the best decision I can at the end of the debate. In this paradigm I'll provide ample analysis of my predispositions towards particular arguments and preferences for debate rounds. Despite that, reading your preferred arguments in the way that you prefer to read them will likely result in a better outcome than abandoning what you do well in an effort to meet a paradigm.

· You may speak as fast as you’d like, but I’d prefer that you give me additional pen time on tags/authors/dates. If I can’t flow you it’s a clarity issue, and I’ll say clear once before I stop flowing you.

· I like policy arguments. It’s probably what I understand best because it’s what I spent the bulk of my time reading as a competitor. I also like the K. I have a degree in philosophy and feel comfortable in these rounds.

· I have a high threshold on theory. I’m not saying don’t read it if it’s necessary, but I am suggesting is that you always layer the debate to give yourself a case option to win. I tend to make theory a wash unless you are persuasive on the issue, and your opponent mishandles the issue.

· Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you.

· I’m voting on substantive offense at the end of the debate unless you convince me to vote off of something else.

· You should strive to do an exceptional job of weighing in the round. This makes your ballot story far more persuasive, increasing the likelihood that you'll pick up and get high speaks.

· Disclosure is good for debate rounds. I’m not holding debaters accountable for being on the wiki, particularly if the debater is not from a circuit team, but I think that, at minimum, disclosing before the round is important for educational debates. If you don’t disclose before the round and your opponent calls you on it your speaks will suffer. If you're breaking a new strat in the round I won't hold you to that standard.

Speaks:

· Speaker points start at a 28 and go up or down from their depending on what happens in the round including quality of argumentation, how well you signpost, quality of extensions, and the respect you give to your opponent. I also consider how well the performance of the debater measures up to their specific style of debate. For example, a stock debater will be held to the standard of how well they're doing stock debate, a policy debater/policy debate, etc.

· I would estimate that my average speaker point is something like a 28.7, with the winner of the debate earning somewhere in the 29 range and the loser earning somewhere in the 28 range.

Trigger Warnings:

Debaters that elect to read positions about traumatic issues should provide trigger warnings before the round begins. I understand that there is an inherent difficulty in determining a bright line for when an argument would necessitate a trigger warning, if you believe it is reasonably possible that another debater or audience member could be triggered by your performance in the round then you should provide the warning. Err on the side of caution if you feel like this may be an issue. I believe these warnings are a necessary step to ensure that our community is a positive space for all people involved in it.


The penalty for not providing a trigger warning is straightforward: if the trigger warning is not given before the round and someone is triggered by the content of your position then you will receive 25 speaker points for the debate. If you do provide a trigger warning and your opponent discloses that they are likely to be triggered and you do nothing to adjust your strategy for the round you will receive 25 speaker points. I would prefer not to hear theory arguments with interps of always reading trigger warnings, nor do I believe that trigger warnings should be commodified by either debater. Penalties will not be assessed based on the potential of triggering. At the risk of redundancy, penalties will be assessed if and only if triggering occurs in round, and the penalty for knowingly triggering another debater is docked speaks.

If for any reason you feel like this might cause an issue in the debate let’s discuss it before the round, otherwise the preceding analysis is binding.

Framework:

· I enjoy a good framework debate, and don’t care if you want to read a traditional V/C, ROB, or burdens.

· You should do a good job of explaining your framework. It's well worth your time spent making sure I understand the position than me being lost the entire round and having to make decisions based on a limited understanding of your fw.

Procedurals:

· I’m more down for a topicality debate than a theory debate, but you should run your own race. I default competing interps over reasonability but can be convinced otherwise if you do the work on the reasonability flow. If you’re going for T you should be technically sound on the standards and voters debate.

· You should read theory if you really want to and if you believe you have a strong theory story, just don’t be surprised if I end up voting somewhere else on the flow.

· It's important enough to reiterate: Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you. Also, if you do not heed that advice there's a 100% chance I will miss some of your theory blips.

K:

· I’m a fan of the K. Be sure to clearly articulate what the alt looks like and be ready to do some good work on the link story; I’m not very convinced by generic links.

· Don’t assume my familiarity with your literature base.

· For the neg good Kritiks are the ones in which the premise of the Kritik functions as an indict to the truth value of the Aff. If the K only gains relevance via relying on framework I am less persuaded by the argument; good K debates engage the Aff, not sidestep it.

Performance:

· If you give good justifications and explanations of your performance I'm happy to hear it.

CP/DA:

· These are good neg strats to read in front of me.

· Both the aff and neg should be technical in their engagement with the component parts of these arguments.

· Neg, you should make sure that your shells have all the right parts, IE don’t read a DA with no uniqueness evidence in front of me.

· Aff should engage with more than one part of these arguments if possible and be sure to signpost where I should be flowing your answers to these off case positions.

· I think I evaluate these arguments in a pretty similar fashion as most people. Perhaps the only caveat is that I don't necessarily think the Aff is required to win uniqueness in order for a link turn to function as offense. If uniqueness shields the link it probably overwhelms the link as well.

· I think perm debates are important for the Aff (on the CP of course, I WILL laugh if you perm a DA.) I am apt to vote on the perm debate, but only if you are technical in your engagement with the perm I.E. just saying "perm do both" isn't going to cut it.

Tricks:

· I'm not very familiar with it, and I'm probably not the judge you want to pref.

Feel free to ask me questions after the round if you have them, provided you’re respectful about it. If you attempt to 3AR me or become rude the conversation will end at that point.

For my general paradigm, I consider myself tab. There are no arguments I do and don’t like. I will judge the arguments presented in the round and I don’t want to impose my own beliefs or arguments into the round. You have to tell my why the arguments made in the round matter. If you fail to give me a way in which to evaluate the round, I will default to a policy maker. Being a policy maker, I am looking for the negative team to run disadvantages, counter plans, kritiks, and anything else. As a policy maker, I am looking for you to terminalize your impacts. Why specifically is nuclear war bad? Does it kill millions of people? Just saying dehumanization or nuclear war is bad isn’t an impact. I will gladly listen to counter plans, theory arguments and Kritiks. My only advice on the k is to tell me what the role of the ballot is. Why is my ballot key to your alt?

Topicality/Theory

I will vote on T when there is proven abuse. I need to see in-round abuse for me to pull the trigger. I think T is a legitimate tool for a negative team, but I strongly urge the team that goes all in for T to make sure they can prove in-round abuse. If the aff is just failing to make arguments on the T, I will vote for it, but my preference is for in-round abuse to be occurring.

Spikes
I am not a fan of LD 1AC spikes. I honestly don't think that the Aff gets to remove ground from the negative. I don't think these arguments are legitimate. Let the neg make claims and then argue against them. I will tell you now, that I WILL NOT vote on them. I see them as a waste of time for you to run and they are highly abusive. I also rarely vote on RVIs. If you plan on trying to run spikes in the 1AC, I am not the judge for you. I will give the Neg a lot of access to simple arguments to knock down your spikes.

Ethos

I think it is important that you are an ethical and nice person in the debate. It is ok for the round to get heated, but I don't see the need to be rude to your opponent. This will result in a hit to your speaker points.

Speed
I don't have a problem with speed, but make sure that you are clearly telling me your tags. Slow down on the tag if you can. Be clear in your transitions. I like next or and to let me know you are moving from the end of a card to another tagline. The same thing applies to your plan text or alt. Slow down for the plan text/alt or repeat it for me.

I debated for Stony Point High School in LD for 4 years at the local, state, and national level. I previously coached for Westlake High School. I am willing to listen to almost any argument.

I will usually ask for pronouns before/after the round. Include trigger warnings if appropriate. Be kind to your opponent. This does not mean “don’t be explicitly rude”, it means be kind.

Regardless of what argument you read, be clear about the strategic implications and have a thorough understanding of your own position. It can truly undermine your chances of winning a debate round if your case is poorly written or if you do not understand the implications of your own position.

General:

- Be clear and slow down on tags or anything you want to ensure that I flow.

- I prefer strategies that are explained at the meta level, do not just do detailed work on the flow and assume I know how this means you win the round. Explicit impacting will minimize judge intervention.

Speaker Points: I award points based on a combination of strategy and clarity (of speech not clarity of arguments). To be clear by strategy I mean how effective your strategy was in the round and whether it was purposeful.

Theory: I default to a competing interpretations paradigm for theory. I enjoy listening to unique and specific interpretations. If you have specific theory questions, feel free to ask.

Ks:

Please do not assume I am well versed in the literature/theory you are using. The more specific link arguments you have, the more compelling the kritik will be. If you plan on reading a long kritik with minimal explicit work on the aff flow, that is fine, but I need to see embedded interaction with the AC while the K is read. That means specific references to the AC. Do not rely on 1 or 2 generic links.

Policy Arguments: Specific evidence is better. The debater who does more comparative analysis and weighing usually wins these rounds.

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).

• I participated in Parliamentary and Public Forum debate in High School, doing LD my senior year.
• Because of this background, I tend to vote for the side that best defends their arguments/impacts in the round
• In terms of speed, I'd prefer if you stay somewhere in between spreading and normal talking.(I'll let you know if clarity is an issue)
• If you feel the need to use theory, clearly shell out your argument so I have taglines to jot down.(Please don't run theory just to run theory or seem smart, it has the opposite effect on me)
• Note that I will vote for substantial contentions over theory any day. 
• I rarely used kritiks in high school, but if it is something core to your strategy, clearly show me the link to the round and weigh the sides our for me(love hearing impact turns)
• I also enjoy debate over the value criterion and that can be another huge reason to sway me to your side.
• Time yourself
• Have a great time and if you have any questions at all, don't be afraid to ask!

New - NDT 24. Welcome to Atlanta!

The only things you really need to know:
1. If you berate, threaten, verbally or physically attack your opponents, I will end the debate and you'll recieve a loss along with the lowest points tabroom will allow me to asign.
2. Don't endorse self-harm.
3. Arguments admissable for adjudication include everything said from when the 1AC timer starts until the 2AR timer ends. Anything else is irrelevant.

Other than that, do what you do best. Technical debating is more likely to result in you winning than anything else.

I am a coach at Emory, Liberal Arts and Science Academy and The Harker School. Other conflicts: Texas, Westwood, St Vincent de Paul, Bakersfield High School

Email Chain: yes, cardstealing@gmail.com

You will receive a speaker point bump if you give your final rebuttal without the use of a laptop. I will give higher points to speeches with errors/pauses/inconsistencies etc. where the speaker debates off their flows than speeches that sound crystal clear and perfect but are delivered without the speaker looking up from their computer screen. If you flow off your laptop I will use my best judgement to assess the extent to which you're delivering arguments in such a way that demonstrates you have flowed the debate.

Ultimately, do what you do best. Giving speeches you're comfortable with is almost certainly a better path to victory than attempting to adapt to any of this stuff below. Debate is extremely hard and requires immense amounts of works. I will try to give you the same level of effort that I know you've put in.

Debate is an activity about persuasion and communication. If I can't understand your argument because what you are saying because you are unclear, haven't explained it, or developed it into a full argument-claim, warrant, impact, it likely won't factor in my decision.

The winner will nearly always be the team able to identify the central question of the debate first and most clearly trace how the development of their argument means they're ahead on that central question.

Virtually nothing you can possibly say or do will offend me [with the new above caveat] if you can't beat a terrible argument you probably deserve to lose.

Framework- Fairness is both an internal link and an impact. Debate is a game but its also so much more. Go for T/answer T the way that makes most sense to you, I'll do my best to evaluate the debate technically.

Counter-plans-

-spamming permutations, particular ones that are intrinsic, without a text and with no explanation isn't a complete argument. [insert perm text fine, insert counter plan text is not fine].

-pretty neg on "if it competes, its legitimate." Aff can win these debates by explaining why theory and competition should be separated and then going for just one in the 2ar. the more muddled you make this, the better it usually is for the neg.

-non-resolutional theory is rarely if ever a reason to reject the team. Generally don't think its a reason to reject the argument either.

-I'm becoming increasingly poor for conditionality bad as a reason to reject the team. This doesn't mean you shouldn't say in the 2ac why its bad but I've yet to see a speech where the 2AR convinced me the debate has been made irredeemably unfair or un-educational due to the status of counter plans. I think its possible I'd be more convinced by the argument that winning condo is bad means that the neg is stuck with all their counter plans and therefore responsible for answering any aff offense to those positions. This can be difficult to execute/annoying to do, but do with that what you will.

Kritiks

-affs usually lose these by forgetting about the case, negs usually lose these when they don't contextualize links to the 1ac. If you're reading a policy aff that clearly links, I'll be pretty confused if you don't go impact turns/case outweighs.

-link specificity is important - I don't think this is necessarily an evidence thing, but an explanation thing - lines from 1AC, examples, specific scenarios are all things that will go a long way

-these are almost always just framework debates these days but debaters often forget to explain the implications winning their interpretation has on the scope of competition. framework is an attempt to assign roles for proof/rejoinder and while many of you implicitly make arguments about this, the more clear you can be about those roles, the better.

-i'm less likely to think "extinction outweighs, 1% risk" is as good as you think it is, most of the time the team reading the K gives up on this because they for some reason think this argument is unbeatable, so it ends up mattering in more rfds than it should

LD -

I have been judging LD for a year now. The policy section all applies here.

Tech over truth but, there's a limit - likely quite bad for tricks - arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete. Dropped arguments are important if you explain how they implicate my decision. Dropped arguments are much less important when you fail to explain the impact/relevance of said argument.

RVIs - no, never, literally don't. 27 ceiling. Scenario: 1ar is 4 minutes of an RVI, nr drops the rvi, I will vote negative within seconds of the timer ending.

Policy/K - both great - see above for details.

Phil - haven't judged much of this yet, this seems interesting and fine, but again, arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete arguments.

Arguments communicated and understood by the judge per minute>>>>words mumbled nearly incomprehensibly per minute.

Unlikely you'll convince me the aff doesn't get to read a plan for topicality reasons. K framework is a separate from this and open to debate, see policy section for details.

PF -

If you read cards they must be sent out via email chain with me attached or through file share prior to the speech. If you reference a piece of evidence that you haven't sent out prior to your speech, fine, but I won't count it as being evidence. You should never take time outside of your prep time to exchange evidence - it should already have been done.

"Paraphrasing" as a substitute for quotation or reading evidence is a bad norm. I won't vote on it as an ethics violation, but I will cap your speaker points at a 27.5.

I realize some of you have started going fast now, if everyone is doing that, fine. However, adapting to the norms of your opponents circuit - i.e. if they're debating slowly and traditionally and you do so as well, will be rewarded with much higher points then if you spread somebody out of the room, which will be awarded with very low points even if you win.

I've been a part of the activity for a little over a decade now and have judged pretty much everywhere. I'll briefly summarize how my thought process breaks down when I'm judging debates so that you have a pretty straightforward route to the ballot.

Framework

I always start by asking what we use to frame the debate (aka Framework). I'm pretty liberal in terms of my views on Frameworks that are acceptable in debates and will typically allow debaters to tell me what framing matters in each debate. The only exception of intervention would be frameworks that I personally find morally reprehensible (basically if your framework would advocate the removal/elimination/discrimination/otherization of groups/subjects I'm not going to be for it). I think a framework can take many forms and I am open to whatever that form takes. It can be theory args, Phil framing, Role of the Ballots, Larping, etc. As long as you can explain why your framing is the one that should be used to evaluate/weigh offense then I will accept it as my primary determination of offense.

After Framework, I look at the case or your Offense when evaluating my decision. I try to keep my biases out of debate but, admittedly, there are some arguments I am fond of and others that I'm skeptical of (this doesn't mean I will automatically vote for you if you read what I like or vice versa, it just means you might have some degree of difficulty or ease in convincing me to buy your f/w and arguments). I'll just make a list of what I like and dislike here and my reasoning for each one so you can see what arguments you want to go for:

Phil Positions: I'm pretty neutral to these positions and will accept nearly all of these arguments. I read a little bit of some Phil positions and have had students read authors such as Kant so I'm not too unfamiliar with the positions. I will certainly judge and accept these arguments as long as they are well-defended and easily explained. I have a fairly moderate threshold to responses towards these arguments and expect debaters to clash with the analysis and foundations of the arguments rather than just reading blocks of evidence and not making a good comparative analysis.

Ks: Admittedly, my favorite position. I love any argument that challenges any underlying assumptions being made by either the debaters or the topic. And I enjoy these arguments b/c I believe that they provide a level of argumentative flexibility and uniqueness to the positions. That said, I am not a fan of lazy K debate and will be able to pretty easily sniff out if you are reading arguments that you have no underlying understanding of (aka reading policy backfiles) vs. actually knowing the literature base. You should always make sure you explain the arguments effectively and why your position would resolve whatever harm you are Kritiking. Do that and you should be in good shape.

I also am a fan of performative responses to other arguments made in the debate. For example, using the K to clash with theory and claiming K comes prior is an argument that I enjoy seeing and have voted on more times than not, if it has been well explained and defended. This will be a good way to get extra speaker points.

Larping: I have a policy background so I am fine with people reading policy args in debate. Plans, CPs, DAs. I'm familiar with and can understand them. I'm not a huge believer that PICs are legitimate arguments and do have a fairly low threshold to answer these arguments. Just make sure to explain your internal links and your impact analysis and you should be good.

Theory: I believe that education is the internal link to fairness. That doesn't mean that you can't win otherwise, but I am biased in believing that the educational output of the activity is more relevant than the fairness created in the activity. That being said, I will evaluate theory and weigh it under whatever voters you make. My threshold on the responses to shells will flip depending on the interp. If the interp is clearly a time suck and designed to simply throw off your opponent or abuse them then I have a fairly low threshold for answers towards it. If it is a legitimate concern (Pics bad, Condo) then I have a fairly middle ground towards responses to it.

I default on reasonability unless specified otherwise in the debate.

I default RVI's unless specified otherwise and not for T (unless you win it)

Some other random items that you might be looking for:

Extensions

I need impacts to extensions and need extensions throughout the debate. For the Aff, this is as simple as just giving an overview with some card names and impacts.

When you are extending on the line by line be sure to tell me why the extension matters in the debate so I know why it's relevant

Speed

I am fine with speed in debate. I would prefer that both debaters understand each other and would ask that you spread within reason and be compassionate towards your opponents. If you know that you are debating someone that cannot understand the spread and you continue to do it bc you are going to outspread your opponent then you will most likely win, but your speaks will be absolutely nuked.

Tricks

Tricky args like permissibility and the args that fall under these, I'm not a fan of. I think that these args are fairly lazy and don't believe that there is much educational value to them so I tend to have a low threshold to responses towards these args. And, if you win, you're not going to get great speaks from me.

Speaks

I give speaks based on strategic decisions and interactions with your opponents as opposed to presentation and oratory skills. I usually average a 28.5

Disclosure

If you're at a local tournament, I don't expect there to be disclosure from debaters and don't really care too much about disclosure theory. My threshold is really low to respond to it. If it's a national circuit or state tournament, then I would prefer you disclose but will always be open to a debate on it.

I do not disclose speaks but will disclose results at bid tournaments. I will not disclose for prelim locals, for the sake of time.

Email for chain is: jacob.koshak@cfisd.net

I'm pretty tab, and you should feel comfortable reading whatever you like in front of me.

Here's a short version of my paradigm:

- Flashing/emailing isn't prep so long as you don't take forever

- Don't steal prep

- Fine with K's

- Fine with speed

- I only vote on args with warrants that are extended (yes, this includes analytics)

- Don't say stuff that is obviously bad is good (racism/sexism/etc.)

- I default tech over truth b/c I want to minimize intervention as much as possible

- I default competing interps (but can easily be persuaded to pref reasonability)

- I will not extend or kick arguments for you

- Don't steal prep (really)

Long version:

DA's:

Who doesn't like DA's? Link analysis goes a long way with me. I prefer hearing specific links to the Aff either in what they say in CX or in the AC. If you don't do this, I'm more persuaded by Aff defense that says your links are generic and your DA isn't that probable. There's a recent trend of doing extensive overviews on DAs in the block and 2NR. I honestly don't hate it at all, but I think you should only be doing it to accomplish either or both of these things: 1) To extend everything quickly and efficiently, 2) Explaining to me clearly what your strategy is on this flow and how it impacts the round/other arguments (like turns case args). The latter, if done well, can be really helpful to me and can get you higher speaks if you're able to do it concisely and clearly. I think this applies to overviews on all off-case positions for me.

If you're Aff, I think at some point the amount of offense and defense you read against a DA should take a backseat to comparative analysis. I am a lot more engaged in DA rounds where you are doing evidence comparison and analyzing what your evidence means for the possibility of the DA. I'm not all that interested in hearing VH1's Top 100 Link Turns of the Past DecadeTM.

CP's:

I genuinely don't have any dispositions against particular kinds of counterplans. Any question of the validity or fairness of reading X kind of counterplan should be resolved in a theory debate. In general, CP's need to explain what part of the Aff they solve, have a specific solvency advocate, and have some substantive debate about the solvency deficits to the perm.

One thing to note about me is that presumption flips Aff if you go for a CP. The same sentiment applies to K Alts.

K's:

Probably what I know best. My personal beliefs about a particular author/camp do not affect how I evaluate the round. Additionally, I'm not going to cut you any slack or fill in holes for you in your explanations just because I might happen to have read what you're talking about.

K's need specific links to the Aff. Poor analysis on the link debate on the part of the Neg almost always results on me voting Aff on the perm on the chance that it resolves the link and/or the K itself. The ideal block strategy on the link debate is to reference specific parts of the Aff (I encourage you to even quote their evidence) and directly citing their responses in CX. You do not need to read a lot of evidence with K's. You will get better speaks if you are a) very well organized and b) can explain to me specifically where the Aff goes wrong.

Alts are usually terrible. I need to know what I'm voting on. Like I said above, presumption flips for me if you go for the K in the 2NR. If I don't even know what your alt does, you are risking me voting on presumption. While I don't flow CX, they are still ethos moments. If you sound like you don't know what you're talking about, I'm less likely to buy your alt.

Aff's should obviously try to read no link arguments, but it's in your interest to sit on the alt debate. Explain to me clearly how the permutation works, is justified, and resolves the link. Explain to me why the alt fails.

I don't have any predispositions about kinds of K's, so, like CPs, resolve any validity/fairness claims via theory. Make it apparent to me that the K is a floating PIK in the block, not the 2NR.

K Affs:

Cool with me. Although, I prefer K affs to intersect with the topic in some way. Two biggest problems I see with K affs: 1) I don't really understand what you are advocating and 2) I don't understand how your advocacy resolves the impacts outlined in the AC.

Framework:

Reading a TVA is in your interests if you're Neg. You need to explain how your version of the Aff's advocacy would resolve the violation and why it's good for fairness/education (whatever you're going for). You have a much better chance winning on Neg if you are able to turn the Aff's offense in the AC with your standards.

For Aff's, it's really important that you read counter interps and are doing impact calc. You will want to try to win some disads on their TVA if possible. It never hurts to read some of your solvency/framework evidence in the AC in response to any Neg framework interp to prove that your discussion is crucial to the topic in some way.

T/Theory:

Will vote on it.

I don't have any predispositions about any theory interpretations. One caveat: while I don't have predispositions about specific interps, it's not enough for you to just propose a good norm for debate. You need to prove there is some abuse going on in round AND how your norm resolves said abuse in this round and future rounds. If it's not apparent to me what the other team/debater did wrong, I'm less inclined to vote them down for it.

Please slow down a bit on theory. I can only type so fast. Your voters need warrants. Just saying "voters for fairness and education" is a great for you to decrease my chances of voting on theory/t or to buy your abuse claims. Reasonability debates should be about the Aff's counter interpretation.

For LD folks, I'm not the greatest judge for you if your primary strategies are uplayering.

For T specifically, it helps if your definition is from a source whose credentials are relevant to the topic. For example, the definition is suited for or written by someone with a lot of experience in immigration policy.

I debated for three years at Anderson high school in Austin, Texas, and competed in LD at the local, state, and national circuit. I believe debate should be a fun and educational activity, and that debaters should not hesitate to read any arguments they feel passionate about.

Speed:

Go for it, but be clear. I'll remind you twice, and then I will dock your speaks. I won't vote on anything I don't pick up. I find it's much easier for me to listen when debaters start off slower at the beginning of the AC or NC and then gradually pick up to their ideal speed. Then again, while I think my flow is pretty good, if you're spreading at the TOC level, please make sure to slow down on tags or the most important aspects of your evidence/analytics. Nevertheless, if I don't tell you to slow down, you're fine.

K's:

Love them. I mostly ran these arguments in my last two years of debate. However, you should make sure you have a specific link to the aff's advocacy or you may find it hard to win my ballot. I'm not a fan of generic links you can read on any topic. 

Dis-Ads/Counterplans:

I enjoy these debates. Just slow down on tags, especially on Dis-Ads. The only time I find DA debates hard to follow is when debaters spread through the tags.

Theory/Topicality:

If you're A strat is going all in on theory from the get-go, I'm probably not the best judge for you. I'm not a fan of frivolous theory, and if are confused on what I mean by frivolous, you can ask me before round. I find that this is more of a problem for theory, rather than topicality. I default to competing interps and drop the debater unless told otherwise. I'm not a huge fan of RVI debates as well, but will vote on it if that's what the debate comes to. Nevertheless, I do think that theory/T is beneficial in many circumstances, and will also look to reasonability if told to do so.

Speaks:

Speaks will be based on the quality of a debater's arguments and his or her strategy of choice within the round. While, I don't really care about presentation, clarity of how the argument/strategy is delivered will help raise speaks. I'd also prefer a clear story of the round near the end of the debate.

Other:

• I will give more leeway on extensions for the 1AR
• If there's a role of the ballot argument and theory/T in the debate, it would be beneficial for a debater to inform me on how to weigh the two arguments against each other. 
• Flashing/emailing cards/cases will not come out of prep-time unless it's taking an enormous amount of time to do so
• Sexist, racist, and any other derogatory comments/arguments will cost you the round, and 20 speaks.
• I enjoy hearing role of the ballot arguments, but would like justification on why these are an a-priori argument in context of the resolution.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before round. 

I am the assistant debate coach at Taylor High School and was the Mayde Creek Coach for many years in Houston, TX. Although I have coached and judged on the National Circuit, it is not something I regularly do or particularly enjoy. I was a policy debater in high school and college, but that was along time ago. My experience is primarily congress and LD. In the past several years I have been running tab rooms in the Houston area. That said, here are a few things you may want to know:

Congress

I am fairly flexible in Congress. I like smart, creative speeches. I rate a good passionate persuasive speech over a speech with tons of evidence. Use logos, pathos, and ethos. Clash is good. I think it is good to act like a member of Congress, but not in an over the top way. Questions and answers are very important to me and make the difference in rank. Ask smart questions that advance the debate. Standing up to just ask a dumb question to “participate “ hurts you. I don’t like pointless parliamentary games (who does?). I like a P.O. who is fair and efficient. The P.O. almost always makes my ballot unless they make several big mistakes and or are unfair. (Not calling on a competitor, playing favorites etc.) . If you think your P.O is not being fair, call them on it politely. Be polite and civil, there is a line between attacking arguments and attacking competitors. Stay on the right side of it.

LD & Policy

Civility: I believe we have a real problem in our activity with the lack of civility (and occasional lack of basic human decency). I believe it is discouraging people from participating. Do not make personal attacks or references. Be polite in CX. Forget anything you have ever learned about "perceptual dominance." This is no longer just a loss of speaker points. I will drop you on rudeness alone, regardless of the flow.

Speed: I used to say you could go 6-7 on a 10 point scale... don't. Make it a 3-4 or I will miss that critical analytical warrant you are trying to extend through ink. I am warning you this is not just a stylistic preference. I work tab a lot more than I judge rounds, and do not have the ear that I had when I was judging fast rounds all the time. Run the short version of your cases in front of me. This is particularly true of non-stock, critical positions or multiple short points.

Evidence: I think the way we cut and paraphrase cards is problematic. This is closely related to speed. I would prefer to be able to follow the round and analyze a card without having to read it after it is emailed to me (or call for it after the round). That said, if you feel you have to go fast for strategic reasons, then include me on the chain. I will ignore your spreading and read your case. However, be aware if I have to read your case/evidence, I will. I will read the entire card, not just the highlighted portion. If I think the parts left out or put in 4 point font change the meaning of the argument, or do not support your tag, I will disregard your evidence, regardless of what the opponent says in round. So either go slow or have good, solid evidence.

Theory: I will vote on theory where there is clear abuse. I prefer reasonability as opposed to competing interpretations. Running theory against a stock case for purely competitive advantage annoys me. Argue the case. I don't need a comprehensive theory shell and counter interpretations, and I do not want to see frivolous violations. See my assumptions below.

Assumptions: I believe that debate should be fair and definitions and framework should be interpreted so that both sides have ground and it is possible for either side to win. Morality exists, Justice is not indeterminate, Genocide is bad. I prefer a slower debate focusing on the standard, with well constructed arguments with clash on both sides of the flow. Fewer better arguments are better than lots of bad ones. I am biased towards true arguments. Three sentences of postmodern gibberish cut out of context is not persuasive. Finally, I think the affirmative should be trying to prove the entire resolution true and the negative proves it is not true. (a normative evaluation). You would need to justify your parametric with a warrant other than "so I can win."

Progressive stuff: I will not absolutely rule it out or vote against you, but you need to sell it and explain it. Why is a narrative useful and why should I vote for it? A K better link hard to the opponents case and be based on topical research not just a generic K that has been run on any topic/debater. If you can not explain the alternative or the function of the K in CX in a way that makes sense, I won't vote for it. I am not sure why you need a plan in LD, or why the affirmative links to a Disad. I am not sure how fiat is supposed to work in LD. I do not see why either side has to defend the status quo.

Conclusion: If you want to have a fun TOC style debate with tons of critical positions going really fast, preference a different judge. (Hey, I am not blaming you, some of my debaters loved that sort of thing cough-Jeremey / Valentina / Alec/ Claudia -cough, It is just that I don't).

LD:

I did LD in high school. I do policy at UH. I am open to pretty much whatever you'd like to run, and below I will talk about some specific preferences 

- flow>truth 

- I will not vote you up on any morally rephrehensible arguments--you know what I mean (impact turns on racism, rape) and your speaks will be pitiful 

K: 

I preface this by saying that kritiks are my favorite argument to hear and it's because of this that I have a lot of k specific paradigms (it's not because I'm anti-k!! My little brother told me it sounded this way)

- you need to clearly articulate a link SPECIFIC TO THE AFF. Generic ks are fine, but please--do a little analysis of how it interacts with the particular AC in question

- do enough work on the alt-- don't wait until you have a few seconds left in the NR and then scramble to make an extension 

- I will get ANNOYED if you try to run Ks you clearly don't understand. It's very obvious (I will be able to tell), and if you try this you're pretty unlikley to win because you probably won't be able to do a good job

- k affs are fine

CP/DISAD:

- they're fine. Run them well or don't run them at all

THEORY:

- fine, whether there is in round abuse or not. I default to reasonability

TRADITIONAL: 

- I prefer progressive, but will totally listen to traditional. Do whatever you're best at. 

SPEAKS:

- Usually, the problem with clarity is not that the debater is too fast, it's that the debater thinks they can spread clearly at a fast pace when in reality they can't . I will say clear two times and then start deducting speaks. I will never put down my pen because you're unclear, and will try to get down what you're saying, but what I don't write down I can't vote on...remember that 

Email chains are good. Include me ericmelin76@gmail.com

Debate Coach @ Coppell (9th Grade Center and Coppell High School)

Greenhill 2022

Top Level

I will work hard to be the best judge possible for your debate. I will flow your speeches and cross-ex and base my decisions as much as possible on your words. I love debate and know how much work you put into it and the least I can do is be the best judge I can be for you. Tech over truth. I’m doubling down here this year because so few judges do this in practice. I would rather vote for high quality execution of untruthful argument that is won than interject myself into the debate.

Some thoughts you may care about when doing your pref sheet in no particular order:

1. I don't have any massive preferences in terms of argument content. Please forward a well-developed ballot story. Compare methods and offense. I don't care what you do as long as you do what you do best. Tell me what you want me to vote on. Judge instructions are good. I prefer lbl to long overviews.

2. Evidence quality matters a great deal to me. I enjoy debates where cross-ex is spent digging in on your opponents claims and referencing their ev. Re-highlighted evidence should be read.

3. T - I rarely see 2nr’s that go for T unless a massive mistake has been made by the aff.

4. KAff/TFW - Appeals to Fairness and clash are both persuasive. I find it extremely difficult to overcome the notion that an unlimited prep burden for the neg is undesirable. To me that means the aff should probably be related to the topic in some way. That said, I often vote aff in these debates. The neg either isn't prepared to deal with case cross-applications and impact analysis of the team they are debating, don't do sufficient work establishing the impact to limits , and sufficiently leverage TVA's and Switch Side arguments to mitigate aff offense. Aff teams often lose when they are too defensive, insufficiently develop their counter model of debate, or make mistakes on the technical portions of this debate.

5. K - Like most judges, case-specific links pulled from ev, tags/rhetoric, established in cx, etc. are what I'm looking for. I find that too much of the debate often devolves into reading framing blocks which means argunents aren't ansered in a satisfactory way by both teams. This means that framing is rarely decisive. Moreover, I am not usually persuaded by arguments that say that aff offense just poof goes away unless the neg is substantially ahead on framing. The sooner you realize that framework may not be decisive, begin to engage what often become comparisons of apples and oranges (in round scholarship vs the results of hypothetical policy scenarios), and give me a way to wade through that muck, the better. Please do us a favor and stay organized - clearly label different portions of the debate on the k. Signpost! Please stick to the line-by-line. Short overviews are ok but long are not.

6. CP - Case-specific is best here again. There's almost nothing better than specific cp with high quality evidence. 2ac permutation explanations are your friend. Later in the debate, I tend to think your explanations are just flat out new and not spin. Just invest a bit more time to unpack your initial permutations and I will hold them to answering the nuance.

7. DA - Not a lot to say here. Good evidence matters. Creative spin is welcome. Zero risk is possible and extremely small risk of an extinction scenario can matter a great deal or not much at all depending on the evidence and analysis accompanying these arguments.

8. Theory - Defaults: Condo -> drop team. Everything else = drop argument.

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

I'm a bit of an old-timer: my experience with LD judging was formed with the original Lincoln - Douglas debates, so I need logically formulated, fully explained, and conversationally paced analyses of your arguments.

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

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

More about me:

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

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

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

I did LD in high school and I go to the University of Texas at Austin. 

Flow> anything else. 

Speed- is fine, but I'll only say clear once.  

Theory- run whenever and however you want. One bias I have is that I don't love vote down the debater arguements. This doesn't mean that I haven't/won't vote on this, I'm just prefacing that I don't prefer to see this is a debate. 

K- Feel free to run k's, but please understand that I am not well read in most areas. Do enough work on the alt. Don't just spend 5 seconds on it at the end of your speech as your timer is going off. 

Disads/CPs/Plans- go for it. I think that debate makes more sense if the aff has some sort of advocacy (whether that be something specific or the resolution as a whole) for the neg. 

Role of the ballot/role of the judge: I evaluate these arguments very highly and will typically vote based on who meets the role best. Unless I'm told otherwise, ROB/ROJ comes first.  To win a debate in front of me, it's very important that you do enough work meeting the role (if there is one in the round, obviously). I've literally voted on an ROJ (winning in the round) telling me to vote on the side that I personally believed in. 

Speaks: Speaks depend on a couple of factors. First, how well you formulate your arguments and how good of a debator you are. Secondly, if your rude (and I mean like really rude) I'll deduct speaker points. 

Traditional: Although I prefer progressive, feel free to read a traditional case.

Feel free to ask me any questions. I did this in a bit of a rush, so sorry if I left anything out. 

aurorareinmiller@yahoo.com

LD: I judge line-by-line, then view the round wholistically if the line-by-line doesn't show me a clear winner. Competed in college with some of the fastest people in the country in NPTE/NPDA so as long as your enunciation and diction are good, I'm fine with any speed. I'll tell you clear once, then after that I'll put my pen down and stop flowing. It's partially my job to adapt to you and what you run, but it's also somewhat on you to adapt as well.

DA- I personally love DA's, and especially Tix DA's. I will not vote off your DA if it is not formatted correctly. I.e. Uniqueness, LX, MPX (and ILX if needed). The reason for this is pretty simple, you can't have a fully fleshed out arguement without each of these, they're extremely important. I've become really annoyed with someone running a "DA", and they end up running 5 turns and calling it a DA (which it isn't), I believe this practice delegitimatizes debate, and doesn't provide for a good discussion.

MPX Calc: I'll err Dehume > everything else unless you tell me differently. This is just how a default because I don't really see death bad arguments in debate, debaters just assume death is the worst thing possible. A lot of mpx scenarios shell out to a lot of death, but you don't feel longing pain/aggony in death. Whereas when you face dehumanization it's something real world, it's cyclical, and you're usually in a state where you'd rather be dead. Ashley Montagu said "It neither kills outright nor inflicts apparent pgysicla harm, yet the extent of its destructive toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record -- and it's potential damage to the quality of human life and the fabric fo civilized society is beyond calculation."

CP: I love hearing CP's as long as they're mutual exclusive (can't exist within the same world). I will listen to any type of counterplan but I am willing to vote theorgetical objections if this is warranted out by the Aff. For example, if you real a delay CP and the aff says nothing about it being abusive, I'm fine with voting for it. But if the Aff does say something about it being abusive and wins the theory debate, I'll err Neg.

Theory: I usually err Condo Bad. In saying that, same as with CP debates. If you run it and they don't say anything I'm fine... but if they do, and win the theory debate, I'll err Neg. When it comes to RVI's I'll almost always err against them... They're the most ridiculous arguments in debate, unless there is just this outright abuse that no one in the world could argue against. I've only voted for an RVI once, at UT Elims 15', so it's not impossible but highly unlikely.

K: I don't mind K debates at all, and encourage my debaters to run them because they create a very good discussion in/out of round. I'm most familiar with Mills, Rachels, Nozick author wise... I was a Fem/Enviro debater in college, so I'm very familiar with Ecofem, Anthro, Deep-Eco, etc. I Belive that FW is the most imporant part of the K. I need to know where I should be voting and what should be prioritized in the debate. You also need to do a good job explaining either the LX to the aff or why we need to be having this discussion over the res, then why we can't do both... I really enjoy hearing AFF K's, so feel free to run those as well.

PLEASE GIVE ME A VERBATIM COPY OF YOUR PLAN/ALT TEXT. I want the word for word, exactly what's going to come out of your mouth text.When you don't give the judge or your partner a verbatim copy of the plan/alt text, it skews them from running certain disocurse aguments and T arguments. PLEASE!!! At least give me a copy before the round or during your opponents prep time.

As always, feel free to ask any questions in round if they're not answered here and good luck!

Congress: It's called congressional debate, not congressional speaking. I place 80% of the judging on clash with other representatives and critical evaluation of the bill/resolution. I'm a very experienced congress judge and parli, so I know what's going on. Speeches that don't have clash after the 2nd/3rd speech on a specific bill/resolution will not only be ranked extremely poorly, but it'll hurt you in round.

PF: Look to LD paradigm. I'm fine with theory/k's in PF. I think it engages in good kritikal discussion that has good in/out of round mpx.

CX: Look to LD paradigms. Everythings basically identical. Ask questions if need be.

-Limit spreading/speeding

-No Ks/CPs -- on case arguments preferred 

Background: I am the tournament administrator for Liberty Christian School in Argyle, TX. This is my third season of judging.

Judging Experience: I have judged Novice/Varsity LD, PF, and IEs for 3 years


Updated: 03/18/15

LD and PF:

TL;DR
Speed: NO!!!
Clear: Yes
Flex Prep: Only for Clarification
Card Calling: Yes
Disclose: Yes, if allowed.
RFD: Sure, but don't argue.
Speaker Points: See below.

Traditional: Preferred
Philosophy: Use it
Kritiks [Pre/Post Fiat]: Yes
Kritiks [Discourse]: No
LARPING: Sure
Performance: Depends
Theory: No

Speed/Aesthetics/Pre-Post Round:

• I am NOT a fan of spreading! If I cannot understand you, I cannot vote for you.
• I will say clear twice. If you continue to spread I will not flow you.
• Debate the resolution and the argument not your opponent (no ad hom)
• I don't care if you stand or sit during speeches
• Flex Prep is fine, but only ask clarification questions (i.e. "What is contention three" or "Do you defend X)
• I will call for cards after the round to check validity of evidence when contested
• I disclose unless told not to, but I'm going to be honest, my oral RFDs are pretty bad. I flow and know what happened in the round, I'm just not the best at putting my thoughts into words
• I am admittedly a bit of a point fairy. I don't want to be that judge whose speaks prevent you from breaking

Speaker Point Scale:
30-Clear, Concise, No errors to speak of (for the love of all that is holy please don't say "if you don't buy that")
29-Clear, Concise, but with a few too many "Ums"
28- I've heard better all day
27-You need a bit of work
26 or below- you offended me in some way

Traditional:

• I consider myself to be a very lay judge
• These are my favorite types of debates, especially when done well and at a conversational speed
• I like a good, philosophical framework with solid contentions
• I prefer recent evidence [within the last 5 years] unless it is philosophical

Philosophy:

• I enjoy listening to philosophy, but don't make it the crux of the round, I definitely want to hear some resolutional analysis
• I understand a lot of philosophy and can reason through it, but I would avoid overly complex frameworks

Kritiks [Pre/Post Fiat]:

• I really enjoy kritikal debate when done well
• I prefer when the kritik is linked to the specific position, not necessarily the resolution
• You need a clear alternative, tell me what you're doing instead of the bad things (no reject alts)
• Please provide a strong link. I have an extremely low threshold for answers to weak k links
• I am comfortable with ROTB/ROTJ, but I will evaluate it if presented

Kritiks [Discourse]:

• I don't link these. Don't run them.

LARPING [Plans CPs, DAs, etc]

• I am okay with these arguments so long as you can justify them
• When you specify an advocacy, stick with it
• NO CONDITIONALITY It makes me sad :(

Performance:

• Open to it if it's not offensive
• I am not comfortable with Race/Gender/Sexuality/Ableism debates
• NO SLURS OF ANY KIND
• Narratives are fine if properly cited IF NOT CITED AND I HAVE ANY REASON TO DOUBT THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE NARRATIVE I WILL DROP YOU
• Art/Dancing performance is a lot of fun
• Music performance is cool as long as it's appropriate

Theory:

• Please don't do this. It seems like you're whining and I don't like it

Things I hate that you should know about:

• BE ON TIME! I will dock speaker points for tartiness. I'm also not afraid of the 15 min DQ rule.
• When you get to the round, be prepared to debate (don't be shuffling papers or preflowing in round)
• "Ought" vs "Just" Debates. Don't do it.
• Incoherent or overly complex frameworks
• Redundant Contentions or points
• PRESUMPTION. There is always SOMETHING to vote off.

Things that make me happy:

• GOING FOR THE JUGULAR. The one caveat is do not be mean or rude
• Short Roadmaps and SIGNPOSTING
• Clear, solid voters
• When you adapt to my paradigm
• When you read my paradigm and i don't have to explain it when you get here [+.2 speaks for telling me you read my paradigm]

IF THERE IS NO WAY THAT YOU COULD POSSIBLY BREAK:

• Have Fun!!!
• Running weird/off the wall cases in this situation is totally fine [Fluffy Bunnies/Death of Debate/Reptilian Illuminati/Double Drop/Decathalon/etc]

IEs:

• I am NOT a progressive judge. I do not like profanity filled, non-age appropriate material.
• Watch blocking and timing.
• Make me forget I am judging, bring me into your story.

Updated 1/10 for Churchill Classic: I will boost speaks by .3 if you draw me a picture (you must present this at the start of the round). Control F to view noteworthy updates to my paradigm.

Disclaimer: I don't care where you sit, if you sit, whether you wear a jacket, whether you're going to use flex prep- just do it.

IMPORTANT UPDATE 1/11: If you are confident that you have won my ballot in your final speech then just stop there. Do not talk just to fill up the allotted time. I will reward you for your concise and strategic approach with higher speaks.

SPECIAL CHALLENGE-GUARANTEE 30 POINTS: If you win and end your final speech within half of your given time (IE 1:30 minutes for the 2ar and 3 minutes for the 2nr) I will give you an instant 30 speaks.

TL;DR: I'm not a great theory/t judge and have very specific expectations for these arguments (see below), I think DAs should be as reasonable/realistic as possible, but that extinction is usually a no-risk freebie that you should take advantage of (so do both), I really love ks- cap, discourse, ableism, decol, etc, but I'm not going to know your pomo stuff like the back of my hand so please take it easy on me (basically anything that is v philosophical and uses words that I won't know unless I just read the book) so I'll need explanation aside from the repetition of buzzwords (you can ask me before round about my knowledge of your specific authors so you'll know what degree to explain things). Speed should be fine. Ask for triggers before the round starts. Don't be #TheWorst.

Foreword: I feel like knowing who I am as a person is very important to understand how I judge and why I do some of the things that I do, so we're gonna have a little crash course. A v important thing to know about me is that I have aspergers. Debate wise, that means I take ableism really seriously and will always love to hear a good ableism discussion. In terms of how that affects other things, it means that sometimes eye contact is really uncomfortable for me, so I may not look at you during an RFD or during speeches. Sometimes the acoustics of a room will really bother me, which may affect how well I will understand you if you are quick or very loud. It also means that it takes me a little while longer to give you a very articulate RFD. With very close rounds, I often make a list of 'round facts', things which have definitively been lost or conceded, and then connect the dots to determine how these facts interact and what that means for the round- you will probably hear me scribbling furiously when this happens.

ALSO please read my paradigm carefully, I have some probably unpopular opinions about some arguments people make and I really do not want to have to explain that the reason you lost is because you went for something I have already articulated I do not understand or find acceptable.

when i say ask for triggers/give a content warning i am being super serious

UPDATE: Topic specific stuff: authoritarian something

-PLS GIVE ME AN AFF ABOUT THE US BEING AUTHORITARIAN AND SHUTTING DOWN THE MILITARY

-maybe don't use yemen as the neg probably

-I love seeing interesting takes on a resolution, so if you've got some wacky, not strictly topical (or completely nonT) aff, hit me with it.

-ur nebel t will make me hate my life but explain it and I'll give it to you

General Paradigm: Speed- Fine with it. I will repeatedly yell clear if I can’t understand you. I may ask you to flash me what you're reading just to be on the safe side/assume I want in on email chains. It’s msteve884@gmail.com. ***If I don't flow it, I'm not going to supplement your argument through the speech doc- be clear, I don't do work for y'all.

Update: Theory is slowly growing on me, but I’m very particular about shells (thanks @jason yang) Your theory checklist in front of me:

1. 1. Specific interps- I don’t mean, restate the resolution and the month and the tournament in your generic plans bad interp; I want theory that engages specific abuse and articulates the abuse story well.

2. 2. No one needs more than three standards. Honestly two is what makes the most sense to me, since they all get repetitive and cease to be unique or meaningful, but hey.

3. 3. If you’re devoting time to theory, I want well warranted standards and voters. Why does your standard matter? How have they violated it and how much? What is the effect on the ballot from that violation? Spell it out!

4. 4. If theory is a quick off, condense it- don’t read a whole slew of standards and voters- especially since everyone has education/fairness impacts memorized- I don’t need a card for fairness or education or to articulate why limits matter. And I don’t need 6 things to flow and have you waste speech time on.

5. 5. Again, cards in shells= overrated, don’t read to me telling me you’re missing out on spending time with your wife and kids.

6. 6. If your tricks are so well hidden that I don’t catch them, that’s just unlucky for you.

Biggest takeaway is that I hate generic interps because they produce boring rounds, I want good interaction between standards, and I need to be able to flow what you’re saying- that means rapid fire blips aren’t cool. I default reasonability, convince me otherwise if you want.

Topicality- I am very susceptible to arguments of why ks come before t. I think t can be really interesting (like, what IS a medical procedure?? we just don't know!!), but y'alls obsession with grammar is painful, so I'll be less eager to hear "this colon has x implication". Most of the time, t will not be the place where I sign my ballot.

Ks- yes pls. I understand stuff like cap and ableism, not so much DnG and whatever you kids are doing these days (if you're going to read Heidegger or other authors whose work I would have to have read several times pre-round in order to understand, you're going to need to do more work explaining that to me than you would "x is ableist and ableism is bad")
As a sidenote, I don’t really think discourse k’s need much of an alt aside from reject.
UPDATE: I love K’s but I also get really burnt out with them; if you read a role of the ballot in front of me, you better be prepared to explain what it means in the debate community or world at large, and how you can perform it- if it doesn’t come up in round, I’ll likely ask after I’ve made my decision because IT’S IMPORTANT. Y’all can’t hide behind Giroux forever and pat yourselves on the back for being intellectuals and revolutionaries. This ESPECIALLY goes for pre-fiat conversations about the debate community; I don’t want to hear that things need to get better, I want to know how you’re setting forth to MAKE them better.

UPDATE: policy args- I think CPs are hella fun and I really like rounds which include them. I think DAs are usually pretty bad unless you're going to articulate them through an oppression lens rather than some outrageous extinction scenario. *I’ve been won over to terminal impacts, but I’d still prefer that you include systemic ones as well rather than relying solely on extinction/low probability outcomes. @Willie Johnson convinced me that it’s always good to have extinction on the table as a fallback so go wild.

speaks- please don't call me judge, please don't shake my hand, don't call me by my first name

My speaks range:

<27: You said something that annoyed me, were rude, misrepresented an argument (without being called out), etc

27-27.5: I didn't find your performance very compelling, there was too little clash or weighing, etc

27.5-28.5: This was an average round. There's a lot of room to grow, but I believe you could have done really well with just a few changes to strat or performance.

28.5-29.5: Good decisions were made, I am generally pleased with this round: you were very funny, or strategic, or persuasive.

29.5-30: I will enthusiastically tell someone about this round. I think you should be in late outrounds and I will tell my kids to read your cases and give rebuttal redos of this round.

philosophy heavy rounds- Probably the only philosopher I ever got really acquainted with was Rawls, if your case is 4 minutes of deontology or ethics of care or something, I'm most likely not a great judge for you because where things don't make sense I will try to fill in gaps on my own and def misconstrue the argument.
PLEASE WEIGH BETWEEN LAYERS. ALSO JUST WEIGH IN GENERAL.

General stuff: Things I hate to listen to
UPDATE: *For personal reasons, I’m leery of pessimism arguments. Usually I only see this for queer pess, but I just don’t want to anymore. I especially don’t want to see any suicide alts- you will get zero speaks.

- Ableism is a huge nono for me. Even if you don’t think it’s a big deal, your opponent might, and I definitely will. So, calling something “dumb” “crazy” “lame” “stupid” etc will definitely hurt your speaks (less so if your opponent doesn’t say anything about it, moreso if they call you). A good standard: If you’re using a word which describes disability or impairment to ridicule something, don’t. Another tip: If something can be used as a synonym for the word ret*rded, don’t say it. (Instead of calling something stupid or whatever, say it ‘doesn’t make sense’ or ‘isn’t valid’ or is ‘ridiculous’, etc etc. Go to autistichoya.com for more alternatives if you want) (Also "stupid" absolutely is ableist, I don't care if you see in the dictionary that it means "in a stupor", in the same way that the f slur is also defined as burning sticks or cigarettes, the word "stupid" has multiple definitions and you are 99% definitely not using it to describe someone "in a stupor", so don't pull this)

-Same goes for racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, etc. NEVER dismiss any oppression because of util calc or any other factor (this is not to say “don’t run util”, this is to say “don’t make me relive the time someone told me gay people don’t matter because there are more str8s”). Stop co opting one form of oppression by saying ‘oh, racism isn’t really the problem!!! We gotta solve cap first lmao!!!’ I reserve the right to be offended by your discourse and/or proposal, and though it won’t probably be a voting issue unless your opponent makes it one (unless you just bite the bullet and go rape good!!!! Racism good!!!! Those, and things in that vein, are auto drops for me), my displeasure will show in speaks (even if I’m the only one who noticed/cared).

-Arguments that are like “I hate debate because it’s boring so instead of discussing this topic which might be super important to other people in this round, lets do x (like tell jokes all round)!” If you think debate is boring, don’t do it. If you want to tell jokes, do it out of round or be a friggin standup, I don’t care. This is distinct from critiquing the debate space for exclusion, those arguments have purpose aside from being a super edgy le troll lololol w0w!!! If you want to run stuff in front of me that says ‘this norm is bad let’s do y instead’, more power to you. If you want to goof off and make light of something that is important, save it for someone else. I will not vote you up for being bored and ridiculous.

*UPDATE: DISCLOSURE- for the love of lorde will yall prepped big schools who are prepped TF out stop reading disclosure against kids who literally don't know the wiki exists/don't have the access and experience w circuit norms you do?? I'm all for disclosure and I think it's a good norm but stop penalizing kids for not being able to be as engaged as you!**


I like positions that make me think, things that indict systems of power and privilege, things that make me interrogate my assumptions. I like rounds that have respectful interactions (IE you don’t tell your opponents that they “don’t understand English” or anything like that) while still being fast paced and fun. I’m a simple judge of simple means, if anything is unclear or seems unfair, talk to me before round and I’ll consider an exception (if you have a rEALLY good PAS aff, for instance, that is absolutely not ableist then argue with me to run it, I like seeing those advocacy skills put to good use)

Coaching History:

Mansfield Legacy [2023-Present]
Byron Nelson High School (2018-2021)
Royse City High School (2013-2018; 2021-2023)
Email: matthewstewart@misdmail.org (do please include me in any email chains)

General Preferences [updated as of 3/14/24]:

Theory
More truth over tech. If you're real big on theory, I'm not your judge because I'm definitely gonna goof up that flow.

Disclosure:

Don't run it. I think open source is good and should be the standard, but I don't care for it being used as an argument to smash small schools without prep.

Framework:
Default offense/defense if I don't have a framework to work with. Winning framing doesn't mean you win the round, you still need to leverage it for your offense.


Speed:
Whatever you AND your opponent are okay with! Speed shouldn't be a barrier to debate. Slow up for Taglines/Cites, give me a filler word ("and," "next," etc.) to let me know when you're moving to the next piece on the flow and be sure to give me some pen time on Theory/Topicality shells.

Round Conduct:
Don't be sketchy, rude, or hostile to judges or your opponents! We're all here to learn and grow academically, remember that.

Speaker Points:
Starts at 27 and goes up based on strategy, delivery style, and round conduct. Sub 27 means you most likely said something unabashedly offensive or were just generally hostile towards your opponents.

Miscellaneous Stuff

-Debate what you want to debate, I would rather try to meet you on your side of what debate is rather than enforce norms on you. BUT that doesn't mean you can get away with making unwarranted arguments or not doing extensions, impacts, or weighing like a good debater should!

-Open CX and Flex prep are cool with me, but I will respect the norms of the circuit I am judging in.

-I'm pretty non-verbal as I'm flowing and listening, so for better or worse that's gonna be there.

-Just be chill. Debate the way that is most comfortable for you...hopefully that isn't a really yelly and rude style because I'd prefer you not. Respect each other, do your thing, and we'll all have a good time!

-A roadmap is just telling me what order to put my flowsheets in. No more. No less.

-Be kind to novices, be the support you wish you had when you first started. Bonus points for treating newbies nice.

-Extending specific warrants WITH your cards is good, so is doing evidence comparison and impacting out drops

-The less work you do on telling me how to evaluate the round, the riskier it gets for your ballot. Don't assume we're both on the same flow page or that I can read your mind.

-Sending the doc or speech is part of prep time. I will not stop prep until the doc is sent.

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

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

Things to Know

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How I Make Decisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email: stransky.alex@gmail.com

Basically, I'll vote on anything you run just as long as it makes sense and you don't go over my head with your argument. Take caution, however, when you tell me how I should vote. If you don't clearly and fully explain and defend your stance, then I'm more likely to vote for the other side if you don't address major holes in your argument.

That said, I love philosophical implications in debate. They are fun to judge and really engaging to me. I think the more complex they are, the better, but again, don't go over my head. I won't judge what I can't understand. Also, if I can't understand you because you cannot accurately articulate your stance, then that usual means you don't understand everything you're saying, too. 

I don't really care too much for speed. If you can do it, great! Just be clear. If you aren't, then I'll tell you by saying "clear." If you don't speed, that's not a big deal. 

Besides that, be respectful! Don't stereotype and try not to make emotional appeals. 

And most importantly have fun! If you're not into the debate, then odds are I'm not either. At the end of the day, though, you just do you.

I did not do debate in high school or college.

I have coached speech and debate for 20 years. I focus on speech events, PF, and WSD. I rarely judge LD (some years I have gone the entire year without judging LD), so if I am your judge in LD, please go slowly. I will attempt to evaluate every argument you provide in the round, but your ability to clearly explain the argument dictates whether or not it will actually impact my decision/be the argument that I vote off of in the round. When it comes to theory or other progressive arguments (basically arguments that may not directly link to the resolution) please do not assume that I understand completely how these arguments function in the round. You will need to explain to me why and how you are winning and why these arguments are important. When it comes to explanation, do not take anything for granted. Additionally, if you are speaking too quickly, I will simply put my pen down and say "clear."

In terms of PF, although I am not a fan of labels for judges ("tech," "lay," "flay") I would probably best be described as traditional. I really like it when debaters discuss the resolution and issues related to the resolution, rather than getting "lost in the sauce." What I mean by "lost in the sauce" is that sometimes debaters take on very complex ideas/arguments in PF and the time limits for that event make it very difficult for debaters to fully explain these complex ideas.

Argument selection is a skill. Based on the time restrictions in PF debate, you should focus on the most important arguments in the summary and final focus speeches. I believe that PF rounds function like a funnel. You should only be discussing a few arguments at the end of the round. If you are discussing a lot of arguments, you are probably speaking really quickly, and you are also probably sacrificing thoroughness of explanation. Go slowly and explain completely, please.

In cross, please be nice. Don't talk over one another. I will dock your speaks if you are rude or condescending. Also, every competitor needs to participate in grand cross. I will dock your speaks if one of the speakers does not participate.

For Worlds, I prefer a very organized approach and I believe that teams should be working together and that the speeches should compliment one another. When each student gives a completely unique speech that doesn’t acknowledge previous arguments, I often get confused as to what is most important in the round. I believe that argument selection is very important and that teams should be strategizing to determine which arguments are most important. Please keep your POIs clear and concise.

If you have any questions, please let me know after I provide my RFD. I am here to help you learn.

Pronouns: he/him

School affiliation/s - please indicate all (required):

The Hockaday School

Years Judging/Coaching (required)

24

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)

22

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required)

Check all that apply

__X___I judge WS regularly on the local level

__X___I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year (required)

~50

Check all that apply

____ Congress

____ PF

____ LD

____ Policy

____ Extemp/OO/Info

____ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

Chairing means making sure everyone is present and ready, calling on individual speakers and announcing the decision. I usually announce the decision then ask the other judges to provide feedback before providing my own.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? (required)

WSD is what debate would be if people stopped the tactics that exclude others from the debate and arguments. The delivery and required clash of WSD means that there is no hiding from bad arguments or from good arguments.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? (required)

I flow on excel using techniques like other formats. I attempt to get as much of the details as I can.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. (required)

It depends on the motion. On a motion that tends towards a problem-solution approach I will tend to prefer the practical, but on a motion that is rooted in a would or believes approach I tend towards the practical.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

For me, strategy is how the speaker addresses the large clashes in the debate and compares those clashes for one another. For example, if the debate is about the efficacy of green patents I am looking for the speaker to address something that exists in the assumption that efficacy is good or bad.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast? (required)

I do that in the style section.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? (required)

I tend to grant both claims as being true and then look to see if the claims are mutually exclusive. If they aren’t then I look at whether the teams advanced a burden/principle that supports their side. Included in this is an evaluation of whether a side has compared their burden/principle to the other team’s.

How do you resolve model quibbles? (required)

I don’t like to resolve these issue because they often revolve around questions of fact, which I can’t resolve in a debate where there are no objectively verified facts. I tend to go through the same process as I do when it comes to evaluating competing claims.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? (required)

First, I think both sides have the option to have a model or countermodel, but it is not required in the debate. Second, I think about the practical and the world each side creates. If a team is comparing their world to the world of the other team then I tend to follow that logic. Hopefully, both teams are doing this and then they are using their burden/principle to explain why their world is more important for me to vote for. One item that I tend to not enjoy is when teams treat models and countermodels as plans and counterplans and attack each other’s position without a comparison. Keep in mind that reasons the other team’s position fails are not reasons your position succeeds!

If I am judging you in an event other than WSD.

I am sorry, it has been several years since I have judged anything else but WSD. I do not subscribe to the technique over truth paradigm, nor do I want to listen to a mistakes driven debate. I want to see clash, not strategies geared towards avoiding/trapping the other side. Please do not spread, I will not flow that fast and I will not go back and reconstruct your speech using a speech document. Acts of exclusion will result in low points and possible loss of the ballot. I know this is a list of do not's rather than do's so I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

sophiewilczynski at gmail dot com for email chains & specific questions.

I debated for UT austin from 2014-17 & have remained tangentially affiliated with the program since. my degree is in rhetoric, and as a debater I read a lot of big structural critiques and weird impact turns.

***

tldr: I have been doing this for a while. I don't really care what you say as long as you engage it well. do what you do best, make meaningful distinctions, & don't be rude while you're at it!

clarity matters, esp in the age of virtual debate. as long as I can understand what you are saying I shouldn’t have trouble getting it down - that being said, debaters have an unfortunate tendency to overestimate their own clarity, so just something to keep in mind. slowing down on procedurals, cp/alt texts, & author names is very much appreciated.

topicality - fun if you're willing to do the work to develop them properly. I think evidence comparison is a super under-utilized resource in T debates, and a lot of good teams lose to crappy interps for this reason. as with anything else, you need to establish & justify the evaluatory framework by which you would like me to assess your impacts. have a debate, don't just blast through ur blocks

disads/CPs - fine & cool. i find that huge generic gnw/extinction scenarios often don't hold up to the scrutiny and rigor of more isolated regional scenarios. will vote on terminal defense if I have a good reason to do so. pics are usually good

K debates - make a decision about the level at which your impacts operate and stick to it. and talk about the aff. this applies to both sides. the neg should be critiquing the affirmative, not merely identifying a structure and breaking down the implications without thorough contextualization. the mechanics of the alternative & the context in which it operates have to be clearly articulated and comparatively contextualized to the mechanics of 1AC solvency. i think a lot of murky & convoluted perm debates could be avoided with greater consideration for this - impact heuristics matter a lot when establishing competition (or levels of competition). likewise, blasting through thousands of variants of "perm do x" with no warrants or comparative explanation does not mean you have made a permutation. will vote on links as case turns, but will be unhappy about it if it's done lazily.

framework - i think it's good when the aff engages the resolution, but i don't have any particularly strong feelings about how that should happen

theory - if you must

misc

case matters, use it effectively rather than reading your blocks in response to nothing

i find myself judging a lot of clash debates, which is usually cool

prep ends when doc is saved

be nice & 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.

Hey y’all, I’m Matt.

He/Him/His pronouns

(Please add me to the email chain: madwitman@gmail.com)

Few notes about me - I debated for four years at Edmond Santa Fe in Oklahoma where I competed in policy, public forum, and speech for a while but ended up having a successful career in LD. I participated at the national tournament for all four years in various events. I was a policy debater for a few years in college at the University of Oklahoma as well. Graduated in 2019 and ended up in Tulsa where I am a management and data ecosystem consultant for organizations devoted to social good.

**TOP-LEVEL NOTE**: I recognize debate can be tough on people in different ways and it’s not a fully-equitable sport. If there is something I can do to make the debate safer or more comfortable for you (calling you by a name not on your ballot, using a different pronoun that is listed, accommodating for a disability, etc.), I will absolutely do everything in my power to make the space more accessible and/or safe for you. If you don’t feel comfortable telling me in the debate, feel free to email me at madwitman@gmail.com.

I used to have a very long, drawn out paradigm that went through my preferences for each off-case position, debate style, etc. but I have since simplified it. I think debaters tend to overthink it and I would rather you debate how you want. Ultimately, debate gave me the space I needed to find myself and I hope it does the same for you. That said, read whatever you want to in front of me (pending it isn’t racist, sexist, transphobic, etc.). Debate how you are comfortable. I was a “critical” debater throughout high school and college but will absolutely vote on well-executed policy arguments. Please don’t feel the need to pull out your school’s old Time Cube backfile just because you read that I’m a K debater - although it would be hilarious.

Couple things:

• I’m fine with speed in any debate format, just be clear.

• Prep stops when the flash drive leaves the computer or the email is sent.

• “Extend X argument” requires a warrant, not just those words

• I value line-by-line analysis and technical debate but I think a great debater knows the art of combining ‘tech things’ with the big picture

• If you do read some critical argument or K, don’t assume I know all of the literature base/what you are talking about. I love a well-executed K with a good explanation of the base.

• Theory and framework are fine - just slow down a little on the blips. I flow on paper - it benefits you if my flow is as clear as possible.

I’m sure I’m missing something so if you have any additional questions, feel free to ask. Have fun and take care.

Teams are at liberty to debate in the styles they have been coached to perform as long as they are capable of defending their positions. Speed is fine, as long as it’s clear. I will listen to and evaluate both traditional and progressive arguments in the framework the debaters define. I prefer arguments to be specific and warranted, and for each team to provide effective comparative analysis giving me reasons to vote in the final rebuttals. I typically am familiar with most arguments on the topic, but refrain from technical high speed responses  and focus more on clearer more substantive explanations of your positions. Policy debates are easier for me to follow, but feel free to read kritkal strategies, just flesh it out a little more for me. 

I’ve been involved with the debate community since 1997. Most of my time has been debating and coaching in the South Texas border region. My interests are politics disads, gender, identity, cap, bio power, critical race Ks. I’m cool with T and counter plans. Theory needs to be slow and explained I won’t pull the trigger just cause to have a block. 

Updated -Nov. 2023 (mostly changes to LD section)

Currently coaching: Memorial HS.
Formerly coached: Spring Woods HS, Stratford HS

Email: mhsdebateyu@gmail.com

I was a LD debater in high school (Spring Woods) and a Policy debater in college (Trinity) who mainly debated Ks. My coaching style is focused on narrative building. I think it's important/educational for debate to be about conveying a clear story of what the aff and the neg world looks like at the end of the round. I have a high threshold on Theory arguments and prefer more traditional impact calculus debates. Either way, please signpost as much as you can, the more organized your speeches are the likelihood of good speaks increases. My average speaker point range is 27 - 29.2. I generally do not give out 30 speaks unless the debater is one of the top 5% of debaters I've judged. I believe debate is an art. You are welcome to add me to any email chains: (mhsdebateyu@gmail.com) More in depth explanations provided below.

Interp. Paradigm:

Perform with passion. I would like you tell me why it is significant or relevant. There should be a message or take-away after I see your performance. I think clean performances > quality of content is true most of the time.

PF Paradigm:

I believe that PF is a great synthesis of the technical and presentation side of debate. The event should be distinct from Policy or LD, so please don't spread in PF. While I am a flow judge, I will not flow crossfire, but will rely on crossfire to determine speaker points. Since my background is mostly in LD and CX, I use a similar lens when weighing arguments in PF. I used to think Framework in PF was unnecessary, but I think it can be interesting to explore in some rounds. I usually default on a Util framework. Deontological frameworks are welcomed, but requires some explanation for why it's preferred. I think running kritik-lite arguments in PF is not particularly strategic, so I will be a little hesitant extending those arguments for you if you're not doing the work to explain the internal links or the alternative. Most of the time, it feels lazy, for example, to run a Settler Col K shell, and then assume I will extend the links just because I am familiar with the argument is probably not the play. I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. I will not read cards after the round. I prefer actually cut card and dislike paraphrasing (but I won't hold that against you). First Summary doesn't need to extend defense, but should since it's 3 minutes.

I have a high threshold for theory arguments in general. There is not enough time in PF for theory arguments to mean much to me. If there is something abusive, make the claim, but there is no need to spend 2 minutes on it. I'm not sure if telling me the rules of debate fits with the idea of PF debate. I have noticed more and more theory arguments showing up in PF rounds and I think it's actually more abusive to run theory arguments than exposing potential abuse due to the time constraints.

LD Paradigm: (*updated for Glenbrooks 2023)

Treat me like a policy judge. While I do enjoy phil debates, I don’t always know how to evaluate them if I am unfamiliar with the literature. It’s far easier for me to understand policy arguments. I don’t think tech vs. truth is a good label, because I go back and forth on how I feel about policy arguments and Kritiks. I want to see creativity in debate rounds, but more importantly I want to learn something from every round I judge.

Speed is ok, but I’m usually annoyed when there are stumbles or lack of articulation. Spreading is a choice, and I assume that if you are going to utilize speed, be good at it. If you are unclear or too fast, I won’t tell you (saying “clear” or “slow” is oftentimes ignored), I will just choose to not flow. While I am relatively progressive, I don't like tricks or nibs even though my team have, in the past, used them without me knowing.

I will vote on the Kritik 7/10 times depending on clarity of link and whether the Alt has solvency. I will vote on Theory 2/10 times because judging for many years, I already have preconceived notions about debate norms, If you run multiple theory shells I am likely to vote against you so increasing the # of theory arguments won't increase your chances (sorry, but condo is bad). I tend to vote neg on presumption if there is nothing else to vote on. I enjoy LD debates that are very organized and clean line by lines. If a lot of time is spent on framework/framing, please extend them throughout the round. I need to be reminded of what the role of the ballot should be, since it tends to change round by round.

CX Paradigm:

I'm much more open to different arguments in Policy than any other forms of debate. While I probably prefer standard Policy rounds, I mostly ran Ks in college. I am slowly warming up to the idea of Affirmative Ks, but I'm still adverse to with topical counterplans. I'm more truth than tech when it comes to policy debate. Unlike LD, I think condo is good in policy, but that doesn't mean you should run 3 different kritiks in the 1NC + a Politics DA. Speaking of, Politics DAs are relatively generic and needs very clear links or else I'll be really confused and will forget to flow the rest of your speech trying to figure out how it functions, this is a result of not keeping up with the news as much as I used to. I don't like to vote on Topicality because it's usually used as a time suck more than anything else. If there is a clear violation, then you don't need to debate further, but if there is no violation, nothing happens. If I have to vote on T, I will be very bored.

Congress Paradigm:

I'm looking for analysis that actually engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.

I'm used to LD and CX, so I prefer some form of Impact Calculus/framework. At least some sense as to why losing lives is more important than systemic violence. etc.

Some requests:
- Please don't say, "Judge, in your paradigm, you said..." in the round and expose me like that.

- Please don't post-round me while I am still in the room, you are welcome to do so when I am not present.

- Please don't try to shake my hand before/after the round.

- I have the same expression all the time, please don't read into it.

- Please time yourself for everything. I don't want to.

- I don’t have a preference for any presentation norms in debate, such as I don’t care if you sit or stand, I don’t care if you want to use “flex prep”, I don’t care which side of the room you sit or where I should sit. If you end up asking me these questions, it will tell me that you did not read my paradigm, which is probably okay, i’ll just be confused starting the round.

I am currently a policy and PF coach at Taipei American School. My previous affiliations include Fulbright Taiwan, the University of Wyoming, Apple Valley High School, The Harker School, the University of Oklahoma, and Bartlesville High School. I have debated or coached policy, LD, PF, WSD, BP, Congress, and Ethics Bowl.

Email for the chain: lwzhou10 at gmail.com

---

TOC Public Forum

Put the Public back in Public Forum.

For the TOC, follow all of the evidence rules and guidelines listed in the tournament policies. I care a lot about proper citations, good evidence norms, clipping, and misrepresentation.

I won't vote for arguments spread, theory, kritiks, or anything unrelated to the truth or falsity of the resolution. I find it extremely difficult to vote for arguments that lack resolutional basis (e.g., most theory or procedural arguments, some kritikal arguments, etc.). I find trends to evade debate over the topic to be anathema to my beliefs about what Public Forum debate ought to look like.

I care that you debate the topic in a way that reflects serious engagement with the relevant scholarly literature. I would also prefer to judge debates that do not contain references to arcane debate norms or jargon.

Additionally, I expect that your evidence abides by NSDA rules as outlined in the NSDA Evidence Guide. If I find evidence that does not conform to these guidelines, I will minimally disregard that piece of evidence and maximally vote against you.

tl;dr won't blink twice about voting against teams that violate evidence rules or try to make PF sound like policy-lite.

Other Things

Exchanging evidence in a manner consistent with the NSDA's rules on evidence exchange has become a painfully slow process. Please simply set up an email chain or use an online file sharing service in order to quickly facilitate the exchange of relevant evidence. Calling for individual pieces of evidence appears to me as nothing more than prep stealing.

If the Final Focus is all read from the computer, just send me the speech docs before the debate starts to save us some time. I'll also cap your speaks at 28.5.

I do not believe that either team has any obligation to "frontline" in second rebuttal, but my preferences on this are malleable. If "frontlining" is the agreed upon norm, I expect that the second speaking team also devote time to rebuttals in the constructive speeches.

The idea of defense being "sticky" seems illogical to me.

There is also a strong trend towards under-developing arguments in an activity that already operates with compressed speech times. I also strongly dislike the practice of spamming one-line quotes with no context (or warrant) from a dozen sources in a single speech. I will reward teams generously if they invest in a few well-warranted arguments which they spend time meaningfully weighing compared to if they continue to shotgun arguments with little regard for their plausibility or quality.

---

Policy

Stolen from Matt Liu: "Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas."

I debated for OU back in the day but you shouldn't read too much into that—I wasn't ever particularly good or invested when I was competing. I lean more towards the policy side than the K side and I'm probably going to be unfamiliar with a lot of the ins-and-outs of most kritiks, although I will do my best to fairly evaluate the debate as it happens.

1. I tend to think the role of the aff is to demonstrate that the benefits of a topical plan outweigh its costs and that the role of the neg is to demonstrate that the costs and/or opportunity costs of the aff's plan outweigh its benefits.
2. I find variations of "fairness bad" or "logic/reasoning bad," to be incredibly difficult to win given that I think those are fundamental presuppositions of debate itself. Similarly, I find procedural fairness impacts to be the best 2NRs on T/Framework.
3. Conditionality seems obviously good, but I'm not opposed to a 2AR on condo. Most other theory arguments seem like reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I lean towards reasonability. Most counterplan issues seem best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
4. Warrant depth is good. Argument comparison is good. Both together—even better.
5. Give judge instruction—tell me how to evaluate the debate.

None of these biases are locked in—in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

---

WSD

My debate experience is primarily in LD, policy, and PF. I do not consider myself well-versed in all the intricacies or nuances of WSD strategy and norms. My only strong preference is that want to see well-developed and warranted arguments. I would prefer fewer, better developed arguments over more, less-developed arguments.

---

Online Procedural Concerns

1. Follow tournament procedure regarding online competition best practices.
2. Record your speeches locally. If you cut out and don't have a local backup, that's a you problem.
3. Keep your camera on when you speak, I don't care if it's on otherwise. Only exception is if there are tech or internet issues---keeping the camera off for the entirety of the debate otherwise is a good way to lose speaker points.
4. I'll keep my camera off for prep time, but I'll verbally indicate I'm ready before each speech and turn on the camera for your speeches. If you don't hear me say I'm ready and see my camera on, don't start.
5. Yes, I'll say clear and stuff for online rounds.