University of Houston Cougar Classic
2017 — Houston, TX/US
Varsity LD Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I debated for four years in high school. I competed in LD, PF, Oratory and a few more events. I now judge in various high school tournaments. If you follow general policy you should be fine. I'm fine with speed. Generally the team that wins has a few common characteristics. They have the better framework. They have a stronger case. And most of all they are able to sell it better than the other team. I make sure to use the information given to me in the round and not my own bias when judging the round.
I debated for 3 years for Dulles High School, competing locally and on the Texas TOC circuit. I qualified to state my sophomore and junior year.
I will vote off most types of arguments as long as they are well-warranted and impact back to some sort of weighing mechanism. Make sure there's a very clearly articulated weighing calculus
Please make your extensions clear- tell me where you are in your case instead of just saying a card name. Give me the tag, warrant, and impact.
A reasonable amout of speed is a-okay- don't go crazy. I'll call clear twice and then probably stop flowing/docking speaks. For all our sakes, try not to go too fast in the beginning so we all have time to warm up and adjust to your speaking.
Policy arguments are a-okay. Weighing through a clear impact calculus is really important to these arguments, and I’m comfortable with most extinction scenarios.
Critical Arguments are also a-okay. I didn't read a ton of literature in highschool, so if you read critical arguments, please slow down as the rhetoric can be dense and try to recap your argument every so often. I prefer kritiks with specific links to the AC with an alternative, as a posed to generic Kritiks that can be recycled on every topic.
I’m usually pretty generous with speaker points. The easiest way to win speaks for me is through humor, strategy, and confidence. I'd hate to be the girl to keep you from breaking, so if you have concerns , talk to me after the round and I'll usually be happy to help. Having said that, if you're racist, sexist, or a general ass hat, expect low speaks, and expect me to not care if you talk to me after the round.
Theory arguments are okay if and only if there is actual abuse in the round. I'll default to a competing interpretations paradigm and drop the argument. If you choose to read theory as a time suck or just for kicks and giggles, I will be annoyed and it will cost you speaks.
If there is real abuse, please theory to your heart's content. RVI's are okay assuming there's offense linked back, and I'd appreciate clear weighing analysis between the standards so I don't have to intervene.
Skepticism and Presumption are not a-okay.
If you have any more questions feel free to ask before the round. Goodluck and have fun!
I vote off of well-warranted arguments and winning frameworks in general. Don't speak too fast; be clear and direct. Don't bring up theory unless there is clear abuse in the round. I'm generous with speaker points as long as you're civil and confident. If you're rude or sarcastic, I'll dock speaker points. Make sure to make connections for me, because I cannot consider solid links unless you explicitly state them yourself.
Updated 11/30/18 for Strake 2018.
Please start an email chain before the round - my email is email@example.com
Overview About Me - I debated for Episcopal HS in Houston and graduated in 2016. I was coached by Jacob Koshak. I qualified to the TFA State, Nationals, and the TOC. I'm currently a junior at Kenyon College studying Sociology with a focus on African Diaspora Studies. I've taught at TDC, NSD Flagship, NSD Texas, NSD Phili and Apex. I've coached students from Earl Warren, North Crowley, Montgomery, Klein Oak, Kamiak, and some other schools.
TL;DR - I care a lot about debate as an educational space for exploration and learning.Do whatever you're passionate about and have fun. I feel confident in my ability to properly evaluate most any flow, but i'm most comfortable with the K flow, followed by phil, then T and theory, then tricks, then LARP. This isn't an indicator of what I like or want to vote on, but a clarification of what i think my strengths are in terms of understanding type-specific arguments and their interactions. I'm willing to vote on anything as well as it's clearly explained and sufficiently warranted. Weighing and clear ballot stories attached to framing are really important. I will not evaluate an argument that I cannot explain in the RFD. Pre-round questions should be more specific than "what's your paradigm" or "speed?".
- Every debate round belongs to the two debaters. My job as a judge is to determine the winner of the round through the evaluative tools that you give me (until told otherwise). This means that i'm willing to vote for nearly any argument presented in front of me, insofar as it has the necessary warrants and framework to make it relevant to the decision. The biases and defaults in this paradigm serve to clarify some predispositions i feel that i have when judging.
- That being said, i believe that every round must have some parameters imposed on it by the judge so as to keep the space safe for all participants. These include things like voting down debaters who use intentionally exclusive and/or unsafe rhetoric, intervening if a participant is unable to continue the round for physical/emotional/etc reasons, or anything else of this sort. Please don't hesitate to ask me anything concerning this point before the round.
- There are branches of debate, study, and literature that i found/still find immense joy in researching, debating, and learning about. This, however, does not translate to a pass to skimp on explanation of those ideas. At the very least, i hope to hold debaters to the same expectation as any other position.
- Don't feel like you need to read something that you think i'll love personally. I'd much rather watch a well done must spec debate than a badly done, hurriedly prepared Deleuze vs Wilderson round.
Specific Feelings About Debate Argumentative Preferences and Defaults
- I believe that there is always a role of the judge/ballot. By default, this is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution through arguments and frameworks given by both debaters with importance concerning the aforementioned 2 point under "fundamentals". Theory voters, role of the ballot and role of the judge arguments, and other commentaries on what the judge should or should not do all edit my obligation as a judge and how i ought to view/use the ballot when making my decision. I nearly always look to this framing first to determine who wins the round, so be sure to emphasize exactly how you want me to act when debating in front of me.
- My threshold for presuming/granting things is relatively high with the notable exception of cross applications and extensions of conceded arguments. Basically, i don't want to be doing work for you to make up for argumentative inadequacies.
- I often struggle with voting on arguments that are articulated one way but are presented in the evidence or in the literature base in another way. If this occurs, i'll almost certainly vote on the articulation absent any call out by the opponent but drop the articulator's speaker points proportionally to the degree of the misarticulation, not going beyond a point drop from the pre-dropped total. If there is a call out, i'll generally give a lot of credence to it.
- I primarily base speaker points on strategy. After that, i look to a variety of things like CX, unique decision-making, and overall performance. Humor/sass are dope but shouldn't be forced. Chances are, the more relaxed you feel in a round, the more enjoyable it will be for everyone and the higher speaks you'll get.
- Some secondary factors for speaker points include word efficiency and confidence. Vocal clarity will never be a factor. Ridiculously long off-clock stuff (specifically email/flashing) will hurt speaks.
- I probably will take longer that you think i need to when making my decision. I only do so so that i can be sure that i'm confident in my decision and have reviewed all paths to the ballot. I often have trouble working and thinking with noise around me, so if i put headphones in just know that i need a little time with my own thoughts.
- I think that post-round discussion is extremely valuable. That being said, if your opponent is asking me questions, please don't take that as an opportunity to jump in and insert your own views on the issue.
- If questioning is taking too long (usually in the cases of late flight A rounds), i will ask that you come see me later during the tournament. Please please please don't take this as a nicely phrased "i don't want to talk about this anymore." I will try to come find you at some point in the tournament and encourage you to message me on Facebook or do whatever you can so that we can talk about the round further.
If you have any other question, please don't hesitate to contact me in person, on Facebook, or over email (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Here are a list of people (in addition to my coaches) who i strongly admire/strive to be like/generally agree with in terms of debate:
I am the LD coach at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx. I've been involved in debate since the year 2000. I judge a lot. 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. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, weigh and develop a ballot story.
Theory: 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. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.
Non-T affs: These are fine just have a clear ballot story.
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.
Prep: 1. I prefer that you don't use cx as prep time. 2. It is ok to ask questions during prep. 3. Compiling a document counts as prep time. 4. Please write down how much time you have left.
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. Don't manipulate evidence or clip.
For policy, feel free to do whatever you want. I feel comfortable judging most debates. Especially clash of civ and K debates. I'm least comfortable judging straight up advantage vs disad debates, but I'll do my best to get into the technical aspects of these issues.
I'm particularly good at evaluating:
T Framework v K affs. Lean equal on this debate.
K v Extinction. Lean equal on this debate
Please don’t make me vote on tricks. I will tank your speaks on the basis of an unimpressive strategy. I’d prefer if you debated in manners that aren’t predicated on your opponent missing an argument.
Law Magnet ‘16
UT Austin ‘19
Background: I qualified to the TOC my junior/senior year and I’ve taught at NSD/TDC. I graduated from UT Austin and I teach/coach at Lake Highland.
Shortcut: I’m pretty open minded to different styles (minus tricks) and I am comfortable judging most t/theory, k, and phil debates. Frankly, I’m not the ideal judge for an intense larp v larp debate. However, I do enjoy larp v phil/k, and I tend to side with larp in these debates. I particularly like small plans and pic strategies, so don’t be discouraged from reading these. I’m just probably not the best if the 2nr/2ar collapse is all larp v larp and very close.
- Tech over truth, but your arguments must have warrants even if they are concessions.
- I default to truth testing, but that doesn’t really mean much since people set up methods/rob early on now. I find myself judging a lot of T and K debates.
- Please collapse in the 2NR/2AR.
- I use an offense/defense paradigm.
- I don’t really feel comfortable doing embedded clash. Err on specificity.
- I default to epistemic confidence, but I’m fine with using epistemic modesty.
- Condo can be tricky depending on your strategy. I think condo is defensible in larp strategies and in some Ks like Cap. But I can be compelled by condo bad arguments vs certain Ks, especially when they are also paired with T/theory. See the K and larp section for specific views.
- I really enjoy a variety of K debate, particularly pessimism, cap/semiocap, and psychoanalysis.
- I like Non-T K affs. I find impact turn strategies to T more convincing than a counter interp, but this debate is also winnable. Note: I find myself voting on T Framework a lot. While I like K affs, the 1AR is usually terrible at defending their method against fairness.
- Topical K affs are fine. I think the counter interp is more winnable in these debates, but impact turns are also possible.
- I think a lot of 1NC Ks fall into dangerous territory when paired with T/theory. Most of the time, the voter implications just straight up conflict with each other and I err aff on this contradictions debate. I also don’t think conditionality is the best response in questions of conflicting framing mechanisms, not simply conflicting advocacies. Just be careful how you pair your T + K strats and make sure you have good blocks to contradictions if you choose to forcefully layer your strategy. Some Ks can be layered organically like T + Cap, but others are more difficult like T + Afropess.
- I honestly don’t get policy framework and “can’t weigh the case” arguments on the K. My view is that the aff can weigh the case if they win that the thesis of the K is false. If the Ks theory is false, then the links have no impact. For example, if an afropess debater says the aff can’t weigh the case, my view is that if ontology is false, the case already outweighs the K. I think "can't weigh the case" is mostly applicable to just reps Ks. The rest is just a topical debate with two separate framing mechanisms. For the neg, just go for your theory is true and win a link, or "they can weigh the case but the K outweighs".
- My default on perms is that they are tests of competition. Frankly, I’m not exactly sure what it would mean for them to function as advocacies, but feel free to change my default and overexplain the implication.
- I don’t really like Ks that only have links to the aff’s framework and not to the advocacy, but the rob can control the direction of what I should evaluate as offense, i.e. “I should reject bad epistemology”. I can be convinced by perms in these debates so have good blocks to perms if you don’t have advocacy links.
- I really enjoy T/theory debates, with a preference towards T. I personally don’t care if you run T/theory for strategy, but I can be compelled by impact turns.
- I tend to vote for T Framework a lot. I really like K aff's and I think fairness is probably bad. But, I find that 1ARs are terrible at defending their model of debate against fairness and I could be easily convinced that fairness comes first.
- Default Paradigm Issues: competing interps, no RVIs, semantics first. I won’t default on voter questions such as fairness/education or drop the debater/argument – you need to explain why T/theory is a voting issue. I feel comfortable assuming semantics first because of my default to truth testing. These are just defaults and can be changed.
- I think RVIs are strategic to force the 2NR to go for T and reasonability is strategic to discourage the 2NR from going for T.
- I enjoy 2NR collapses on semantics or pragmatics. I particularly like Semantics + Limits T strategies.
- Disclosure is a strategic shell. I’m still open to defenses against disclosure. I can see some potential with K angles.
- The generic 1AR combo shells are ok. Not super impressive, so maybe consider a different shell, but I’ll evaluate them.
- I think I get a rep for liking phil debate because that’s what I did during high school, but I’m more impressed by K or T debates. However, phil is fine and I’m comfortable evaluating it.
- The distinction between phil and K often gets blurred for me. I think it’s more of a distinction in debate to distinguish between critical and western philosophy. From western phil, I particularly like Hegel.
- I enjoy larp strategy and I selectively coach it to my students as well. I mostly focus on small plans/pics and util v k/phil. I think util is very strategic in these cases and I’m familiar evaluating these clash of civ debates. However, I’m not the best at evaluating an intense and close util v util debate.
- I think layered util frameworks with TFJs, EM, Extinction First, etc. can be strategic.
- Process CPs, Agent CPs, and PICs are fine and theoretically defensible. Affs can still read 1AR theory.
- Condo is defensible with larp strategies but can be challenged by 1AR theory.
- Like I mentioned in the Ks section, I see perms as tests of competitions. You can change my default but overexplain on what it would look like to treat perms as advocacies.
- This is my least favorite style of debate. I will still vote on frivolous tricks if they have warrants, but I won’t be impressed. I also think these arguments don’t take much to beat.
- Burden structures are a gray area. They can be paired with frivolous tricks or they can simply set up a burden for the round under which a framework and offense are read. I much prefer the latter.
- I think heavy 1AC underviews can be fine and don’t have to be “tricks”. For example, some heavy underviews just set up paradigm and defensive issues. I think they can get frivolous when bad offensive interps become introduced.
- I don’t have a solid scale and its more contextual to the tournament I’m attending.
- I base speaker points largely on strategy. I consider the 1AC/1NC construction, 1AR strategy, and the 2NR/2AR collapse.
- My paradigm also highlights debates that I find impressive or literature that I particularly enjoy. You’ll probably get higher speaks executing these debates effectively over going for something I don’t enjoy like tricks. I’ll vote on the latter, but they aren’t impressive and speaker points will reflect this.
- CX can lose you speaker points but it won’t give you much extra.
- Be respectful. You don’t have to be nice but don’t be mean. This can factor into speaker points.
- Don’t read advanced strategies against novices. This won’t impress me and speaker points will be effected.
- I don’t count sending the doc or flashing as prep but everything must be compiled in one speech doc before you stop prep to send the doc.
very familiar with all types of progressive and critical args; please ask any questions needed before the round - they will be answered
1. Frame the round- I believe that if you're going to win the round you need to make me see the debate in a way that is favorable for you. Ex. Freedom vs. Security, Util vs. Individualism, Deontology vs. Pragmatism.
2. Weighing the round- I want offense under your framework and undermining your opponents. This is where you'll win or lose the round. Your analysis in the rebuttals is where you want me listening especially closely.
3. The link debate- Make the connections for me. Don't assume that because you went from a to b to c, that I'm going to go to d for you. Explaining your warrants early gives you credibility. The aff is going to need a solid link story to establish a structure that can be adequately extended and employed effectively in the rebuttals. That being said, if the neg wants to access any offensive argument
4. Theory- I'm cool with meta- debates and critical arguments. Just make sure the above points are met.
5. Impacts- Please just make clear the implications of casting a ballot for a particular side. This falls in line with framing and weighing as well.
Standing Conflicts: Strake Jesuit College Preparatory (TX)
I am a 2016 graduate Strake Jesuit College Preparatory in Houston, TX. I debated LD for four years on the TFA and TOC circuits. I’ve qualified to TFA State three times, clearing to doubles my senior year. I also qualified to the TOC and NSDA Nationals my senior year. I also briefly debated college policy for UT-San Antonio during my freshman year of college.
Pref Shortcuts (1 = best):
I’m a pretty open book with what arguments I will accept. I’ll vote on almost anything, as long as I’m given a clear reason to do so. That being said, however, don’t be offensive. Definitely don’t impact turn something like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.; things like cap and extinction though, I’m fine with. If you do something morally repugnant, I’ll drop you with 0 speaks.
I’m fine with speed. I have a pretty good ear, so I’ll usually be able to catch what you’re saying. I’ll say “clear” three times and deduct 1 speaker point after the three times, but after that I’ll probably just stop flowing. Just be clear. Sometimes it helps to have an email chain going for the round to make absolutely sure, but I won’t require it.
I really enjoy hearing a good K debate. As a debater, I read a lot of ableism, cap, race, biopower, and discourse kritiks. Don’t know so much about stuff like DnG and other high theory arguments, but I can have a good enough understanding of them to evaluate them in the context of the round. I won’t be impressed if you simply just use cool jargon and name drop the entire round. I’d really prefer to hear well-thought-out, topic-specific links and kritiks that have good strategic value, as opposed to generic state bad links that you can recycle every topic.
I have a similar view to my former coach Adam Tomasi… Taken from his paradigm- “It's absurd to me that people rush to theory instead of doing topic research. I don't think any frameworks are unfair, I don't think the lack of an ‘explicit weighing mechanism’ is unfair, and I don't care if the aff's theory spikes didn't ‘take a stance on drop the debater or drop the argument’.” Although, these are my personal opinions on many of the more frivolous theory arguments, I did read a good deal of theory when I was in high school. I’m certainly alright with theory debates, though it’s just not fun to judge all the time when it gets to the point of 2 new shells in the 1AR. T’s alright. I read some T, answered some T in my day. Make sure a topical version of the aff is well-explained and I'll be happier if it's very creative. My soft defaults are competing interps, drop the debater, RVI’s.
Theory vs K:
I don’t have a default as to which comes first. You should do that weighing for me in the round and I’ll evaluate it that way. In the event that neither debater does any weighing on that debate, I guess I’d just put the layer with most engagement done by both debaters first.
I like a good framework debate. I know how to evaluate a framework debate and if it’s a good one, I’ll like it.
Policy Arguments (Plans/CPs/DAs):
As a debater, I read a lot of DAs, such as PTX, Elections, Econ, Court Clog, etc. I really enjoy these debates. If you just make sure links to disads are clearly established, a lot of comparative weighing and impact analysis is done, and CPs are competitive, we’ll be fine. I’d prefer it if your extinction scenario makes some sense and is reasonable. Have some basic semblance of uniqueness, link, internal link, impact. PICs are also cool too, if they’re well thought-out and have really clever competition with the aff. I also enjoy really nuanced theory interpretations about the legitimacy of conditional counterplans and PICs, and I enjoy listening to that debate.
Hate them. I’m not a fan of skep, NIBs, spikes, presumption, and other sketchy things. Proceed with caution because I won’t be too happy if you read these arguments in front of me. But I’ll vote on them if weighed correctly and won’t deduct speaks for reading them.
I evaluate speaks based on quality of argumentation, engagement, and strategy. Higher speaks if I sense that you know a lot about the topic and about the arguments you’re reading. I’ll also probably give higher speaks if I hear a good joke or two, or if you debate with flair. Speaks will also be deducted if y’all are exceptionally rude or aggressive to each other. Be nice, but confident. Have fun, but be smart.
-I default to comparative worlds. Arguments to the contrary can be made, of course.
-Tech over truth.
-Flashing and emailing don’t come out of prep time. However, don’t try and put together your speech doc and think you’re not gonna take prep to do so.
-You should email, flash, or pass pages to your opponent, so they can be able to see your case somehow.
-Have fun and be nice.
If this doesn’t give you a good enough idea about my judging style or views on debate, I generally tend to agree with these people- Chris Castillo, Adam Tomasi
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the round. You can also contact me by email (email@example.com) or by Facebook message.
Back in my day, I beat Abby Chapman (one of the best debaters of my generation) three times in a row. I'm serious business, kid.
Hello debate community,
I am sorry for my unbecoming comments posted above. Debaters should never gloat over victories. The truth is Abby Chapman has always been a sore spot for me. Abby Chapman ended my middle school debate career on a 2-1 decision (Jacob Nail's sat) at the Middle School national tournament. Seriously, I cried for two hours. My young heart was broken and my dreams shattered. Abby, I would like to extend a public apology for my rude comments posted above.
Some rounds I am the best judge at the tournament (rarely) sometimes I am the worst (often). hahahha kiddinngg or am I?
I do judge a lot, so I can usually give an rfd that would bring a tear to the eye of Shakespeare's modern reincarnation. This tear would christen their greatest most profound literature changing work of several however, so I am not too special.
I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.
My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech.
I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often than not I'll decide your way.
I don't believe in speaker points.
If you are directly oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.
Please keep me entertained I have severe ADHD.
Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.
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 debated LD for 4 years at Clements High School (2011-15), qualifying to TOC my junior and senior year.
As a debater, I mainly read Policy styled arguments and T/theory. I’m not deeply familiar with any particular body of literature, but I will likely have enough exposure to understand your argument and it’s implication for the round with clear explanations. So I’ll vote on pretty much anything that doesn’t make me doubt the activity’s value (e.g. racism good).
As a notice, I am no longer actively involved in debate, so be considerate. The last time I judged was at the Penn LBC tournament and the Penn LD Round robin. Speed should not be a problem - I am not afraid to call clear and slow - but I might not catch onto or be receptive to any new strategy antics that debaters love to pull.
I give speaker points based on a) general clarity and ethos, b) how well you understand and use your arguments (smart strategy)
Affiliations: Clements High School, Northland Christian School
I debated in high school for 3 years, and I primarily did LD, World Schools, and Original Oratory. I have privately coached LD and Worlds for 5 years. I have also taught Worlds School Debate at the Houston Urban Debate League summer camps for the past 4 years.
1. This is more of a problem I have seen in PF. PF debaters love to ask their opponents for the original PDF of more than 2-4 pieces of evidence BEFORE prep time starts. At some point I will just start your prep time to make sure the round finishes in a timely fashion.
2. Slow Down. This is especially true for the online format. I will not hesitate to tell you during the RFD that I did not catch analytics and therefore did not vote off of them.
Background: I started out as a traditional LD debater and dabbled in a more "progressive" form of LD towards my Junior and Senior year. I competed on the national circuit and got a TOC bid my senior year.
Framework - Even after taking a lot of philosophy in college, I still know so little. So please explain and slow down if you are running some dense philosophical arguments. Most importantly, have a weighing mechanism and then actually weigh.
CP/DA/Plans: I like these.
Theory/Topicality: I cannot emphasize enough, slow down. I will not hesitate to tell you after the round that I did not catch everything, and therefore did not vote on X theory argument. I default to reasonability unless told otherwise. I was never a talented theory/topicality debater. I ran it only when necessary, never frivolously.
K's: I like them. If you are going to run a K, go all out. Although I enjoy crit readings, as always do not assume I have read what you are running. I particularly love these arguments when they are grounded in the topic, in literature, and have some originality.
Overall: This sounds simple but it can be difficult, at the end of the round my ballot should sound like the begining of the 2AR or the 2NR. I would like you to explicitly implicate your arguments and form for me the basic idea of why I should vote for you. The best debaters tend to do this at the begining of every 2NR and 2AR.
Disadvantages: I don't like DA's with uniqueness counter-plans, other than that almost any disadvantage is acceptable.
Counter-plans: the legitimacy of counter-plans should always be called into question. why would you just let a team steal most your offense? I normally don't buy X type of counter-plan is a voter, however, I am more likely to vote for it as a reason to disallow the counter-plan. The burden of proof in those situations is much different, to win it is a voter you have to argue that debate is fundamentally impossible to do when X type of counter-plan is introduced. (an example might be Consult Counter-plans don't test the means or necessity of plan action makes it impossible to garner offense without conceding a DA, makes any choice the aff makes a bad choice.) However with rejecting the argument as the standard, I'd be willing to ask the question "Does this Counter-plan make the debate more or less educational, more or less fair. If it makes debate less educational and less fair then that is a sufficient reason to reject the counter-plan.
Kritiks: Theory wise sees counter-plans. Floating PIKS theory needs a Link. Clear and precise (Link-Impact-AltSolves-Perm doesn't) analysis is the quickest way for me to the pull the trigger on the kritik. If you can explain that full chain and I buy your analysis you're in a good place on the kritik (assuming you're not losing framework/theory/impact weighing. )
Framework: I think it's generally accepted that Affs should read frameworks that let them weigh their impacts against any kritik, also I generally think the aff is right they should be able to defend the fiat of the 1AC i.e. their impact claims shouldn't be wished away. Note to aff teams just because you win framework does not mean that you have answered the various impact framing arguments in the round, I've heard several times "but on framework they conceded we get to weigh our impacts." my response is then "Sure, but you don't win that we have any Value to Life in that world/that these threats are constructed and not real/that/etc. I don't think this is controversial at all.
Role of the Ballot: so unlike some people I don't think you have to explicitly state "our Role of the ballot is" while helpful sometimes one could also say "this debate round should be about x" or the "Role of the Judge is X" all of these are competing claims on how I should approach my ballot how I should vote, what my ballot means etc.
Kritik AFFs: I prefer affs that defend a topical plan for a kritikal reason i.e. we shouldn't surveil African Americans, followed by claims about how surveillance of black bodies is bad. versus just standing up and saying "Black bodies are surveilled that's terrible you have some kind of ethical decision making to vote aff, here's Memimi." This is a prefrence and doesn't mean i stop listening when an alternative debate style is defended its just what i find is the best solution to winning in front of me on a kritikal affirmative.
Framework (NEG): Framework can be a viable option for teams debating affs without plan text etc, as long as you answer and deal with the larger education/Fairness claims the aff is inevitably going to lob your way. You could win debate would be awesome with just policy affs but if you concede that this is a form of white settlerism that dominates and erases Native Americans from existence you tend to lose rounds on framework.
Components: need a clear and precise interp that allows you to skirt the offense of the aff, need a clear and precise "topical version of the aff", need to win switch-side debating is in fact good, need to win it's possible for X or Y type of people to enter into the political, do political actions, embrace politics or some other variant of "X type of people can do policy debate", finally need to win an impact. Do those have a solid shot of winning my ballot.
I competed in LD for 3 years on the TFA, TOC, and NFL circuits at the The Kinkaid School in Houston, Texas and graduated in 2015. I now coach Kinkaid and attend Rice University.
I’m comfortable/familiar with whatever style of debate you prefer, whether that’s more traditional or more circuit-y.
Short version: Read well developed, not offensive, resolutionally grounded arguments and weigh your offense/provide me a clear ballot story, and I will most likely vote for you. I’m open to most arguments; given you explain to me how they operate in the round.
Speed is fine, but I’ve never been awesome at flowing so don’t start out at top speed. On a scale from 1-10, 1 being the slowest and 10 the fastest, I’d rate myself a 6…I’d appreciate some time to adjust to your speaking style before you speed up. Please slow down for important parts of your case---spikes, plans, counterplans, interps (any advocacy texts really) as well as author names/tags.
Theory/topicality: I default to reasonability and drop the argument, and am very inclined to give aff RVIs, but if you win reasons why I should believe otherwise, that’s fine too. You probably have to be topical. Theory/T have never been my favorite part of this activity and hold these arguments to a certain high standard. That doesn’t mean I will blatantly ignore a dropped argument, but your speaks will reflect it if you choose to read frivolous theory or muck up the debate with a ton of spikes. I do not like paragraph theory. Like I said, reading these type of arguments will not result in an auto loss, but the debate might be an uphill battle for you. If you want to have a nuanced, fast theory debate, I am not the judge for you. This all being said, I think theory has its place in debate and if you read a well-warranted, creative theory shell when there is real abuse happening in round, I will gladly evaluate it. Theory as a strategic layer in the debate is a legitimate choice and you should not be discouraged from utilizing it. At the end of the round, WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. If neither debater is weighing offense under their interp you can bet that I’m going to intervene and that intervention will be going to SUBSTANCE instead. I WILL NOT ARBITRARILY ADJUDICATE THE THEORY DEBATE---if you want me to buy your interp COMPARATIVE WEIGHING IS KEY.
Policy Arguments: I love a good util debate and believe these are the debates I am best at evaluating. That being said, don’t pull out your half assed policy backfiles because you think I’ll vote for your underdeveloped counterplan---do what you feel most comfortable/best doing and I will reward you for that. Plans, CPs, disads are mostly what I read as a debater and are all great given they have all of their necessary parts. WEIGHING EVIDENCE/IMPACTS IS SO IMPORTANT IN THESE DEBATES, DO IT. I really like unique justifications for policymaking/unique policy style arguments in general.
Critical Arguments: I think critical arguments/debates can be really fun to judge given you actually know what you’re talking about and I know what you’re talking about. I haven’t read much of the common critical literature, but am perfectly willing to vote on anything you read as long as you take the time to clearly explain your argument. I will not vote on Ks that are missing necessary components (framework, alternatives, etc). Don’t be shifty about whether your offense functions pre or post fiat. If your opponent can’t discern how the K functions, chances are I can’t either. I don’t have any predispositions to certain types of Ks and open to any argument as long as you have a specific link to the aff. I don’t like generic Ks or Ks of the resolution, but will vote on any argument that is won in the round.
Speaker Points: I don’t think I have any specific way I give points, but my main concern is courtesy and respect to your opponent, judge, and the debate space. If you’re a decent person, that shouldn’t be an issue. After that, I will reward strategic choices made in round, WEIGHING, and humor/perceptual dominance. A WELL EXECUTED CX WILL GO A LONG WAY HERE; it was one of my favorite parts of a debate round. I usually start at about a 28.5, but it’s not hard to move up from there. Literally any weighing will probably jump you up to a 29. You will get anAUTOMATIC 25 if you read any morally repugnant arguments. If you have to ask me what that means, you probably shouldn’t pref me. Also, your speaks will be negatively affected if you create a hostile space for me or other debaters, but especially for less-experienced or clearly new debaters.
Other stuff/tricks: I’m not a fan of “tricks” in debate, whether that’s in the forms of spikes, skep, permissibility, presumption, whatever else you kids have come up with. If you choose to go this route, don’t expect me to vote for you because “they dropped spike number 5 under subpoint a so you vote aff.” Arguments consist of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. If you give me those three things, you shouldn’t have any problems. You probably shouldn’t leverage these kind of arguments against, say, a structural violence framework in front of me.
Most importantly, be kind and have fun! Debate should be a fun activity. If you have any questions, feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org or ask me before the round.
I debated at Houston Memorial for 3 years (2 in VLD), consistently making late outrounds at locals my junior and senior years. On the national circuit I attended 16 bid tournaments over 2 years, clearing at 11 and reaching the bid round at UT, St. Marks, and Vestavia Hills.
If you want an idea of how my views have been shaped, I was coached by Jacob Nails, Adam Calhoun, Hunter Lewis, and Cecil Trent. I think all of them have paradigms up and my views align most closely with Jacob.
If you want to know what I read, here’s my senior year wiki (if this gets reset I’ll try to find a new one or you can just ask me)
I want to stress that if you make me vote on a default you have already messed up. A lot. These are not really preferences just what I think makes sense logically absent argumentation.
Theory comes b4 K
T comes b4 Theory
Potential abuse is sufficient for me to pull the trigger on theory
Drop the arg on Theory, Drop the debater on T
Things I think may not be the norm:
Dropped claims aren't true, dropped warrants are – ask before round if u don’t know what I mean
Confidence over modesty – to justify modesty I want a real metric to weigh under modesty explicitly given in round.
I will not call for cards if I’m confused, only if the text of them is challenged by your opponent. It is your job to communicate the warrants of the card during your speeches, not mine to decipher it afterwards
I will try to average about a 27.5.
Speaks for me are about persuasion. You may not have the best arguments going into the round but if you can use them successfully and strategically your speaks will improve dramatically. Your speaks won’t be helped or hurt based on how fast you can spread. As long as you’re clear feel free to go any speed you like.
I will say clear 3 times. After that I’ll dock 1 point each time
30 – Perfect round. You allocated time well, went for the right arguments, and were clear throughout. (At national circuit tournaments these will be quite rare)
29 – You had a good round with minor mistakes strategically or some clarity issues.
28 – This was a slightly above average round. Mistakes in either clarity, strategy, or both kept this from being more impressive
27 – This round had some issues. It’s likely that I had to yell clear multiple times or that you made multiple wrong choices in strategy.
26 – You did not have a good round. Your strategy was lacking and clarity could have been much better
25 – I couldn’t understand almost anything you said
24 or less – you were openly offensive in some way or you ignored when I said clear multiple times
Please try to avoid racist, sexist, homophobic, or other offensive language, regardless of the race/gender/sexuality of your opponent or your judge (me).
I did all styles of LD in high school except tricks really, so do what you’re most comfortable with. Speed is probably 8/10.
These ratings are based solely on ability to evaluate. 1 is fully confident, 5 is no experience or very uncertain.
Lay – 1
Policy/LARP – 1
Theory – 2
Analytic Phil/Framework – 3
Traditional K (Cap, anthro, afropess, etc.) – 3
Weird K (Bataille, Heidegger, etc.) – 4
Baudrillard and DnG* - 5
* This is directed at one of you in particular, and you know who you are. Read it at your own risk. You have been warned. J
Tricks – 5 (Please slow down if this is you)
All K ratings apply to K affs in that same category as well.
Do it if you want. I know what I’m doing, it’ll be fine. Also I really don’t care about the value. It’s unimportant and if you spout off 15 arguments about why justice is more important than morality I will feel morally justified in ignoring all of them in my decision. (I may have stolen that joke but I honestly can’t remember).
Love them. Plans are fun, especially if it’s unique, well-researched, and a genuinely good idea. CPs are cool. DAs are cool. PICs are cool. I read all of these a ton my senior year, I’ll be fine to evaluate any of them.
One caveat – I’m not a huge fan of Politics DAs and someone with a decent knowledge of our political system will be able to beat them analytically in front of me a lot, but if you can write a good one please read it. I’ve seen and lost to a few that were very good and I know they’re very strategic.
I read a lot of theory as a debater but in general I think people read it too frivolously. I think I have a high threshold for my definition of “frivolous” (like I think an actor spec shell isn’t frivolous but must spec counter-ethical theory in the NC probably is). However, I understand the strategic value of theory and won’t dock speaks just because I personally disagree with the interp or think the abuse is super minimal. One comment, based on my experience – you are much better off reading one, well-developed (and maybe even carded) shell than extemping 4 bad ones.
Read metatheory if you want. I’ve read and answered it several times.
I prefer counter-interp debates if possible, they are much easier to resolve and often much more fleshed out debates.
If you prefer reasonability, do it but your brightlines should be very specific AND well warranted. Specific request – define structural abuse if u read it as a brightline, I’ve seen it defined multiple ways and it can get a bit confusing.
Assume I know nothing. I’ve read and heard all the generic stuff so I’ll get it generally but explaining it well will help you a ton.
Link to the aff not the topic (obviously if they defend the rez generally you don’t have a problem)
Links of omission are awful. They better be fantastic if you plan on reading them in front of me.
I have very little experience reading or hitting this lit, but if you can explain it feel free to read it. I was good friends with several debaters who read this stuff so I’m more open to it than a lot of people who read as much LARP and theory as I did.
Once again, link to the aff not the rez and have no links of omission if possible.
Role of the Ballot Stuff:
Applies to all Ks you read – please warrant a role of the ballot, explain why whatever your ROB is is the only thing we should care about, and most importantly be clear about how weighing works under it. If you make me do the work for what counts as the best strategy to combat oppression or any other method of evaluation I won’t do you any favors.
Go for it if you’re confident in your skills. I’ve read a decent mix (some Kant, some intuitions/sentimentalism stuff, some virtue ethics, and plenty of other random frameworks too). Please be very clear when explaining complex frameworks, as you will usually need me to understand it to have any chance at winning the round.
I don’t mind whether your framework is card heavy or has primarily analytics as long as it’s well warranted and explained.
Have an explicit standard text and explain how I should weigh.
I’m going to be completely honest – I have very little experience reading or hitting tricks and I am not a huge fan of the strat overall. However, I would certainly vote for you as long as you won on the flow and I will not dock speaks just because you debate differently than I did. PLEASE MAKE YOUR SPIKES AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE.
Extra Notes (This section will be updated based on what I see in rounds and anything I find lacking later):
Yes I want to be on the email chain: email@example.com. In an effort to reward clarity, I will no longer look at docs until after the round.
Tldr: I don't care what you read. I like: 1) Good argument resolution that makes me not have to think, 2) Seeing smart strategic decisions, 3) Learning something because an argument I didn't understand before was explained well. I type fast but my flow gets messy when I'm not told where to flow things.
I graduated in 2016, debated in Texas and on the national circuit, and qualled to TOC my senior year. As a judge, my goal is to get out of the way of the debaters and let them do their thing. Since graduating I've become pretty familiar with different styles of debate, and I don't really care what you read as long as you read it well. Policy, K, phil, theory, tricks are all the same to me as long as I understand the argument resolution. I enjoy watching debaters make smart/strategic decisions much more than I care about the particular arguments being read.
I'm willing to vote on anything I understand by the end of the round if it's won (and warranted). If an argument is bad, the other debater should be able to point it out. My only exception to that rule is I will not evaluate actively problematic arguments e.g. racism good.
Things that get you good speaks (and make it more likely that I make the decision you want me to):
1) Spell it out for me. Some amount of implicit clash is inevitable, but the more I'm left to resolve on my own, the lower your speaks will be. If I'm left to resolve two arguments, I will look for the path of least intervention. Good collapses get good speaks. Tell me what to care about and what not to care about.
2) Make yourself easy to flow. Slow down on important things that you want to emphasize. It's really hard to get warrants down in blipstorms. I have trouble with flowing big blippy analytic dumps so go like 80% of your top speed.
3) Explaining complex theories in a way that is understandable to a non-debater or someone with no background in the literature base you're reading will get you high speaks. I appreciate slower thesis explanations at the top of the 2NR/2AR. If I learn something from the round because you explained an argument I didn’t understand well, your speaks will be great.
In short, the easier you make it to evaluate the round the better your speaks will be.
Other things that affect your speaks:
1) Err on the side of slightly over-explaining warrants and interactions between args.
2) If you're reading stuff on case, I'd appreciate if you tell me where to flow your arguments. Good line-by-lining of the 1AC/1NC, as opposed to card dumps, is a lost art. Good warrant-to-warrant comparison and smart analytic responses make rounds enjoyable, and I express that enjoyment in the form of speaker points.
3) If you're debating a novice and you knowingly spread them out of the round, the highest your speaks will be is a 28.5 and I won’t feel bad about going even lower. By contrast, if you're debating a novice and you slow down and explain things simply to them (in other words, if you make the round accessible), your speaks will be high. Just use your best judgment here and don’t be mean.
4) In theory or K rounds, tell me what your model of debate looks like and how that frames the way I evaluate things.
5) I'd prefer you be straight up about what you're reading. If someone asks where the a prioris are in the aff, say where the a prioris are in the aff.
6) Big pre-written overviews are generally not incredible at argument resolution, and fully doc'd out speeches can make it hard to know where to flow things. If you’re reading off a doc for most of the 2NR and it makes my life harder, your speaks will reflect that.
Tricks/Theory as Time Suck
I’m ok with anything you choose to run (outside of sexist, racist, homophobic stuff, everything is morally permissible, etc.) and I will evaluate every arg as long as it is well-run (clear link, warrant, and impact). That being said, I do have different thresholds for different arguments (more on that later). I’m OK with speed, but not the greatest. I will yell clear if necessary. If I need to say clear more than twice then I’m tanking your speaks and you will probably lose bc I won’t know anything you’re saying anyway.
Speed – I’m fine with it but I’m admittedly not great. I will try to keep up with you and I will yell clear up to 2 times before I start docking speaks. Read advocacy texts/taglines/authors SLOWLY. Do not read dense K or FW literature at top speed. It is worth cutting out a card or two to elaborate on your position in your own words rather than leaving me completely in the dark.
Traditional/Case – Good
Policy (Ads, Disads, Plans, CPs) – Good
Kritikal stuff – Good. I think Kritikal debates can be interesting and meaningful. However, I’m not well-versed in a lot of K literature so please slow down if you are reading something dense and explain it well. Pulling a K out of a random backfile and trying to spread through it is not going to work. You need to understand your own K if you want me to understand it. You’ll also need specific links to the 1AC, a clear weighing mechanism/ROB, and a clear alt. Aff Ks are fine but don’t exempt you from having strong links (obviously you can’t link into 1NC but the squo is good).
Framework/Top-heavy – Good. I’m not well-versed in this type of literature either, so please explain it well. Unique and interesting frameworks are highly encouraged, but I need to be able to understand it to vote on it. Weighing is always important, but especially key here.
Theory – Ok. Obviously I'd rather adjudicate substance than theory. I’d appreciate if you ran theory only if there is real abuse in the round, but that can be hard to define sometimes. Use your best discretion – it’s pretty obvious when theory is being used to call out abuse vs as a time suck. I default to competing interps and drop the arg but if you give me warrants for other things (I think reasonability is very underutilized) then I will gladly evaluate them.
Topicality – Good. I think T is very important and I enjoy evaluating good T debates.
Tricky Stuff (Presumption, Triggers, Spikes, etc.) – Meh. I will evaluate them if they are well-warranted. If you can make good arguments you won’t need these types of tricks. If your opponent identifies your plan and calls you out, I will sympathize with them.
Skep/Permissibility - No. Saying that everything is permissible is just not OK to me, and minimizes the horrible things that have happened/are happening in the world.
Anything else – Ask before round; it should probably be fine.
Speaks – I’m pretty generous. Speaks are primarily based on argumentation. I will also factor in clarity and presentation. Humor is also nice.
Please give me CLEAR voters in the 2NR/2AR. There is an easy way to win each round. FIRST, tell me what arguments come first. SECOND, tell me how you link into these arguments best and how you outweigh versus your opponent. Crystallize this for me and it will be very easy to evaluate the round.
If there is no weighing mechanism presented or it is a wash, I will default to T>theory>ROB>everything else.
Lastly, please disclose cases and cards to your opponent. Debate is a learning activity – help others learn about your position and about different types of arguments and authors that you utilize.
I did LD for 4 years (2012-2016) at Dulles High School, competing primarily on TFA and TOC circuits. Conflicts: Dulles HS
If you make overviews and practically write the ballot for me, you will make my job easier and that will probably reflect in your speaks, if not in the results of the round. I admire well-developed arguments, not blips. I'm not the best flower, so I'm not the best judge for a complicated theory debate, simply because I'm likely not to catch arguments with one-liner warrants.
- Debate the way that you want to debate. I’ll be more impressed at seeing you be really good at your schtick then try to read something you’re unfamiliar with.
- Listen to each other and try your best to respond to the argument that your opponent is actually making instead of the one you think that they are making.
- Slow down on analytics and author names.
- Please no blippy arguments. I’m slow and dumb, so I won’t catch all of your blips or understand why they’re amazing arguments. I’ll be extremely hesitant to grant you lenience on exploding blippy arg #6 as a reason to vote for you.
- No disclosure theory.
- I give no-links a bit more credence than most judges. If the aff makes a compelling/conceded no-link argument, I’ll throw out the K. But of course, you can and should still try to win the link.
- Develop your perms. Describe the world of the perm, the net benefits, etc. If you don’t, I probably won’t vote on a three-word “perm do both.” (Also applies to counterplans)
- I have a higher expectation for justification for a ROB/FW than most judges. I want to see an explicit link to the function of debate or the need for education or something. Without that, I will be VERY receptive to attacks against your ROB.
- I’ll be more receptive to defense on iffy link scenarios than most judges. Most likely I won’t evaluate a DA with good, conceded defense (even if it’s mitigatory) on the link level, and will look to another layer of the debate.
- I’m not that familiar with a lot of ethical frameworks, especially in how they interact with other frameworks. Please explain yourself well and clearly.
- Please remember that FW debate is comparative – don’t just read a bunch of defense or “turns” on framework and fail to explain why your FW resolves those issues or what the impact to those arguments are. I will be very confused.
- Slow down on analytics.
- Read at your own risk. For a complex, technical theory debate, I am a terrible judge.
- However, do not hesitate to read theory/T if there is clear abuse. But when you do, please slow down and clearly impact your arguments. Also, overviews.
- I’m not a fan of frivolous theory, so I might dock speaks even if you win it.
- Competing interps/reasonability: I’m whatever you tell me to be. If no one justifies any paradigm, I probably default reasonability and no RVI’s.
yes email chain- firstname.lastname@example.org
I judged a lot of rounds over this years policy topic at UTNIF over the summer, since then I haven't judged. This probably means I'm not familiar with what has been accepted by the community as topical. So on T be persuasive, this will serve you well. Most important to me is how you frame the round. If structural violence outweighs make it clear. If ontology is a pre-requisite to topical discussion make it clear, and so on. I do not want to adjudicate a round where both sides "pass each other like two ships in the night." Weigh your arguments, compare evidence, indict ideas and arguments your opponents put fourth.
I am most comfortable judging kritikal debate, however I judged plenty of policy rounds on this topic. As a debater I have debated the kritik explicitly. I say this not to make anyone think I am biased, but because I think one deserves to know that the finer techne of policy throwdowns is not my strong suit. That being said I enjoy policy rounds and would love to watch some.
I am a firm believer that my role as a judge is to be impartial and adjudicate fairly. I do not harbor ideological biases. I will flow what you say and weigh it in comparison with what your opponent says. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.
Last but not least, have fun! Debate is a great place to express yourself and talk about really interesting and pertinent things, enjoy your time in it because it is quite fleeting!
I'm Emily Nguyen and I competed in LD debate for four years at Alief Kerr HS. I've qualified for TFA twice, UIL Region twice, and NFL once. I've also instructed at Strake Jesuit's debate camp for the past 3 summers. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round, but here are my answers to frequently asked questions.
Are you ok with speed?
I'm fine with speed, slow down for authors and taglines. I will say clear. Don't sacrafice clarity for speed.
Are you ok with progressive arguments?
I'm ok any type of argumentation whether it be traditional or progressive. Any type of argument, however, needs to have some kind of claim, warrant, and impact for me to weigh it in the round. I'm not impressed with an abundance of buzzwords like "pre-fiat." Articulate your arguments with a claim, warrant, and impact and you will be fine.
How do you feel about theory?
My threshold for theory is high. I would discourage you to run theory unless there is actualy abuse in the round. I prefer to vote off of substance over theory.
What arguments are you not ok with?
I'm not ok with morally offensive arguments or ones that put me in a position where "if I don't vote for you, I support the Holocaust." Outside of that, I'm fine with any type of argumentation. I will not vote based on my personal opinion of your argument. I may write on the ballot my opinion or suggstion as to how I think you can improve your argument, but my RFD will be based on solely what happened in the round and what your opponenet said.
How do you award speaks?
I adjudicate speaks based on delivery and in round behavior. If I have to say clear and I see you are making a valid effort to either slow down or be more clear, I won't dock you on speaker points even if I have to say it a couple of times. If you continue to be unarticulant (usually after the 3rd time in one speech) and are rude to your opponenet I will dock points.
Is there anything else I should know?
I'm big on organization throughout the speech. Give me a roadmap (I don't count roadmaps as part of your speech time) and if you choose not to follow it, signpost. If I don't know where to put your argument I'm probably not going to flow it. I'll get frustrated if you jump around the flow without signposting.
I'm fine with flex prep is your opponent is.
Don't just say "extend this argument/card" without giving a claim, warrant, or impact. I won't weigh the argument if you don't do that.
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me in the round!
I am a pretty open judge. I prefer LD Debate and not a heavy influence in Policy. Resolutional debate is important, and not straying off. The ability to be creative is important, but being able to handle heavy argumentation and deep thought is also important. Do not run a case that you cannot handle.
Otherwise, pretty open to the way a debate can run.
People I'm coaching @ the 2017-2018 ToC: TAMS MX, Katy Taylor AW, Klein Oak AG, Dulles MK, Cypress Woods CJ. Please do your conflicts accordingly.
If you don't want to see a bunch of GIF's here's a few quick things
1: Do whatever you want to do. Be in your zone. I don't care what your style is- the one thing I want is honesty. EX: I don't care if you have 200 skep triggers, but if your opponent asks do you have any skep triggers just say yes. That'll also make me more likely to vote on what you want me to vote on.
2: Evidence ethics claims are incredibly serious- seeing debaters tack them onto things like brackets, same font, etc is a problem. Don't bring up an evidence ethics challenge unless you are for sure SOME notion of evidence ethics has happened- I will not auto down these positions anymore- but I will be close to 100% okay with the RVI. NOTE: This means if you read something like brackets theory but only with a FAIRNESS voter then my normal default applies- I only get super ANGERY if there's an evidence ethics claim attached to it.
3: First 3 Last 3 Disclosure with contact information and summary of analytics is my favorite style of disclosing- as long as you're good at sending articles to people if they need them, you'll most likely never lose the disclosure debate in front of me- NOTE This means if you're a full text or open source person- look elsewhere. I won't outright ignore these arguments but I won't want to vote on them.
4: Saying the aff gets to weigh case makes no sense if it's a method debate- I don't care if it's most fair- this argument would conflate layers and make adjudication insanely messy. I won't ignore it- I'll just be confused
5: Ethical modesty is bad- I don't know what it means and I think it would involve judge intervention.
6: Don't presume I know what your fancy cool word is- err on the side of over explanation as opposed to under.
7: Embedded clash is very important to me and I use it in a lot of rounds- this means if i think logically an argument on one part of the flow would interact with another argument somewhere else- I will compare the two if it helps me make my decision.
I debated LD for Dulles for 4 years, graduating in 2016.
I will vote on any argument so long as the conclusion follows from the premises–my primary aim is to operate under the shared assumptions held by both debaters, so I will avoid defaulting on any framing issues. I will evaluate arguments as they are presented on the flow, so I will always prioritize explicit over implicit comparison made between arguments.
I tend to give speaks based on a mixture of strategy, passion, and clarity. In terms of clarity, I'll call clear twice before I start docking speaks.
I graduated in 2013 from Clear Brook High School and I'm fairly familiar with both progressive and traditional styles of debate.
In both policy and LD I look for some sort of decision calculus/weighing mechanism in the round. Whether that be Role of the Ballot, Value/Value Criterion, Theory, etc. it doesn't matter. Just be clear and link back offense to that decision calculus. So, its in your best interest to give me voters especially towards the later speeches so I understand how the offense links. I'm generally fine with K's, theory, and other progressive arguments being run in LD. However, if you're running a really obscure K please slow down on the tags.
Generally I feel like I can follow speed pretty well, but I'll yell "clear" if I can't understand what you're saying.
When you're making extensions please try to rearticulate the warrant and impact of the card. Also make sure to weigh the impact of the argument once you do extend it. I don't like having to weigh arguments by myself, I feel like I'm intervening too much. So please make sure to do that during the round.
I'm perfectly okay with theory if there's some sort of legitimate abuse in round. Please don't read frivolous theory if you can avoid it. That includes reading a ton of shells just to suck time out of an opponent's speech. If you read theory solely for the purpose of avoiding substantive debate I'll dock your speaks. I'll still vote on it if you win the theory debate, but I'd rather not listen to that type of round.
I'm generally pretty okay following these types of arguments. If you're reading something that's not part of traditional K lit then please slow down on tags. Often times I see debaters not include a role of the ballot when it's needed; if your K requires it make sure to read a ROB.
- I generally average 28 on speaks and go up/down
- I don't care if you stand/sit during speeches
- Flashing isn't part of prep time for me
- I won't vote for morally reprehensible arguments (ex. racism good, genocide good, etc). This is a pretty broad statement so if you have questions about this please ask me before round.
- Flex prep is fine
- Don't be rude, that'll reflect poorly in your speaks
Three main things I evaluate
1) Framework and pre-fiat arguments
2) Evidence Comparison: give me reasons to prefer your evidence especially to set the record straight about something.
3) Impact Calculus
Topicality is something I will vote on
Kritiks must have an alt. it must be clear through Cross X and Speech what the world of the alt looks like.
Howdy, I debated at Katy Taylor for four years, and I currently coach at Harker.
The following is copied and pasted from:
I've decided that debaters can flash me constructives if they want. This will help with the previously mentioned card clipping problem and also help me flow since debaters refuse to make obvious when cards end by whispering author names.
-I default to evaluating rounds via a comparing worlds paradigm
-I do not base speaker points based on speaking ability but rather based on strategic decisions in rebuttals which means your constructive can go against everything I stand for but have good issue selection and you'll get high speaks
-I am not persuaded by the extension of spikes to take out whole positions unless the implications of those spikes are clearly articulated within the AC
-I give the 1AR leeway on extensions
-I will presume if I have to but not because a debater told me to. In the absence of offense I presume to whichever side is less of a shift from the status quo.
-If you get through a round without flashing problems you get higher speaker points
-if you make the round shorter you will get higher speaker points
-logical fallacy arguments reduce your speaker points
-If your interp is a preposterous attempt to abuse competing interps my threshold for responses goes down
-RVIs are fine
-I meets or defense don’t get you an RVI in front of me
-Default competing interps and drop debater
-Philosophy args don’t disprove fairness or education as voters
-Obvi I prefer util but you can read whatever you want
-I usually don’t know what dense phil frameworks actually say but I rarely feel that impacts the decision because neither does anyone else
-since I view debate rounds from a comparing worlds paradigm it means that skepticism and permissibility are probably defensive arguments
-I'm very persuaded by life is a pre req args
-Familiar with some but not a lot of lit
-I personally believe topicality should be a constraint on critical AFFs but can be persuaded otherwise in round
-If you debate against a K you are much more likely to win with clash not shenanigans
Ask me questions if I've missed something important to you.
Debated PF all throughout high school. I have no specific rules and I buy any and all arguments as long as the evidence follows. I like clash but also want to see clear voters at the end of the round; tell me why you've won the round and don't make me work too hard to figure out what arguments are left on the flow. Line-by-line over big picture. Framework vs. contention level is all the same to me, really depends on how the round is going.
Debated LD briefly. I personally understand traditional case structures more than progressive, but I love a good kritik. As stated for PF, framework vs. contention level really depends on how the round is going so I weigh the same.
For debate in general, be courteous to your opponents. Also, while I do like clash, I also want to know why I should prefer one argument over the other, don't just throw pieces of evidence at each other. Finally, don't just read cards, analyze them, explain why they're important; anybody can just read words on a paper. Good luck.