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 brown.k.adam@gmail.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?".

Fundamentals

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

Speaker Points

1. 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.
2. 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.

Post-Round

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 (brown.k.adam@gmail.com).

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:

Ben Koh
Jenn Melin
Tim Alderete
Kris Wright
Arun Sharma

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.

Law Magnet ‘16

UT Austin ‘19

Email: delaodino21@gmail.com

Haven't thought about debate in a while. Feel free to do whatever you want. I don't have strong convictions on most issues.

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

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.

Updated: 01/07/2020

Standing Conflicts: Strake Jesuit College Preparatory (TX)

Background:

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):

LARP/Stock: 1

K: 1

Framework: 2

Theory: 2

Tricks: 5

Generic: 2-3

General:

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.

Speed:

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.

Ks:

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.

T/Theory:

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.

Framework:

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.

Tricks:

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.

Speaks:

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.

Other:

-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.

-Time yourselves.

-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 (qjc097@my.utsa.edu) or by Facebook message.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Fu%2C+Victor

PARADIGM SHORT

1. Be nice and respectful. If you are highly offensive or disrespectful, I reserve the right to vote you down.

2. Speed is fine, but be clear and slow down in rebuttals. If you go top speed in rebuttals, I will miss arguments.

3. I prefer interesting and creative arguments. I will usually prefer truth over tech and decide on the most cohesive weighed argument. If I don't clearly understand, I don't vote. Tell me how to vote please.

4. If you do what makes you comfortable and throw a voter on it, you'll be fine.

MORE STUFF

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 will most likely not vote for a technical interaction that hasn't been heavily explained in the round. If you are grossly misrepresenting technical arguments to another debater, I reserve the right to not vote on those arguments.

I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny, nice, and/or 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. I will either give you the max (99.99999999999% of rounds) or you will get the minimum (reserved for doing something abhorent)

If you are oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.

Please keep me entertained(two invested debaters is enough). 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 have a very long history in speech and debate activities as both a coach and competitor. I have coached all formats of debate along with public speaking and interp events over the last 35 years. I attended high school in a small town Texas school back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, where I competed in policy debate, extemp, oratory, dramatic, prose and poetry. I also competed in college at Southwest Texas State University (which is now Texas State University) in NDT and CEDA along with individual events.

I have been the coach at James E. Taylor High School (Katy Taylor) in Katy, Texas for the last 23 years, where I have coached all events.

In public speaking events, I generally weigh 3 things: analysis, organization, and delivery (in that order). In any public speaking event, I expect to hear citations of credible sources. In extemp I normally expect a minimum of 2-3 source per area of analysis (more is fine). In oratory or info, I expect the student to explain a source's qualifications. A clear organizational structure is required. In terms of delivery, there should be an appropriate level of gesture and movement. But all movement should serve to reinforce the content of the speech. Clear diction and intonation are also important.

Extempers--The analysis in the speech should stem directly from the topic question. If the speech doesn't directly respond to the question asked, you will end up with a low rank from me, no matter the quality of the speech itself. My number 1 rule in extemp--answer the question.

When evaluating interpretation events, I tend to look first to characterization. Blocking and use of space are also an important considerations, but I expect all movement to be motivated. Random movement, or movement just for movement's sake, is distracting and confusing. I have no particular preference on the use of a teaser, but I do want to hear YOU in the intro (as a contrast to the character(s) you are creating). In prose/poetry, the rules of the event require the use of a binder, so I expect you to at least pretend to occasionally look at the pages.

I am not offended by the use of profanity as long as it is integral to the selection performed. I am not a fan of using it just for shock value. Along the same lines, I am not easily offended, and willing to give some latitude on content of the performance. However, I am uncomfortable with selections that are extremely graphic and/or vulgar, or bordering on, or completely pornographic. I realize that it is difficult to explain where that line falls, and I do take that into account. Shocking just to be shocking doesn't score lots of points with me. Basically, if the piece would get an X-rating in a movie theater, I don't want to watch it in an interp round.

Online competitors: I will always take into account limited space, technical issues, etc., when evaluating competitors online. I understand that some things are just out of the student's control when competing online and I do not count that against the student.

Updated - 11/18/2023

Email: njenningsuh@gmail.com,

Experience:

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

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

Non-negotiables

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

What is Debate?

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

Framework

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

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

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

Critical Affirmatives

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

The Kritik

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

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

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

Non-Kritikal Debates

Theory

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

DA's

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

CP's

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

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’m comfortable/familiar with whatever style of debate you prefer.

Short version: Read well developed, not offensive, resolutionally grounded arguments and weigh your offense/provide me a clear ballot story, and I will 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. I do not like paragraph theory. 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 believe these are the debates I am best at evaluating. That being said, ---do what you feel most comfortable/best doing and I will reward you for that. Plans, CPs, disads are all great given they have all of their necessary parts. WEIGHING EVIDENCE/IMPACTS IS SO IMPORTANT IN THESE DEBATES.
Critical Arguments: I think critical arguments/debates can be really fun to judge given you 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: My main concern is courtesy and respect to your opponent, judge, and the debate space. After that, I will reward strategic choices made in round, WEIGHING, and humor/perceptual dominance. Literally any weighing will probably jump you up. 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 the most familiar with “tricks” in debate, whether that’s in the forms of spikes, skep, permissibility, presumption, etc. 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.

Most importantly, be kind and have fun! Debate should be a fun activity. If you have any questions, feel free to email me at ninakalluri1@gmail.com or ask me before the round.

Brief Background:

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)

http://hsld15.debatecoaches.org/Memorial/

Defaults:

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.

No RVIs

Reasonability

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

Speaks

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).

Quick Prefs:

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.

Lay:

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).

LARP/Policy args:

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.

Theory:

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.

Traditional K:

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.

Weird K:

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.

Analytic Phil/Framework:

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.

Tricks:

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: khan.aimun@gmail.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.

This paradigm and this paradigm shamelessly copied my old paradigm and I more or less agree with both of them.

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.

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

Short Version:

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.

Long Version:

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

TL;DR:

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.

General:

- 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.

Ks:

- 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.

Util/LARP:

- 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.

Ethical Framework:

- 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.

Theory/T:

- 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.

Assistant Debate Coach Dripping Springs High School

2a/1n UH debate 2016-19

email chain- ryanwaynelove@gmail.com

I do not watch the news.

Novices:

I have infinite patience with novices. So just do your best to learn, and have fun; welcome to debate!

Unrelated:

Hegel updates just dropped: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/29/manuscript-treasure-trove-may-offer-fresh-understanding-of-hegel

Policy: TFA State Update: (Ask me questions! This is an important tournament, I really do not like how hostile some judges can be to debaters. Y'all deserve to be able to ask whatever you want before the round).

Really important: You have got to slow down a bit for me. If you are not clear, you are doing yourself a disservice. The clearer you are, the faster you can go in front of me. The less clear you are means the more you should slow down.

You do you. But please crystallize the debate. I am infinitely more comfortable voting on well explained, well warranted, argument(s) that were explained persuasively, that took up the vast majority of the time in the 2nr/2ar, than I am on voting on a blippy technically conceded argument that was 20 seconds of the 2nr/2ar. This means I prefer deep debates over crucial issues of clash much more than debates where both sides are trying to spread the opponents thin. In debates where debaters take the latter approach rather than the former, I often times find myself seeking to determine the core "truthiness" of an argument. I often times have a different interpretation of "truth" than others. This means that in debates where little weighing is done for me you may not like how I intervene to make a decision. Similarly, if there is a conceded argument I much prefer you explain why that concession matters in the context of the greater debate being had, instead of just saying "this was conceded so vote for it." 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 the ideas and arguments your opponents put forth.

Many times in conversations with debaters after the round I will be asked "Well what about this argument?" The debater will then go on to give an awesome, nuanced, explanation of that argument. I will then say "If it had been explained like that in rebuttal, I probably would have voted for it." If you expect me to vote on something, make it important in the last rebuttal.

I have not judged much on this topic. So start slower and work your way up to full speed. If I cannot understand you I will say clear.

Slow down in rebuttals. If you are going blazing fast I will miss something and I will not do the work for you on the flow. If you are fast and clear you should be fine. I need a clear impact scenario in the 2nr/2ar. Tell me the story of your impact(s); whether it be nuclear war, limits/ground, education, or settler violence. Be sure to weigh it in comparison with the impact scenario(s) of your opponents. In short, do the work for me, do not make me intervene to reach a decision.

Argument specific stuff:

Topicality-I am not aware of topical norms, so do not be afraid to go for topicality; especially against super vague plan texts.

Kritiks-I am most comfortable judging kritikal debate. As a debater I debated the kritik explicitly. I say this because I think y'all deserve to know that the finer techne of policy throw-downs are not my strong suit. If you read the Kritik I likely have at least some passing familiarity with your arguments. That does not mean I will hack for you. I expect you to explain any argument to me that you expect me to vote on in a clear and intelligible way. If I can not explain to a team why they lost, I will not vote for an argument.

K Aff v. Framework- I am about 50/50 regarding my voting record. Something, something, the duality of being ya know?

Disads- These are fun. The more internal links to get to the impact the more suss I think the arg is, the more likely I am to believe there is very low risk.

Counterplans-If your strat is to read 900 counterplans that do not really compete I am not the judge for you. Counterplans that have a legit net benefit on the other hand...those are nice. That being said, I have a soft spot for words PICS/PIKS.

Misc- Debate is a game. So if your A-strat is to go for that heg advantage, federalism and 50 states, or cap good, then go for it. You do you. 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.

Please use cross-x effectively

Please act like you want to be here.

Please be efficient in setting up the email chain, sharing docs, et cetera.

Please know I am only human. I will work hard. But know I am not perfect.

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 debate because it is quite fleeting!

LD:

This is the event I am least familiar with of all of the ones I have on this page. I would say look at my Policy paradigm and know that I am very comfortable with any policy-esque arguments. What the cool kids call LARP in LD I am told. For anything else judge instruction and weighing of args is going to be critical. As I have also stated in my policy paradigm I am more familiar with Kritikal args than policy ones, but I think for LD I am a good judge to have if you want to read a plan or something.

That being said I do appreciate debaters using their framing IE Value/standard/whatever to help me adjudicate the round. If you win framing you will probably win the debate when I am in the back of the room, as long as you have an impact as to why your framing matters.

Frivolous theory, RVI's, and tricks are going to be a hard sell for me. Legit theory abuse, topicality, or "T-you gotta defend the topic on the aff" are args I am more than willing to vote on.

Phil arguments are cool but do not assume I have any familiarity with your author. If I do not understand something I ain't voting on it.

San Antonio specifics

Unless both parties agree I do not want to see any spreading.

Do not be afraid to be a traditional debater in front of me. Just be sure you can debate against other styles.

Public Forum

Update a la Churchill on the Kritik- I am down like Charlie Brown for the kritik in PF (understatement). However, if you introduce the K in rebuttal I will be willing to evaluate theory args in response.

TLDR: Tech>truth, I keep a rigorous flow, I appreciate good analytics, and I hate theory in PF. I do not care if you sit or stand. If you want to call for a card go for it; BUT PLEASE do this efficiently. Do not try to spread, but going quick is fine.

Long version: I have judged a lot of rounds in Public Forum this year. There are a few things that you need to know to win my ballot:

The teams who have routinely gotten my ballot have done a great job collapsing the debate down to a few key points. After this, they have compared specific warrants, evidence, and analytics and explained why their arguments are better, why their opponents arguments are worse, and why their arguments being better means they win the debate. This may sound easy, however, it is not. Trust your instincts, debate fearlessly, take chances, and do not worry about whatever facial expression I have. I promise you do not have any idea where my thoughts are.

Crossfires: Use this time wisely. Use it to clarify, use it to create ethos, use it to get concessions, use it to make their arguments look bad and yours good. But use it. I think answers given in crossfire are binding in the debate. If you get a big concession use it in your speeches.

Framework(s): I like these debates. Reading a framework IE structural violence or explaining via an observation how the debate should be framed is helpful because it clarifies for me how to evaluate the debate. I like this in debates, it makes things easier for me. If you are reading a framework be sure to extend it in every speech and use it as a lens to explain your impacts in the debate/weigh your impacts against your opponents.

Speed: I think PF should be more accessible to the general public than policy. With that being said I have not seen a team go too fast yet.

Theory: This is silly. Disclosure theory is silly. Do not read it in front of me. Do not read any theory arguments in front of me. I will not vote on them. With that being said arguing that your opponents are not fitting within the bounds of the resolution is a good argument to make if it applies. If you make this argument and have warrants and impacts do not be afraid to go for it in final focus.

Non-traditional stuff: I enjoy creative takes on the topic, unique cases, and smart argumentation. I do think that PF should always revolve around the topic, I also think the topic is broader than most do. That being said avoid jargon. You can make a lot of creative arguments in this event, do so while avoiding weird debate jargon. No this does not contradict the "theory" section above. I will weigh claims about someone not fitting within the bounds of the resolution vs explanations about why a team is satisfying the burden of the resolution. Whoever does the better debating will win this question in the debate.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: I am a firm believer that my role as a judge is to be impartial and adjudicate fairly. 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.

Congress:

I was a finalist at the TOC in this event. This means I am looking for a lot of specific things to rank high on my ballot.

Clash over everything. If you rehash I am not ranking you.

Authors/sponsors: get into the specifics of the Bill: funding, implementation, agent of action, date of implementation. I appreciate a good authorship/sponsorship speech.

1st neg: Lay out the big neg args, also clash the author/sponsor.

Everyone else needs to clash, clash, clash. Specifically reference the Rep's you are refuting, and refute their specific arguments.

Leave debate jargon for other events.

Ask lots of questions. Good questions. No easy questions to help your side out.

This is as much a speaking event as it is a debate event. Do not over-read on your legal pad (do not use anything else to speak off of), fluency breaks/over gesturing/swaying are distracting, and be sure to use intros, transitions, and conclusions effectively.

I loath breaking cycle. If it happens those speaking on whatever side there are speeches on need to crystallize, clash, or make new arguments.

I appreciate decorum, role-playing as congress-people, and politicking.

1 good speech is better than 100 bad ones.

Wear a suit and tie/ power suit. Do not say "at the leisure of everyone above me" that's weird. My criticisms may seem harsh. I promise they are not intended to be mean. I just want to make you better.

Presiding Officer: To rank in my top 3 you need to be perfect. That being said as long as you do not catastrophically mess up precedence or something like that I will rank you top 8 (usually). The less I notice your presence in the round the better.

BOOMER thoughts (WIP):

Outside of policy/LD I think you should dress professionally.

In cross-x you should be looking at the judge not at your opponents. You are trying to convince the judge to vote for you not your opponents.

At the conclusion of a debate you should shake hands with your opponents and say good debate. If you are worried about COVID you can at least say good debate.

You should have your cases/blocks saved to your desktop in case the WIFI is bad. You should also have a flash drive just in case we have to go back to the stone age of debate.

"Is anyone not ready?" is not epic.

"Is everyone ready?" is epic.

The phrases "taking running prep" or "taking 'insert x seconds of prep'" should not exist.

"Taking prep" is all you need.

"Starting on my first word" umm duh that's when the speech starts. Just start after asking if everyone is ready.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Metelitsa%2C+Eddie

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.

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. 

Basics

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. 

Speed

Generally I feel like I can follow speed pretty well, but I'll yell "clear" if I can't understand what you're saying.

Extensions

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. 

Theory

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. 

Critical Arguments

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. 

Misc

- 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:

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Fink%2C+Ryan

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.

General Stuff

-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



Theory:
-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


Framework/Philosophy:
-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


Critical Arguments:
-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.

PF:

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. 

LD:

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.