I'm primarily a policy judge, so I'm pretty tab and don't really have strong preferences. However, I don't expect nor want other forms of debate (LD, PF, BQ, WSD) to look like a policy round.

A) I tend to view myself as a judge that tries to be as tab as possible. I am willing to accept any framework argument made. If no framework is set up, I will view the round as a policy-maker. I view debate as a fishbowl. What I mean by this is that debate is a place to play with different theories and ideas to form the best possible scenario. I am willing to vote neg if the status/quo outweighs the aff, but I will not make that argument for you. If you just say that in some way the aff is bad, but don’t tell me the status quo is better and warrant it out you will probably lose. In a way, if not given a framework (that is warranted out), I will go with what I am told is good. I work very hard to not let my personal beliefs have a role in the round, but I am only human.

B) Speed is not a problem; however, you must be clear. Mumbling is not the same as spreading.

C) Topicality. and Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse. I refuse to vote on potential abuse, because that can lead to a what if can of worms. I also tend to be less sympathetic to weird definitions or word pics. I am glad to listen to them and way them in round if they are warranted, explained, and not just a ten second part of the round (let’s be honest-sometimes they are just time sucks). I love to see really good theory ran by people who understand it. It is an intriguing way to play the debate game.

D) Counter Plans are fine, but make sure you can actually, legally change out the actor, etc.

E) Disads are fine. I like them as a net benefit to CPs. It makes everything pretty.

F) Kritiks are fine with me, but please realize that I do not read all of the literature in my free time. If something I hear about sparks and interest, sure, I’ll read about it. This rarely happens. I think it is ridiculous how many debaters assume that I have read all that Zizek, Lacan, or whoever the newest guru is has written or spoken. Remember that your judges and coaches have lives outside of debate. I actually really like to hear Kritiks as they can offer great offense.

G) Now onto Perms. I will vote on them, but they must be explained and not just a cheap trick thrown at the aff.

H) Behavior: Remember that this is not a time to actively work to make people feel inferior (Read: Don’t be a jerk). We lose to many students who could have thrived in this activity due to them feeling horrid after a tournament. I want to see more debaters and actors. I want to see massive inclusion of all peoples. This is supposed to be fun and educational; help us work towards that. When you face those who are less experienced that you, help make it an awesome learning experience and don’t act like you should win by default.

I) Remember that you will probably encounter the same competitors and judges throughout the year; so make a good impression.

I have 4 years of debate experience at Edmond Santa Fe High School competing in LD and PFD and one year at UCO in policy.

LD:

I only have a traditional LD debate background. However, I am open to any argumentation; please give good explantion. Analysis is key to any argument. I will try as hard as I can to keep up but if it isn't on my flow then you didn't say it. I do not like theory or dense frameworks. I want to see a good relevant framework debate while still seeing clear argumentation for why one side won over another. Stay topical and stay realistic.

PFD:

I believe public forum debate exists to persuade. I don't like seeing so much evidence and definition debate that we forget the topic. I'm pretty open to any sort of argumentation as long as the pro affirms the resolution and the con disagrees with the pro. I like the use of observations when used correctly, I think they keep the debate unique and interesting. Keep the debate fun and persuade me to vote for you.

Overall debate is suppose to be fun, don't get mad and don't yell. Be respectful and good luck!

Former intercollegiate debater. NDT qualifier. Do not have any prejudices against any specific arguments. Anything can win a round. Likewise anything can lose a round. Like to view the round from the outside which means I want you to apply the argument for me. Tell my WHY it means something and why it is impactful. Do not mind speed, but if it is unintelligible it does not make it to the flow and if it is not on the flow it does not count in round. Pretty much open to whatever you want to present.

Debated

4 years of CX at Moore High (OK)

4 years CX at UCO

Qualified to the NDT 3 Times

CEDA Finalist my last year

Basically, all that time has been spent as a 2N/1A going for the K and reading an AFF without a plan. With that said I think that debate is for the debaters, do what you do best and do it well. By all means don't let my (perceived) preferences sway you from doing what you want to do.

If you have any questions before or after the tournament feel free to email me at grantcolquitt87@gmail.com

Also add me to the email chain if there is one.

I flow on paper so I may need slightly more pen time than some, so clarity > speed for me. I can still handle speed, but clear transitions are really important to me, and all the more true in an online setting.

I evaluate debates almost entirely on the flow, so my preferences matter less than doing what you're best at and impacting that on flow. Given that impact framing arguments (impact calculus), are almost always the most important factor of my decisions.

A few thoughts on particular issues:

Framework- most of my ballots on this question come down to the impact of competing models of debate. I think AFFs are often ahead in this debate when they advance a counter interp that solves the limits DA. NEGs tend to be ahead with a TVA that solves the AFFs offense (note not the AFF but their offense). I’m here for the impact turn and procedural fairness respectively (though more as an internal link to education than an independent impact). But that is my light default, I can and have been convinced otherwise.

K v K debates- Most of this works like any other debate, explain why you’re right and what the impact to that is. Only specific comment, I have never understood the notion that “method debates” mean the AFF shouldn’t get a perm, this isn’t intuitive and while I am open to being convinced I have yet to hear a compelling argument. Also, you just need a link to your K anyway so maybe use that to beat the perm?

Policy v policy debates- this is by far the debate I’m the least familiar with but that doesn’t mean I’m not open to it if that’s your jam. Just explain how your impacts turn or outweigh your opponent’s arguments and you should be just fine.

I have been judging regularly for about 15 years; and I am in my seventh year coaching Harding Charter Prep HS in Oklahoma City. I love every single event offered for competition. They are all valid. Memes hating on particular events are lame. Follow @hcpspeechdebate on Instagram and Twitter.

LD/PFD: I prefer quality of information and sources as well as clarity and presence of speakers over speed and quantity of information and sources. The more you can tell me about the qualifications of a source, the better I can weigh them. If you give a simple (Last Name/Year) tag, you can assume I know nothing about the author. I like to see your personality as a debater and jokes/lighthearted moments are welcome as long as they are within the scope of the topic. I dislike plans and policy-style approaches to Lincoln-Douglas debate; if you want to do Policy, there's a debate for that. I believe that the heart of Public Forum debate is that it should assume any judge is a lay judge and is more informal and free of debate jargon. Limit pre-case observations and don't place impossible burdens on your opponent. Be civil and professional during cross-examination or your speaker points are toast. Use cross-examination time to ask questions, not make another speech. Use your speech time and prep time! Your constructive speeches should be as close to memorized as possible. I want to see you speaking/debating, not just reading. Cases on paper vs on a laptop gain an automatic advantage. Have fun!

Big Questions: Please, please, please read the Format Manual. Then read it again. Use the Format Manual as evidence in round if you need to. Please let this thing have a chance to become its own thing before we drown it in the other debate sauces.

Policy: If I am judging round round, I apologize in advance. Something has gone awry at this tournament and I am a kind-hearted person with a semi-functioning brain that has been put in to prevent the round starting hours late. We'll make it through this together. I'm probably not gonna disclose unless tab forces me to.

Congress: Don't read word-for-word pre-written speeches. You should have an outline. Pay attention to the whole of the round, not just sitting there prepping for when you are going to talk. Keep questions concise.

World Schools: Requests for POIs should rise/raise as often as needed but don't be a pest about it. You are at the discretion of the speaker. Avoid debate jargon. Rely on reason and logic. Appeal persuasively. Prop arguments should do their best to prove the resolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. Opposition arguments should be about broad rejection of the resolution, not just finding an outlier to say that one example is representative of all.

Final Thoughts: This activity is for education. Winning and excellence should always be celebrated, but not the only goal. Remember that Words Matter and Words have Power. Respect the purpose of the Pronouns and name pronunciation options in Tabroom. The NSDA has worked hard to be inclusive. Don't abuse that. #NotGarbagePeople

Currently a student @ Central Oklahoma 

I did policy debate in high school @ Charles Page High School in Oklahoma for 4 years, and in college intermittently for the last 2 years.  

I have not judged any rounds on the topic this year, but I think with enough analysis I can still make a viable decision. I am most familiar with flex debate, but I have invested a significant amount of time into specific bodies of critical literature like indigeneity, so if you want to be creative and innovative stylistically with argumentation- I'm all for it, and I can probably hang with enough explanation.

I will try to be as tab as possible otherwise, but I do have predispositions that you might have to reconcile. I will not tolerate hate speech, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc. This is not meant to discourage engaging in each other's arguments. Debate is a game; you can still play the game and play it fair.

I apologize if this is too short, any specific questions can be answered before the debate.

I am open to most any type of argumentation. I love kritiks, theory shells, topicalities, and all things squirrelly. That said, I believe spreading is an unethical practice and if I can't understand you enough to flow, you didn't say it. I have voted on probably 80% of speed Ks I have heard.

I was an LD debater from 2012 to 2015, PF 2015 to 2016. Rule number 1 is to be respectful to everyone.

LD: I ran LD as a traditionalist of sorts. That said, I need to see both sides engage the resolution and incorporate framework. Impact, impact, impact: tell me how your arguments matter, and why that leads to you winning the round. Voters are an essential part of a good last speech. Tell me explicitly why I should vote for you; do not leave it up to me.

PF: My role as a PF judge as that of the American juror (so sayeth the NSDA Manual). With that in mind, I see my role as that of someone with little formal debate experience. Make arguments that make sense to a lay judge. This does not mean dumb things down, but it might mean I see some things as intrinsically good. Take your time to spell out your impacts and how they differ from your opponents. Keep your evidence available and ready for your opponents, be kind to one another in crossfire, and remember to stay on point.

CX: I didn't do it as a student, but I've taken a liking to it as a judge. I can handle speed, just make sure to signpost clearly. Impacts will be weighed based on what you tell me in the round. No inherent pref for on-case vs off-case unless you frame one for me. I have a decent grasp on the concepts of T, K, DA and the rest, but maybe not by their names. That doesn't mean don't run it - if it's a good argument it will be weighed as such - but it does mean you might want to take a second to tell me why it matters in more casual terms. Basically, impact. Be respectful of everyones time in the round and we shouldn't have a problem. I'll only disclose if everyone on each team wants me to.

Speaker Points: In all categories these are awarded or deducted based on (in order):

1) Respect for your opponent(s), respect for your judge(s) and respect for your partner(s). This includes things like using appropriate pronouns, using prep time properly and honestly, and generally ensuring the debate space is an inclusive one. The fastest way to lose speaker points from me is to be rude.

2) Quality of diction and presentation, with special consideration to the speeches that follow the case presentation

3) Quality of speech structure (making effective use of your time in your speeches)

4) Verbal prompting, while sometimes helpful, is discouraged by the NSDA manual. I'll subtract speaker points starting with the second instance of prompting.

I reserve the right to deduct or award speaker points for incidental things that may come up in the round, and I'll try to provide feedback on the ballot in these cases.

---

EMAIL FOR SPEECH DOCS: leigha.debate@gmail.com

---

Policy Debater at Moore High School, Moore, OK: 2008-2011

Policy Debater at the University of Oklahoma: 2011-2015

Assistant Policy Debate Coach at Moore High School, Moore, OK: 2012 - 2015; 2018 - 2020

Assistant Coach at University of Central Oklahoma: Dec. 2019 - May 2021

Assistant Coach at Heritage Hall High School, Oklahoma City, OK: Current

---

Stylistic:

For virtual debates:

Give me pen-time between arguments - and a second to move from one flow to the next. As one of the last practitioners of paper-debate and as judge who flows on paper, the cleaner and more organized the debate can be on my end, the more satisfying a decision I can give both teams.

I'm okay with observers in debates I judge, if you have affirmative consent from the teams debating. If you observe while recording, I also need to affirmatively consent to you doing so. Just ask me in the chat, that works.

I'll try to record prep time in the chat, if you end up losing your time.

- When the flash drive exits the computer, prep time is over. If using an email chain, verbally announce when you're sending the speech document out, and prep stops.

- I am fine with spreading, but I do want to hear a tag, citation, and the internals of the card. I will yell "clear" if I need.

- Let me know if you're going to have a long overview and I'll flow it on another sheet. My threshold for what I consider a "long" overview is very low, so keep that in mind. Play it safe and tell me to get another sheet, if you're on the fence about if this applies to you.

Argument Execution:

- Analysis needs a claim, a warrant, and an impact. "Extend our argument" is not an extension to me.

- Extending a piece of evidence by name and giving shallow analysis - ie: "Ext. our [blank] card here - means we turn the aff," and moving on. Without some explanation of the how and why that's true within the context of the evidence and the argument it's answering, I'm more reluctant to put in that work for you.

- I value debates where arguments are made with descriptive consistency in warrant extensions and analysis. Being able to trace the development of an argument from its introduction in evidence to the 2NR or 2AR is important to me - keep the key thesis of your argument alive in the debate. The same applies to application of warrants from a piece of evidence.

- It's awesome to see arguments that challenge the aff on a substantive level using nuanced arguments. Specific links are great and encouraged. But, I also reward specific application and contextualization to the aff when using a more generic piece of evidence. Especially in critical debates.

- In rebuttals, especially in the 1AR and 2NR, cleaning up the debate and making larger explanations of strategic, technical decisions or concessions on the flow framing-level is rewarded by me. Consider this me asking you to "write my ballot for me" in the last stages of the debate. I value analysis that not only explains to me the thesis of your advantages, disad, counterplan, or kritik in terms of substance, but also what arguments you are winning and key questions on individual flows you're going for.

Specific Arguments:

I was a critical debater for most of my career but will vote on framework and policy arguments - do what makes you feel comfortable and I will do my best to evaluate the round. I'm just probably not hyper-knowledgable on the truth-claims of the literature for your hot, new Yuan devaluation scenario, so I'll read evidence for my own personal understanding of the debate when needed for a decision. A lot of my experience in debating and coaching critical arguments are in the literature areas of settler colonialism, critical race arguments, queer theory, IR Ks, and other method debates.

---

- For those of you in a debate running a critical argument in front of me, this means I have a higher threshold for clarity in explanation and smart, explicit application to either affirmative or negative responses to your argument. A lot of the creativity in critical debate comes from application of specific warrants from your authors to the other team's argument - this is especially true in debates where you may not have a super-specific link argument in the 1NC and in high-theory debates that can devolve into word-salad. This is a basic requirement in you doing work for me in explaining the interaction between your argument and the other team's argument. Speeches that attempt to ground your theory with more concrete examples are good.

Being intentionally opaque about your position in cross-examination makes me roll my eyes a little bit (unless it's fundamental to the theory of your argument, as in some opacity-style method debates). I certainly become a little more sympathetic to the other team's frustrations when there's a sense you might be evasive during the explanation of your argument

- Theory debates are not my favorite, as I feel a lot of debaters can be unclear in their explanation of and the developing a theory argument enough for me to give it much weight inside of the round. I prefer if you give me a heads up during your roadmap to grab an additional sheet for flowing, and give the order with the new sheet with whatever argument the theory concerns. (IE: "The order is T, the dis-ad, and the counterplan with a new sheet of paper.")

Theory shells are easy to bury in a flow by couching it among other arguments and spreading right through - which is a strategy! But, in my style of evaluation and for clarity's sake, I recommend clearly signposting when you're moving onto the theory argument, taking a breath so I can quickly get my clean flow, and then begin the argument. A cleaner flow for me gives you a better chance of winning your argument.

---

CX:

I am fine with open CX, to a certain degree. Being rude, mean, and continually speaking over your opponents can lose you speaker points.

Along the same line, speaking for your partner during most of their cross-examination time (whether asking or answering) reflects negatively for speaker points. I understand there is the desire to make sure that your argument is being explained correctly, but it is more persuasive to me if a team is able to have a consistent explanation of their argument between partners.

---

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to ask me before the round.

I have been teaching Speech & Debate for 16 years. I particularly enjoy speaking events and LD debate. I do not care for spreading. I don't mind if you speak fast as long as I can understand you. If I can't understand the argument then I can't vote for your position. I look at the structure of the case as well as the delivery. Your job is to convince me that your Value is the highest in the round. I look for you to uphold your value throughout your case. You need to make the links and impacts, I won't do it for you. Please use a 4-step refutation.

I am big on structure in case. You must be able to uphold your Value and Criterion throughout your case. Each contention should fully support and link to the V, Cr, and resolution. Each contention should have a claim, warrant, and impact. You DO need evidence to support your ideas. Evidence comes in the form of facts, statistics, studies, logical reasoning, and expert opinions. The evidence you use should directly support the claim. You also need to impact the argument. Just because you prove something doesn't tell me why it matters to uphold your side. "If you don't tell me why it matters, it doesn't matter."

During rebuttals start with a roadmap so I know what you are going to do and in what order. Go down the flow to prevent drops. Most importantly when you argue drops in the round please do not use the phrase "he dropped my contention so it flows to me". You must impact this for me. Why does it matter that he dropped that particular contention? How does it help you or hurt them?

Please do not plagiarize cases from briefs. Utilize them to facilitate your ideas but do the work yourself. I want your ideas, not someone else's.

All in all, I am looking for a good debate.

I don't have a lot of experience with progressive LD, not as much as much as most circuit judges that you will run into, but as long as you articulate and explain your argument well enough, I should be able to understand it. I am somewhat conflicted with spreading in LD, so I am a bit susceptible to arguments against it in general but if both debaters are fine with it then feel free to go all out. I will say clear 2 times before i stop flowing you all together. I usually am pretty kind when it comes to speaker points, as long as a debater does not say something racist, homophobic, transphobic, or sexist. I do not want to see any attempts to exclude your opponent from the debate space. Develop clear, concise arguments, provide evidence for those arguments, signpost and apply your arguments and have fun.

I would like to be on the email chain: dsavill@snu.edu

Director of Debate for Southern Nazarene University since 2021 and former coach of Crossings Christian School from 2011 to 2023.

Things you need to know for prefs:

Kritiks: Very familiar with kritiks and non-topical affs. I like kritiks and K affs and can vote for them.

Policy: I am familiar with policy debates and can judge those. My squad is designed to be flex so I am good with either.

Speed: I can handle any kind of speed as long as you are clear.

Theory/FW/T: I am not a fan of FW-only debates so if you are neg and hit a non-topical aff I will entertain FW but that shouldn't be your only off-case. Contesting theory of power is a good strat for me.

Performance/non-traditional debate: Despite what some would think coming from a Christian school, I actually like these kinds of debates and have voted up many teams.

I try to be a tab judge but I know I tend to vote on more technical prowess. I believe debate should be a fun and respectful activity and I try to have a good time judging the round. I think debaters are among the smartest students in the nation and I always find it a privilege to judge a round and give feedback.

I don't have a lot of experience with progressive LD, not as much as much as most circuit judges that you will run into, but as long as you articulate and explain your argument well enough, I should be able to understand it. I am somewhat conflicted with spreading in LD, so I am a bit susceptible to arguments against it in general but if both debaters are fine with it then feel free to go all out. I will say clear 2 times before i stop flowing you all together. I usually am pretty kind when it comes to speaker points, as long as a debater does not say something racist, homophobic, transphobic, or sexist. I do not want to see any attempts to exclude your opponent from the debate space. Develop clear, concise arguments, provide evidence for those arguments, signpost and apply your arguments and have fun.

Below, you will find my paradigm (as copied from the judge philosophies wiki). A couple addendums for the Heritage Hall tournament:

1. I have judged approximately 20 rounds on this topic.

2. I find myself voting for kritiks with much more regularity than my below paradigm would seem to indicate; further, I would like to think that my competence in evaluating such kritiks has improved exponentially since first writing this paradigm.

The below information was copied from <http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Thompson%2C+Will>

High School: Debated 4 Years for Charles Page High School in Oklahoma

College: Current Sophomore at the University of Oklahoma, 1 Year of College Debate Thus Far


Overview
I view debate through an offense-defense paradigm. I am fine with spreading. I am very familiar with "circuit" style debate. I try to intervene as little as possible, and thus refer to myself as "Tabula Rasa." Nevertheless, it's impossible for me to abandon all my biases, and so the below information is an attempt to let you know what those biases are.

Topicality/Theory/Framework
I am very comfortable voting on topicality. I don't have a default preference for either competing interpretations or reasonability - I have no preference as to whether or not there has to be "actual abuse" in order to vote on topicality. It's up to you to determine my views on that subject in each round (this is the one exception to the default "offense-defense" paradigm outlined above; a team that wins reasonability can, in my mind, thereafter win the topicality debate merely with decisive defense against the other team's standards). You can be extremely untopical and win topicality, or extremely topical and lose on topicality. Theory is rarely a reason to reject the team, unless strong arguments to the contrary are made in the constructive speeches. Don't be annoying and say that perms are severence when they aren't. Competing interpretations and reasonability can also apply during theory arguments. I will be happy to listen to affs that completely ignore the topic, and I will also be happy to listen to framework arguments that force every aff to defend USFG implementation. If the negative wants to win framework against non-topical affs, they need to quantify the magnitude of the link to their standards, and also frame their offense in terms of the other team's offense (i.e., I have no idea how to compare education and striated space without your instruction). I will vote on framework against negative kritiks, but teams rarely make such framework arguments compellingly.

Disadvantages
I love them, and went for them all the time throughout high school. If anything, this probably means I'll hold you to a higher standard when you run them - this is especially true of the politics DA. You should have carded answers to common 2ac args if you want to be able to take a given DA into the block. Do impact calculus and make "turns case" args - it's really important.

Counterplans
Generally fine. Theory is underutilized by affirmative teams, since a large number of CP's are cheating. Affs need to put a substantial 2ar/1ar time investment into theory on CP's if they want to win it, though. Simply saying "perm" does not constitute an extension of a permutation - there must be a warrant as to why the perm solves. I prefer fewer, well-warranted perms to larger numbers of blippy perms.

Kritiks
I didn't go for them much, but I feel comfortable evaluating debates that involve them. Compare your offense to the other team's offense (i.e., how does the hyperreal interact with the lack) and you should be good. Explain how your alternative functions and PLEASE don't be jargon-y; even if I AM familiar with some of the jargon, it's better to make your arguments clear in the first place. If the other team doesn't understand what's going on, it's a safe bet that I don't, either. I don't find links of omission to be compelling.

Perms
The phrase "perm do both" does not constitute a reason for me to vote aff, even if the perm is dropped by the negative team. A perm MUST be accompanied by an explanation of its net-beneficiality in order for me to evaluate it in the first place. Absent such explanation, the "perm" does not rise to the standard of an "argument."

Other Stuff
I keep a close flow of the round, and I expect you to as well. I will dock you an average of one speaker point if you don't seem to flow.

I rarely, if ever, call for cards after the round. It is not my job to read your evidence, but rather your job to explain it to me. I don't care how good your evidence is if you haven't analyzed and applied it well.

I rarely give speaker points lower than a 27 or higher than a 29. Points higher than 29 are reserved for especially phenomenal, final-round quality debaters. Points lower than 27 and higher than 26 are reserved for debaters who don't seem to either try or care about their performance. Points lower than 26 are reserved for the following cases: if you are excessively rude or mean, especially to young debaters; if you cheat (steal prep, clip cards); if you use blatantly racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, ableist, or adultist slurs (note that "slurs" are distinct from phrases like "you guys," and the metaphorical use of the word "see" - using this language is probably still bad, and the opposing team should argue as much, but I won't default to lowering your speaks in such scenarios); and if you argue with me about the decision. You can certainly ask questions about my decision, but if you choose to argue with me, I feel the need to set a precedent. Too many good judges have stopped judging the activity and/or been intimidated into voting for particularly outspoken teams because of such situations.

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

Email for the chain: lwzhou10 at gmail.com

---

TOC Public Forum

Put the Public back in Public Forum.

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

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

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

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

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

Other Things

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

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

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

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

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

---

Policy

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

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

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

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

---

WSD

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

---

Online Procedural Concerns

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