Tabroom.com

Strake Jesuit Tournament

2017 — Houston, TX/US

VLD Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Tosin Agboola Westwood HS

Last changed on Sat March 24, 2018 at 11:31 AM EDT

As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.

Also, I flow the best on paper, but I'm a bit irresponsible, so I might not have paper and a pen all the time. If you have extra paper and a pen, then you'd help me adjudicate the debate a lot easier. Otherwise, I'd have to flow on my laptop, which means I'll be slightly more likely to miss an argument. I'll do my best to have paper and pen, but like I said I'm a bit irresponsible.

I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"

On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."

I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.

UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant

Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.

Clement Agho Otoghile Dulles High School

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:11 AM CDT

Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

Adam Brown Hire

Last changed on Fri November 30, 2018 at 10:04 AM CDT

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

Every debate round belongs to the two debaters. My job as a judge is to determine the winner of the round through the evaluative tools that you give me (until told otherwise). This means that i'm willing to vote for nearly any argument presented in front of me, insofar as it has the necessary warrants and framework to make it relevant to the decision. The biases and defaults in this paradigm serve to clarify some predispositions i feel that i have when judging.
That being said, i believe that every round must have some parameters imposed on it by the judge so as to keep the space safe for all participants. These include things like voting down debaters who use intentionally exclusive and/or unsafe rhetoric, intervening if a participant is unable to continue the round for physical/emotional/etc reasons, or anything else of this sort. Please don't hesitate to ask me anything concerning this point before the round.
There are branches of debate, study, and literature that i found/still find immense joy in researching, debating, and learning about. This, however, does not translate to a pass to skimp on explanation of those ideas. At the very least, i hope to hold debaters to the same expectation as any other position.
Don't feel like you need to read something that you think i'll love personally. I'd much rather watch a well done must spec debate than a badly done, hurriedly prepared Deleuze vs Wilderson round.

Specific Feelings About Debate Argumentative Preferences and Defaults

I believe that there is always a role of the judge/ballot. By default, this is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution through arguments and frameworks given by both debaters with importance concerning the aforementioned 2 point under "fundamentals". Theory voters, role of the ballot and role of the judge arguments, and other commentaries on what the judge should or should not do all edit my obligation as a judge and how i ought to view/use the ballot when making my decision. I nearly always look to this framing first to determine who wins the round, so be sure to emphasize exactly how you want me to act when debating in front of me.
My threshold for presuming/granting things is relatively high with the notable exception of cross applications and extensions of conceded arguments. Basically, i don't want to be doing work for you to make up for argumentative inadequacies.
I often struggle with voting on arguments that are articulated one way but are presented in the evidence or in the literature base in another way. If this occurs, i'll almost certainly vote on the articulation absent any call out by the opponent but drop the articulator's speaker points proportionally to the degree of the misarticulation, not going beyond a point drop from the pre-dropped total. If there is a call out, i'll generally give a lot of credence to it.

Speaker Points

I primarily base speaker points on strategy. After that, i look to a variety of things like CX, unique decision-making, and overall performance. Humor/sass are dope but shouldn't be forced. Chances are, the more relaxed you feel in a round, the more enjoyable it will be for everyone and the higher speaks you'll get.
Some secondary factors for speaker points include word efficiency and confidence. Vocal clarity will never be a factor. Ridiculously long off-clock stuff (specifically email/flashing) will hurt speaks.

Post-Round

I probably will take longer that you think i need to when making my decision. I only do so so that i can be sure that i'm confident in my decision and have reviewed all paths to the ballot. I often have trouble working and thinking with noise around me, so if i put headphones in just know that i need a little time with my own thoughts.
I think that post-round discussion is extremely valuable. That being said, if your opponent is asking me questions, please don't take that as an opportunity to jump in and insert your own views on the issue.
If questioning is taking too long (usually in the cases of late flight A rounds), i will ask that you come see me later during the tournament. Please please please don't take this as a nicely phrased "i don't want to talk about this anymore." I will try to come find you at some point in the tournament and encourage you to message me on Facebook or do whatever you can so that we can talk about the round further.

If you have any other question, please don't hesitate to contact me in person, on Facebook, or over email (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

Chris Castillo Hire

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:32 AM CDT

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:

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

Theory:

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

Non-T/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.

Richard Cook Hire

William Davidson Hire None

Dino De La O Hire

Tom Evnen Lake Highland Preparatory

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 5:38 AM EDT

I’m the Executive Director of National Symposium for Debate, as well as the site director for NSD’s Flagship LD camp. I’m also an assistant LD coach for Lake Highland Prep.

I debated circuit LD for 4 years in high school, and I graduated in 2003. For what it’s worth, I cleared twice at TOC, and I was in finals my senior year. Since then, I have actively coached LD on the national circuit. For a period, I was a full time classroom teacher and debate coach. I have also coached individually and worked as an assistant coach for a number of circuit programs. I coach/judge at 8-10 TOC level tournaments per year.

Email for docs: tomevnen@gmail.com

TLDR rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 1
Policy - 2
Theory - 1
Tricks - 2
T vs K aff; K aff vs T - 1 (I’m happy on both sides of these debates, regularly vote both ways in these debates, and coach both ways in these debates)

Longer explanation of rankings:

Re my policy ranking - Feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them frequently. I’ll admit that I do the least amount of thinking and researching on the policy wing of topics. This probably makes me an OK, but not excellent, judge of policy vs policy rounds. In policy vs something else rounds, the 2 ranking doesn’t affect things much, except see paragraph below.

Re my tricks ranking - Again, feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them (and against them) frequently. I find well thought out tricks that are integrated with the substance of your phil framework or K interesting. I find a lot of other tricks fairly boring. Again, see paragraph below on adaptation.

Generally speaking, I won’t have any objection to what you read. You are usually better off reading your A strategy in front of me than substantially diverging from that strategy to adapt to me. When relevant, you should tweak your A strategy to recognize that I am also open to and comfortable with the standard maneuvers of debate styles other than yours. For example, if your preference is policy arguments and you are debating a K, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume you can cross-apply the aff or that extinction outweighs the K, when contested. Similarly, if you are a phil debater, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume that your phil framework precludes the util tricks (modesty, extinction first, etc.).

Whatever your style, if you have thought carefully about strategic interactions with opposing styles, and you are comfortable winning those debates in front of a judge who does not assume all of your priors, I will be a fine judge for you. If you need a judge who is strictly “in your lane” stylistically, then there will be matchups where I am not your ideal judge.

In terms of my familiarity with arguments: in phil lit, I am well read in analytic and continental philosophy (less so analytic philosophy, except in the area of ethics) and in the groups in between (Hegel and post-Hegelians, for example). In K lit, I’m well read in critical/Marxist theory and high theory, and I’m pretty comfortable (though slightly less well read) with the identity literature. I actively coach debaters on all of the above, as well as on theory, T vs K affs, K affs vs T, and (some) tricks. My debaters read some policy args, and there are scenarios where I encourage that, but I am less involved in coaching those arguments.

Miscellaneous

As a general policy, I don't disclose speaks.

Generally speaking, I'm not very receptive to arguments like "evaluate after the 1n" or "no neg analytics" (you know the genre). I'm fine with these arguments when they are scenario specific, and you can give an explanation why a type of argument needed to be made in a specific speech; obviously those arguments are sometimes true. Otherwise, I don't think these arguments are worth reading in front of me -- I never find myself comfortable making decisions based on sweeping claims that mean debaters generally can't respond to arguments.

Sam Foster Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart

Last changed on Sat February 8, 2020 at 12:25 PM CDT

Experience

I'm a 6 year experienced policy debater who made it to state, with my focus being K and theory debate. I'm now a coach with a focus on LD for my school.

Conflicts

Village Middle and High School from Houston, Texas

E-Mail (Include Me In Chains)

bfostermkii@gmail.com

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

General Paradigms (These apply to every format I judge)

Speed: I'm totally fine with speed so long as I can clearly understand you and hear you. Slow down on tags, cites, and analytics. If I can't hear you or understand you then I'll stop flowing and listening until you fix your delivery. I'll let you know if I can't hear or understand you, but it'll be on you to restate whatever I missed. If I missed it then I won't evaluate it.

Theory: I love theory when done well. I hate theory when done badly. I view theory as the highest argument in the round, but you have to show me how the violation impacts the round and why that impact matters. I'm a firm believer in actual abuse in round over potential abuse in round, so don't expect me to vote on the potential of absue. Now if you can prove that the potential turned into real abuse, then I'm all ears. I love a good standards debate so long as the debater can actually showcase how the standard applies in the round. I default to "No RVIs" but if the entire round gets devoted to a singular theory argument or your opponent runs a lot of theory then I'm more than willing to listen to RVIs.

Also: Miss me with stupid theory arguments like "you misspelled the resolution" or "you misread the resolution", these arguments are bad and have no place in a round.

AC Theory Spikes: I don't have an issue with these but you MUST be prepared to explain them later in the round if your opponent steps on them. Saying "You can't run theory because I said 'CX Checks Theory'" is worthless to me. Explaining how we could have avoided the theory argument by asking questions during CX, on the other hand, is fantastic.

Topicality: I default to competing interps so long as the neg can show that the aff violates the definition. However I will rank topicality lower in the round if the neg argues potential abuse. In other words, if you run topicality, tell me how the aff doesn't meet and that's bad and then follow it up with On Case arguments I'm going to be unhappy because the aff's definition was within your means at that point. Also I don't do RVIs on Topicality as I view T as a test of the aff, but if the neg is being abusive with T then feel free to call them out.

K Debate: I love a good K debate so long as I can understand your critique. If you're going to have a philosophical/high theory critique then you will need to explain your alternative. I would also recommend slowing down on these types of critiques as they can be confusing and, while I'll do my best to keep up, if I can't understand your K then I won't vote on it. You will also need to explain whether your critique is a priori or not so everyone in the round can properly evaluate. Do not just read tags, you have to actually show me how the aff (or neg if you're feeling bold) links into your critique. If your alternative is just rejecting the aff then you need to explain why that's a good option.

Debating Novices/Not Circuit Debaters: Go all out; we're here to compete, not hold hands. Don't be a jerk mind you, but the only way we get better is through experience. I wouldn't want anyone to pull punches on my debaters, so I won't expect you to do so in round.

Prep Time: I do not view flashing/passing evidence as prep time so long you aren't working on anything. If you make a request and keeping working then that's prep, but if you sit back and do nothing while you wait then I won't consider it prep (to a point).

Speaker Points: I judge speaker points on your strategy, delivery, and attitude in round. I will start you at 28 points and will add or subtract points as needed. I can, and have, given out low point wins.

Voters: I will vote on how the round went, nothing else. I view my flow as the map of the round so I don't care if it's not on my flow. I won't vote you down for being rude in round, but I will vote you down if you get verbally abusive in anyway.

Impact Calculus: Whether it's theory, K, DA, C/P, or Stock, it doesn't matter - please give me some impact calculus to use otherwise we'll rely on my own calculus skills and that won't be pretty

Disclosure: If the tournament doesn't require it then I don't care, if it does then read all the disclosure theory you want

Tricks: Go for it, but be prepared to go all in

New Arguments: I don't evaluate brand new arguments in rebuttals and will dock you speaks for doing so. I will also reward speaks for calling out brand new arguments as well.

Flash/E-mail Chains: I want on that chain to better judge the round if both debaters are doing so

CX: It's binding but I do not flow it

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

LD Specific Paradigms

LARP: Go for it

Counterplans: I'm totally game for them

Framework: I use framework as a lens to frame the round, not as a voter. Just because you win framework doesn't mean you win the round. If your framework involves high theory then you need to make sure you explain it correctly. If I don't understand it I will not vote on it. You also need to make sure your comparatively weigh it versus your opponent's because frameworks are nebulous in nature so they need evaluation and explanation to prove why they're the preferred value in the round.

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

PF Specific Paradigms

Voter Weights: You need to tell me what the most important voter in the round is, if you don't then I will default to the the flow only and that never ends well.

Crossfire: I view crossfire as a back and forth, but if you allow your opponent to ask multiple questions then that's on you.

Progressive Cases: I'm totally down for theory and critical cases so long as they're well written

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

CX/Policy Specific Paradigms

The General Paradigms Go Here

Mark Gorthey Hire

Lyndie Ho Hire

Alyssa Hooks Hire

Last changed on Fri March 1, 2024 at 3:32 PM EDT

If I call for a card, send it to my email and send the cut card. This includes PF.

This is not about the stats you have, if you are not making an analysis with your stats, that is reason enough to vote on presumption (please don't make me). Just having bigger numbers, doesn't mean the round is a clear win.

UNLESS IT IS A GAME CHANGER please for the love of whoever you pray to, do not try to win a debate round on recency of evidence. It becomes a moot point and a waste of your breath.

I debated for Barbers Hill HS for four years. In both LD and CX. Qualifying for TFA state my junior and Senior year. I did IPDA- public debate- with during undergrad until Spring 2020. I now consult in disability advocacy and DEI development.

TLDR (1 = best):
LARP/Stock: 1
K: 1
Framework: 2
Theory: 2
Tricks: 5
Generic: 3-4

General: I'm fairly open to seeing what you're most comfortable doing as long as it creates good debate. Many times I have seen rounds where it was like two ships passing in the night because someone read something so off the wall there was no way to respond to it, or maybe there is a way but no one knows it but you. That's not cool. I will yell slow, clear or loud. Sit, stand or float. I don't mind one way or another. I always stood, but because my coach didn't afford the option-- do what makes you happy!
Taken from Megan Nubel’s paradigm- “Please do not use derogatory or exclusionary language, including but certainly not limited to referring to arguments as ‘retarded,’ saying that you ‘raped’ someone on a particular argument, or using ‘gay’ as synonymous with stupid, etc.” On that note, 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:
You do you. I will yell slow or clear if need be. Please, though, for the love of debate, slow down for author names or tags at least. If you get an unnecessary amount of "clear" warnings, I'll probably deduct speaker points or stop flowing altogether. You need to be aware of your threshold of what is clear and what is not clear.

LARP:
I've always been a Util debater but will listen to the best you have. Having done policy before, buying extinction impacts are more difficult for me (I say this because I had a judge say they were totally cool with it all, I read an extinction impact and then was told I read the one thing they wouldn't ever vote on), but I won't vote on it. You just need to make it very clear to me why it's such a big issue. Tip: the longer the chain the less buy-able the extinction impact is. If you want an easier way to my heart and my ballot, read short chains with more plausible impacts.

Ks:
I fell in love with the K debate at the end of my junior year and tried to read them as much as possible in my senior year. While I wasn't necessarily a K debater all of high school, I've read plenty to know generally where you're probably going to be trying to go. But do not assume I know everything about your K. I don't appreciate backfile Ks just to have something to read-- I feel like that errs on the said of the bad debate. Taken from Cameron McConway's paradigm- " I’m willing to listen to critical affirmatives but am also willing to listen to framework and cede the political style arguments against non-T affs. I also will default to evaluating the K the way it is articulated in round, not based on how I understand the literature. I do think incorrect interpretations of literature are fair game for lower speaks, though."

T/Theory :
Flesh it out if you expect me to buy it. I’ll listen to it for sure, but it needs to be done well. I’ve had my butt kicked by too many good debaters with very good T/Theory strats to just be okay with you reading something and not doing something effective with it. If you read it to try to spread the aff out of the 1A, it's strategy, but I’m not a huge fan of kicking something like that. I was taught it was the top layer of debate, so I wouldn’t kick out of the top layer of debate. I will just you (get it because I have the ballot lol). I don’t want to feel like I should be defaulting to anything, but if I have to not only will I draw a sad face on the ballot but I’ll only to it to drop the argument and competing interps. I also believe it’s a very good strat when faced with these arguments, to go ahead and read RVIS. I will for sure evaluate them if you do it correctly.

Phil/Framework:
I have high expectations when it comes to framework debates because that’s one thing I prided myself in doing fairly effectively. If you’re going to do it, be sure you can do it well in front of me. I’m not proud to say, but I feel fairly underread in phil to be able to judge it if you’re not fleshing out the arguments for me, but if you can flesh it out, I’ll listen. Just don’t fly through these arguments because I’m going to need a little bit more time to catch them and comprehend them than I normally would.

Tricks:
I’ve never been a fan, but if it's what you do and you do it well enough for it to get my ballot then by all means. I wasn’t sure what else to say, so I did some searching and Cameron McConway put it perfectly. “ I think burden affs can be interesting and strategic, and I am willing to listen to scepticism to contest frameworks or justify frameworks because it is the grounding of most normative ethics and important in philosophy, but please do not read skep to answer oppression arguments. [...] I’m not going to be thrilled if there are arguments that change function or trigger something in the next speech either; I think the function of arguments should be clear from the time they are read (not saying you cannot use something to take out another argument that it doesn’t appear to interact with- this is about contingent standards).”

Things that will kill your chance at my ballot:
-Racism, sexism or anything that is offensive to anyone
-Belittling someone in round-- also called ad hominems
-Reading things that link back to the idea of oppressive situations being acceptable
-Making the room uncomfortable or unsafe.

-Not reading a trigger warning on something that clearly needs one
Please always remember: debate is a safe space and should be treated as one

Things I appreciate:
-Kindness
-Politeness
-Assertiveness (there is a difference between being assertive and aggressive)
-Trigger warnings
-Being true to yourself as an individual, a debater, and an advocate
-Having fun

Speaks:
I was once, told, “if you ever get a ‘WIN-30’ you should quit debate because that means you were perfect and you no longer need the activity.” I do not believe this is true to an extent, I will give you a 30 if you deserve it. Speaks are about clarity, strategy, and ability to adapt to the room. If you’re a seasoned debater and you go five off on someone who got thrown into varsity, your speaker points may hurt a little, but not enough to hurt you from breaking if I feel like you deserve to break. I average a 27.5-28. If you get a 25 from me then you did something horribly egregious in round, and you should expect it to be on the ballot with some way for your coaching faculty to contact me to discuss it in depth, if they so, please. A 29 means that you did very well, but you made some easily fixable errors.

PS:
I hope you find yourself in debate to grow as a person. Be an advocate for something you care about, be true to yourself, and be comfortable saying the important things. Remember, it isn’t always about the ballot, but the message you bring in and out of the round.

PPS:

A couple of times, I have had people ask if I would be okay with them trying out an unorthodox or new strategy in round. I, always, feel like there has to be a spot for it. I think that if you want to try something out and you want feedback beyond the ballot back, just let me know and I'll be sure to be super extensive and let you know. I want debate to be a learning experience before anything else.

Any other questions feel free to:
Email me: sage.e.hooks@gmail.com
Text me 7..133...14..62......30
Or ask me before the round

Loveleen Kang King High School

Benjamin Koh Hire

Last changed on Thu September 13, 2018 at 8:00 PM EDT

I am on the planning committee for the Texas Debate Collective and the director for NSD Philadelphia I'm a MA candidate in American Studies where I'm working on the intersection between Asian-American and Disability Studies. I coach Loyola JC, Bronx Science YW, and Bergen County EL.

Overview

The round belongs to its debaters, not the judge, so it's the job of the debaters to tell me who won, not the other way around. I do my best to evaluate rounds in terms of least intervention, which means I search first for weighing as a means to scale what the key issues are, then examine the arguments thereof. The biases and defaults in this paradigm are meant to help you, not to restrict what you want to do.
If you use the word "retarded" as an equivalence to the word "stupid" or "bad" without acknowledgement (that is, an apology upon saying it), I will drop you

Evidence Ethics/ Clipping Cards/ etc.

Evidence ethics is an argument to be made in the debate round. I will not stop the round because of an accusation of people miscutting or misusing evidence, for there is a fair academic debate to be had.
Card clipping: I will review recordings if available. To accuse someone of clipping cards will cause the round to stop. I'll decide using whatever material I have to figure out if somebody has clipped. If I decide a debater was clipping, I will give that person a L20. If the person accusing is wrong, for I have decided that clipping did not occur, I will give the accuser a L20. I have never judged an accusation of card clipping. I'm not as good at flowing as other judges are, and will invariably give somebody the benefit of the doubt that they did not clip cards.

Speaks:

I evaluate speaker points on strategy, arg quality, time allocation, and if you are respectful and nice. When did nice become equated with weakness? I am not impressed by overt-aggression or ad hominen styles of debate. Micro versions of this include "You should've listened in lab more!" or "I have no idea what you're thinking!" Come on. If it's nasty to say to somebody outside of debate it absolutely is in the debate round. Kindness should matter more.
What I do not factor in, however, is literal speaking clarity, efficiency, etc.
I don't consider the number of times I say clear or slow into speaker points
I will not evaluate arguments about "not calling blocks" or what not. Similarly, you can't just tell me to give you a 30.
I won't give you higher speaks if you end your speech early- nor will I sign the ballot before the end of the 2AR. I don't know why judges do this. This sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
I don't find stand up 2ARs or 2NRs perceptually dominant at all

Post- Round

I think post-round discussion is valuable. However, if debater A has just lost the round, and in A’s questioning of the judge, opponent B decides to comment and enter into this conversation, I will drop opponent B’s speaker points and get angry in the process
If I sit and you are the winner (that is, the other 2 judges voted for you), and would like to ask me extensive questions, I will ask that you let the other RFDs be given and then let the opponent leave before asking me more questions. I'm fine answering questions, but just to be fair the other people in the room should be allowed to leave.

Matthew Koshak IH Kempner HS

Last changed on Fri September 25, 2020 at 5:48 AM CDT

I graduated from Christ Episcopal School in Covington, Louisiana in 2014. I qualified to the TOC my senior year and competed on the national circuit for about a year and a half. I broke at the Louisiana state tournament multiple times.

Quick Paradigm
To win and get 30 speaks in front of me you need to do three things. First, provide me with a weighing mechanism of some sort. I have no preference as to the form that the mechanism takes, just make the mechanism clear. Second, you need to have some form of offense and that offense should be extended in round. My threshold for extensions is low. Lastly, I need you to do some comparative weighing between your offense and your opponent's offense. The offense can take any form you want it to. I am fine with all forms of argumentation although if you have specific questions you can look further down the paradigm.
Here are some things I don't like a whole lot:

Recycled frameworks (whether they're the same old policy making frameworks that everyone is using or some recycled K framework cut from articles and books you've never heard before)
Arguments read straight from backfiles you didn't cut
Debates with little to no comparative weighing
Not giving me voters at the end of your last speech
Debates with competitive framing that has no framing debate or in which the framing debate is really muddled.

Just always be clear in front of me. Whatever you're reading, just be clear about all the different parts of your case and the way those parts interact with your opponent's case.

Speed
I haven't judged very fast debates in a little while, so you may not be able to go top-speed in a round. I also think that spreading to exclude an opponent is a pretty bad thing to do, and it will reflect in your speaks if you are obviously trying to spread your opponent out of the round.

Extensions
I have a pretty low threshold for extensions. I just want to know where it is on the flow, I want a short summation of the argument, and I want you to tell me why it matters in the round. If it is a contested piece of evidence, you may want to go more in depth and extend the warrant, but if it's flat out dropped, you shouldn't spend a ridiculous amount of time on the act of extending itself. Impacting out is the most important part of this process to me.

Policy-Making
Just be super clear about the parts of your case. Slow down on texts and important tags. I enjoy judging these rounds when they are done well but I think the whole "race to extinction" can get really old when everyone uses the same impact cards that don't really have much of a warrant, so just cut well warranted impact cards (that probably don't have to impact to extinction) and you can avoid my biggest pet peeve of larping. Just be super super clear when you are impacting out and weighing between impacts since that should be the most important parts of debates like this.

K Debate
Don't rely on any knowledge you assume I have about what you're running. If you are running something critical, have an interesting and unique link story, a well-thought out framework, and a fleshed out alt (so don't just run a link of omission and some under-explained alt with a recycled framework). Please don't run something from backfiles you hadn't seen until ten minutes before this round or that you haven't actually cut anything in. You should be fluent enough in the literature so that you can explain it in your own words to me as the judge. If you are engaging in this type of debate, you are going to have to be doing some clear framing and you should be fleshing out the link(s) you are making. Also, I think critical affs (especially post-fiat critical affs) are really cool and should be run more often in debate and if you are running arguments like that, just be sure to do the framing work that that requires.

Theory
So, I never ran much theory as a debater. That being said, I harbor no ill-will. My threshold for answering theory goes down as the theory becomes more and more frivolous. I default competing interps. The easiest way to win a theory debate in front of me is to be really clear about the link story and to really crystalize the debate at the level of the standards. I am not the biggest fan of the strategy of running 3 or 4 shells to suck time but if you win one of the shells then I will vote for you.

Miscellaneous

I don't like it when a debater who is clearly better than their opponent beats them into submission. Be respectful, please. The entire point of this activity is education and no one is educated when they get needlessly destroyed. If you do this, it will reflect in your speaks.
I don't vote for morally reprehensible arguments. A lot of ambiguity is usually attached to that statement, but I will make it clear. If the argument you are making makes the debate space hostile for someone else, I will not vote for it. This doesn't mean I won't vote for skep, but I won't vote for "racism good", "sexism good", etc.
I have no preference when it comes to in round composure.
You should have something to give your opponent during round for them to read off of. I don't care if you flash the case, e-mail it, print it out, or write it by hand, there should be something for your opponent to look off of.
No eating or drinking in CX time. That's super rude and it wastes time and I don't like it. You can eat or drink at any other point in the round.
I'm fine with flex-prep and I will try to pay attention during it but I can't promise I will so you should probably try to get concessions during CX time.
I'm not a fan of blippy spikes and arguments. I can't flow them well and if I don't flow them they don't exist. You probably shouldn't run a strategy that relies heavily on these kinds of arguments.
I give speaks based on strategy. I start at a 28 and you move up or down depending on how you approached clash in the round and the strategies you go for.
Have fun and be substantive. I don't really care on what level the substance exists. Be courteous and don't make me feel uncomfortable with your treatment of each other and everything will be pretty good.

Chris Kymn Hire

Last changed on Thu February 15, 2024 at 2:04 PM PDT

Background: I competed in LD for four years, finishing in TOC finals. I actively judged/coached/taught at debate camps from 2014-2018 but since then have been less active.

General:

I'll vote for the side that requires me to do less work. When flowing, I try to get down as much of your original rhetoric as possible; when giving the RFD I'll try to reference and directly quote as much of that as I can. So comparing/weighing/impacting arguments will go a long way.

The round belongs to you! So please run arguments that you're excited to talk about, rather than content you think I'll prefer. In any case, I'd suggest you err on the side of over-explaining jargon (debate-specific, academic, or otherwise) and making sure arguments have been warranted in-round.

A few other points:

I don’t need super formal extensions. If your 5-card extinction scenario is conceded, briefly summarize the argument and move on to weighing. Just signpost carefully if your extension is short.
I'll give an argument the function you tell me to so long as (a) there's a warrant for that function, and (b) I understand what the function means. An example of (b) I don't understand is when a debater says "this turns all arguments" - you're better off labeling it as pre standards or an impact turn to X, whatever it may be.
If I have to call clear, I’ve probably missed something.
If you have questions regarding specific arguments, feel free to ask prior to round. I’m most likely “okay” with evaluating whatever argument you bring up, and I’m happy to comment on how to run it better.

Speaker Points:

Mostly based on (execution of) strategy and effort in giving a clear decision calculus. Especially creative arguments and high-clash strategies will also be rewarded. Here are some other things you can do to get higher speaks:

Make the round enjoyable to judge
Use little prep, and/or extemp significant portions of speeches
Give clear and concise overviews in final speeches
Compare/indict evidence effectively
Neutralize silly arguments efficiently

Ask before the round if you want more suggestions.

Tips:

Slow down for advocacy texts, theory interpretations, and other short arguments, such as lists of weighing arguments or paragraph theory.
If you’re affirming, make permutations and ask the status of counterplans, when applicable. (Do ask if you don’t know what either means.)
You should verbally emphasize parts of evidence that you think will be important later on. Slowing down in rebuttals to re-explain or state an important line in evidence is also appreciated.

Will Ledig Hire

Sean McCormick Hire

Edward Metelitsa Katy Taylor High School

Chase Miller Cy-Fair High School None

Venkatesh Muppaneni Hire

Javier Navarrete Hire

Last changed on Mon April 22, 2024 at 6:38 PM CDT

I feel comfortable judging just about any position/argument, having judged/taught a variety of debate formats over the years. I always prioritize that debaters read what they're most comfortable with, so they can focus on strategy and argument interactions. Other than that, having debated and coached mostly HSLD, I'm looking for good 1AR/2NR interactions and debaters who can draw a strong position by the end of the round just by giving an overview than having to win every single line-by-line.

While I’ve started to prefer "truth > tech", I’m not a fan of grandstanding the 2AR/NR convincing me to make new weighing arguments for you. This isn't football but a Hail Mary can't be both your first and only touchdown in a game you’re already losing by a lot. I just prefer you to have confidence in the integrity of your arguments.

I expect you to be mindful, respect pronouns/boundaries, and not make the space unsafe for anyone involved.

Good advice from Tyler Gamble's paradigm: "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."

Here are some specifics that might give you an idea about my defaults, but they're always subject to change depending on the round:

LD:

Relevant against novices/less-experienced debaters: Don't try to overly surprise your opponent with something intentionally complex unless you're ready to explain it to them. The same goes for any other kind of tricks you'll try to read. As a spectator, I still love tricks, but as a judge I'm more than happy we're past the need for unnecessary apriori's hidden in the 1AC.

Misc: I mostly went for the K/phil in high school, and feel pretty caught up with most literature bases that have translated well from policy. I think NCs with good phil frameworks are underutilized and makes the 2NR even easier than it can already be at times.

Policy:

My threshold for good evidence is always a bit higher for this event. It's December so I'm expecting your caselist to be more than developed now, and I will more than likely reward you in speaker points if a team can impress me with some good evidence that make the debate cut and dry by the end of it. That requires impact weighing so give me good weighing analyses, tell me why your evidence is better, and I'm sure that will get you further with quality over quantity of evidence.

Feel free to read non-T/K's positions, and at the same time, go for framework and just be persuasive in both about what debate means as an activity and what the threshold for arguments should be.

Public Forum:

I need you to weigh, give me good impact analysis, and make sure to boil down the debate with a clear winning strategy by the end. The best teams have always prioritized when to read evidence and when to avoid it. I think defense is really important in PF, and can oftentimes help you get ahead against overtly extensive line-by-line that might not be as substantial or clarifying for the round. I can be more technical about these debates than I am about policy/LD.

I'm aware there's a growing number of "progressive" strategies in PF and I'm more than happy to judge policy positions, and theory, and have teams spread; that said, please be aware that ostracizing your opponents isn't always the best strategy and you should proceed with caution against less experienced debaters.

The only debate advice I ever stood by is that crystallization always goes a long way in any round and you should zero in on arguments you expect me to talk about in the RFD. You want me to spend most of my time looking at the arguments you expect me to care about, or else I will default to the highest impact and potentially evaluate an unclear debate.

If you have any other questions, please let me know.

Nelson Okunlola Hire

Last changed on Thu March 28, 2024 at 1:04 PM CDT

PREP TIME ENDS WHEN THE DOC IS SENT. THIS IS A REMINDER TO INCORPORATE DOC SENDING INTO YOUR PRACTICE AND DRILLS. IF I SEE YOU FUMBLING WITH YOUR COMPUTER 10 SECONDS AFTER YOU STOP PREP, I'M STARTING PREP RIGHT BACK UP. IF YOU'RE OUT OF PREP THEN I'M STARTING YOUR SPEECH TIME.

I EXPECT ROUNDS TO START EXACTLY AT (MAYBE EVEN EARLIER THAN) THE DESIGNATED START TIME. IF YOU START THE CHAIN AND SEND THE 1AC ~2 MINUTES PRIOR TO THE START TIME WE'LL BE GOOD.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR FLIGHT 2 DEBATES STARTING LATE BECAUSE OF DEBATERS. YOU HAD AN HOUR EXTRA TO PREPARE/START THE EMAIL CHAIN/PRE-FLOW.

IF A TIMER IS NOT RUNNING (speech, cx, prep time) YOU SHOULD NOT BE PREPPING (looking at docs, typing, writing) THAT IS STEALING PREP

Okay enough yelling. Sorry I'm getting old and grumpy.

Email: okunlolanelson@gmail.com [Add me to the chain]

About me: I debated in Texas mostly in LD and did a little Policy. Had a short stint for Northwestern debate (GO CATS). If you're reading quickly before a round, read the bold.

General/Short version:

- Tech > Truth

- Judge instruction is axiomatic. The best final speeches start and end with judge instruction.

- Assume I know very little about the topic, your author, the norms, the meta e.t.c. This means (for the most part) you do you, extend and explain your position and I'll do my best to objectively evaluate it

- If its a Policy throwdown, please slow down a bit in those final speeches. Remember I'm probably not familiar with the topic. This is mostly for LD since shorter speeches/rounds means less time to explain those [internal] links.

- I'm not flowing of the doc - I believe that judges flowing off the doc incentivizes HORRIBLE clarity and rhetorical practices. Won't even glance at the document unless absolutely needed (1/10 debates). It is YOUR job to extend and explain your evidence, not my job to read it and explain it for you. Clarity is axiomatic.

- PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SLOW DOWN on analytics, tags, interpretations, plan/cp text, theory. You can go as fast as you want on the card body. Remember speed can be a gift or a curse.

- Debate whatever and however you want. Go all out and do your thing, just DO NOT be violent or make the space unsafe.

- Frame your impacts and weigh your impacts. No one wins their framework anymore. Its a shame. It would make debates atleast 37% easier to decide.

- Errr on the side of explanation and slow down a bit for dense [analytic] philosophical debates. I do not have a PhD in philosophy.

- Bad theory debates get more annoying as I get older. I promise you no one is thrilled to decide on a debate on "evaluate the debate after the 1AC" be forreal. You still have to respond to bad theory arguments though (shouldn't be terribly hard)

- You will auto-lose if you clip cards or falsely accuse. You will auto-lose for evidence ethics violations

- A good speech consists of judge instruction, overview, line by line, and crystallization (and obviously strategy). Good speeches = good speaks. Rhetoric and Persuasion is important.

- I don't care how far away or how close to the topic you are but you must justify your practice. This is your activity not mine. I'm simply here to give feedback, decide a winner, and enjoy the free food from the judges lounge. If you think fairness is an impact, defend it. If you think skills matter, defend it. If you think defending USFG action causes psychological violence, defend it.

- One thing to note for "non-T" affs vs T, I need you to account for/interact with your opponents impact. If I am simply left with a fairness/skills impact vs the impact turns and no interaction between the 2 and no Top Level framing issues, I will be forced to intervene. (This is bad for affirmatives because I think that fairness is *probably* a good thing)

- If there's an important CX concession, please flag it and/or get my attention in case I have zoned out.

- If i'm judging Policy debate, just don't assume I know some jargon, norm, or innovative strategy and err on the side of explanation.

- I won't kick the CP for you unless you tell me to *AND justify* why I should.

- No you cannot "Insert re-highlighting." Are you serious? Why is this even a thing? If its not read, its not on my flow.

- Don't get too **graphic** on descriptions of antiblack violence (or any violence for that matter). Trigger warnings are welcomed and encouraged.

- Referencing college teams or other teams doesn't really get you anywhere, "our models allows for Michigan vs Berkeley debates" I simply do not know or care about these teams

- If you need to know something specifically ask before the round.

Good luck, do your thing, and have fun!

Rodrigo Paramo Westwood HS

Last changed on Tue April 16, 2024 at 3:07 PM CDT

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. this is my 6th year coaching @ greenhill, and my second year as a full time debate teacher.

[current/past affiliations:

i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-'22);
program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com -would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

A note on the topic - after judging at hwl, i have realized that many of the policy debates I am seeing are too big, have too many moving parts, and are not being clearly synthesized by either the affirmative or the negative debaters. this leaves me liable to confusion in terms of what exactly the world of the aff / neg does, and increases how much i appreciate a comparative speech that explains the stakes of winning each argument clearly, and in relation to the other moving parts of the debate.

8 things to know:

Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.
i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.
Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.
please do not split your 2nrs! if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it, the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.

Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.
i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but has nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page
IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.
Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)

Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature
affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

Claudia Ribera Hire

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:49 PM CDT

yes, add me to the email chain: claudiaribera24@gmail.com

I've worked/taught at camps such as utnif, stanford, gds, and nsd.

overall thoughts: I believe it's important to be consistent on explicit labeling, generating offense, and extending some sort of impact framing in the debate because this is what ultimately frames my ballot. Debate is a place for you to do you. I will make my decisions based on what was presented to me in a debate and what was on my flow. This means I am unlikely to decide on debates based on my personal feelings about the content/style of an argument than the quality of execution and in-round performance. It is up to the debaters to present and endorse whichever model of debate they want to invest in. Have fun and best of luck!

Case

-- Case is incredibly underutilized and should be an essential part of every negative strategy. You need to have some sort of mechanism that generates offense/defense for you.

Policy affs vs. K

-- I am most familiar with these types of debates. With that being said, I think the affirmative needs to prioritize framing i.e. the consequences of the plan under a util framework. There need to be contestations between the aff framing versus the K's power of theory in order to disprove it, as not desirable, or incoherent, and why your impacts under the plan come first. Point out the flaws of the kritiks alternative and make solvency deficits. Aff teams need to answer the link arguments, read link defense, make perms, and provide reasons/examples of why the plan is preferable/resolve material conditions. Use cross-x to clarify jargon and get the other team to make concessions about their criticism.

-- CP(s) need to have a clear plan text and have an external net benefit, otherwise, I'm inclined to believe there is no reason why the cp would be better than the affirmative. There needs to be clear textual/function competition with the Aff or else the permutation becomes an easy way for me to vote. Same with most arguments, the more specific the better.

-- The 2NR should generally be the counterplan with a DA/Case argument to supplement the net benefit. The 1AR + 2AR needs to have some offense against the counterplan because a purely defensive strategy makes it very hard to beat the counterplan. I enjoy an advantage counterplan/impact turn strategy when it’s applicable. Generally, I think conditionality is good but I can be persuaded otherwise.

-- Please have good evidence and read specific DAs. If you have a good internal link and turn case analysis, your speaker points will be higher. For the aff, I think evidence comparison/callouts coupled with tricky strategies like impact turns or internal link turns to help you win these debates.

Theory

-- I don't really have a threshold on these arguments but lean towards competing interps over reasonability unless told otherwise.

-- When going for theory, please extend offense and weigh between interps/standards/implications.

-- When responding/going for theory, please slow down on the interps/i-meets.

Topicality

-- Comparative analysis between pieces of interpretation evidence wins and loses these debates – as you can probably tell, I err towards competing interpretations in these debates, but I can be convinced that reasonability is a better metric for interpretations, not for an aff. Having well-explained internal links to your limits/ground offense in the 2NR/2AR makes these debates much easier to decide, as opposed to floating claims without warranted analysis. A case list is required. I will not vote for an RVI on T.

T-FW

-- I prefer framework debates a lot more when they're developed in the 1NC/block, as opposed to being super blippy in the constructives and then the entire 2NR. I lean more toward competing interps than reasonability. Aff teams need to answer TVA well, not just say it "won't solve". Framework is about the model of debate the aff justifies, it’s not an argument why K affs are bad or the aff teams are cheaters. If you’re going for framework as a way to exclude entire critical lit bases/structural inequalities/content areas from debate then we are not going to get along. I am persuaded by standards like Clash and topic education over fairness being an intrinsic good/better impact.

K affs vs. T-Framework

-- There are a couple of things you need to do to win: you need to explain the method of your aff, the nuanced framing of the aff, and the impacts that you claim to solve. You should have some sort of an advocacy statement or a role of the ballot for me to evaluate your impacts because this indicates how it links into your framework of the aff. If you’re going to read high theory affs, explain because all I hear are buzzwords that these authors use. Don’t assume I am an expert in this type of literature because I am not and I just have a basic understanding of it. If you don’t do any of these things, I have the right to vote to neg on presumption.

-- You need a counter-interp or counter-model of debate and what debate looks like under this model and then go for your impact turns or disads as net benefits to this. Going for only the net benefits/offense without explaining what your interpretation of what debate should look like will be difficult. The 2AC strategy of saying as many ‘disads’ to framework as possible without explaining or warranting any of them out is likely not going to be successful. Leveraging your aff as an impact turn to framework is always good. The more effectively voting aff can resolve the impact turn the easier it will be to get my ballot.

Kritiks

-- I went for the Kritik in almost every 2NR my senior year. I have been exposed to many different types of scholarship, but I am more familiar with some critical race theory criticisms. This form of debate is what I am most comfortable evaluating. However, it is important to note I have a reasonable threshold for each debater's explanation of whatever theory they present within the round, extensions of links, and impact framing. I need to understand what you are saying in order for me to vote for your criticism.

-- You should have specific links to affirmatives because without them you will probably lose to "these are links to the squo" unless the other team doesn't answer it well. Link debate is a place where you can make strategic turns case/impact analysis. Make sure you have good impact comparison and weighing mechanisms and always have an external impact.

-- The alt debate seems to be one of the most overlooked parts of the K and is usually never explained well enough. This means always explaining the alt thoroughly and how it interacts with the aff. This is an important time that the 2NR needs to dedicate time allocation if you go for the alternative. If you choose not to go for the alternative and go for presumption, make sure you are actually winning an impact-framing claim.

K vs. K

-- These debates are always intriguing.

-- Presumption is underutilized by the neg and permutations are allowed in a methods debate. However, it is up to the teams in front of me to do this. There needs to be an explanation of how your theory of power operates, why it can preclude your opponent’s, how your method or approach is preferable, and how you resolve x issues. Your rebuttals should include impact comparison, framing, link defense/offense, permutation(s), and solvency deficits.

Tricks/frivolous theory/skep

-- I am not the best at evaluating these types of arguments. It is important to extend the claim, warrant, and impact of your argument and WEIGH. Please slow down on analytics that are important, especially in theory debates.

John Sasso Hire

Aisha Sheikh George Ranch HS

Martin Sigalow Lake Highland Preparatory

Last changed on Tue May 24, 2022 at 1:17 PM EDT

Email chain: msigalow61@gmail.com

Conflicts: Lake Highland Preparatory School

Policy at CFL Nationals:

I coached Circuit LD from 2011 until the 2019-2020 School Year and judged very frequently but haven't judged since then (I just graduated law school). My students have done very well. I debated policy for Emory University from 2011-2014 and have a decent knowledge of NDT-level policy debate but my background is in LD. I am not as familiar with the substantive content of many arguments, especially old arguments the community would know but I would not, or new arguments that became popular after my time. In LD, I judged a lot of "clash of civ" debates and am quite comfortable with K debates, although on the team I coached was the guy who did all the topic-relevant plan/disad/T stuff.

Some quick policy debate comments

Almost universally, I am unaware of any particular reputation a team might have. Try not to be too chummy with me or the other judges on any panel to which I might be on. I think that's a form of gatekeeping.
I have not had to flow speed in a bit, so be a little generous, if you can afford to do so.
I don't think permutations need net benefits (I'm not sure if this view is mainstream).
If a component of an affirmative is necessary for the affirmative to solve their advantage, then failure to solve it means the affirmative has not solved their advantage. If instead that component is sufficient, a counterplan that solves that component solves the whole advantage. If it is neither, by the end of the debate it should be clear what role that component plays. I will need less explaining on these points.
Bullying is bad (coaches and competitors). Be nice! Also, talking over people or making fun of their appearance is impermissible.
I have seen a disproportionate number of Emory IW and Michigan AP speeches.

Some general comments for this tournament, including LD-focused biases that may impact how I judge

I am not sure what policy is like at CFL Nationals, but I will be keenly aware of the impact the speed could have in a debate where one team can't flow it and the other team and the judges can. I am not sure to what extent these norms exist in policy.
It is probably much easier to get me to vote on a theory argument like condo bad or process counterplans bad than it would be for policy folks, because theory is treated differently in LD.
If you can convince me an argument is genuinely new, I won't evaluate it.
I don't know the topic or its norms so I would be careful of a T debate.
Women get talked over in debates far too much. If I believe you are contributing to this problem I may penalize you.

The LD rules below may apply, but they disproportionately arise because LD's very low number of speeches necessitates stating preferences like those because of the inability to call out late-breaking decisional stances, so they are probably not as important.

LD:

No new arguments or arguments that are the exact opposites of a previously made argument.
Severely mislabeling arguments is extremely bad.
I will not evaluate the debate at any point before its end.
I default to offense-defense, competing interps, durable fiat, perms test competition, and that the aff defends implementation.

James Stuckert Hire

Last changed on Fri September 2, 2022 at 1:57 PM CDT

I debated LD for three years for Strake Jesuit (after a brief period in PF). I qualified for TFA State and TOC in LD, and I have instructed at TDC and NSD. I am conflicted with Strake Jesuit. Contact me/add me to docs at jpstuckert@gmail.com

You can call me "JP." "James," "Mr. Stuckert" or "judge" are fine but weird to me.

For online rounds:

1. Keeping local recordings of speeches is good. You should do it.
2. If I or another judge call “clear” video chat systems often cut your audio for a second. This means (a) you should prioritize clarity to avoid this and (b) even repeat yourself when “clear” is called if it’s a particularly important argument.
3. I don’t like to read off docs, but if there's an audio problem in an online round, I will glance to make sure I at least know where you are. I would really prefer not to be asked to backflow from a doc if there's a tech issue, hence local recordings above.
4. You should probably be at like 70% of your normal speed while online.

· I aim to be a neutral party minimizing intervention while evaluating arguments made within the speech times/structure set by the tournament or activity to pick one winner and loser for myself. Some implications:

o The speech structure of LD includes CX. Don't take it as prep and don't go back on something you commit to in CX (unless it's a quick correction when you misspeak, or is something ambiguous). I generally flow cx and factor it into speaker points, but arguments must still be made in other speeches.

o The speech structure also precludes overt newness. Arguments which are new in later speeches should be implications, refutations, weighing or extensions of already existing arguments. Whether 2N or 2AR weighing is allowable is up for debate and probably contextual. Reversing a stance you have already taken is newness -- e.g. you can't kick out of weighing you made if your opponent didn't answer it. (Obviously you can kick condo advocacies unless you lose theory.)

o I won't listen to double-win or double-loss arguments or anything of the sort. You also can't argue that you should be allowed to go over your speech time.

o Being a neutral party means my decision shouldn't involve anything about you or your opponent that would render me a conflict. If I were involved in your prefs, I would consider myself to essentially be a coach, so I won't listen to pref/strike Ks. If other types of out-of-round conduct impact the round, I will evaluate it (e.g. disclosure).

o Judge instruction and standards of justification on the flow are very important, and if they are not explicit, I look to see if they are implicit before bringing to bear my out-of-round inclinations. If two debaters implicitly agree on some framing issue, I treat it as a given.

o Evidence ethics: I will allow a debater to ask to stake the round on an evidence ethics issue if it involves: (1) brackets/cutting that changes the meaning of a card; (2) outright miss-attribution including lying about an author's name, qualifications, or their actual position; (3) alterations to the text being quoted including ellipses, mid-paragraph cutting, and changing words without brackets. Besides these issues, you can challenge evidence with theory or to make a point on the line-by-line. For me, you should resolve the following on the flow: (1) brackets that don't change meaning; (2) taking an author's argument as a premise for a larger position they might not totally endorse; (3) cases where block quotes or odd formatting makes it unclear if something is a mid-paragraph cut; (4) not being able to produce a digital copy of a source in-round. If another judge on a panel has a broader view on what the round can be staked on, I'll just default to agreeing it is a round-staking issue.

· Despite my intention to avoid intervention, I am probably biased in the following ways:

o On things like T framework and disclosure I think there is an under-discussed gap between "voting on theory can set norms" to "your vote will promote no more and no less than the text of my interp in this activity."

o I will be strongly biased against overtly offensive things (arguments which directly contravene the basic humanity of a marginalized group). I don’t think it’s prima facie offensive to read moral philosophy that denies some acts are intrinsically evil (like skep or strict ends-based ethical theories) or which denies that consequences are morally relevant (like skep or strict means-based theories). I also don't think generic impact turns against big stick impacts are innately offensive. But I will certainly listen to Ks or independent voters indicting any of those things.

· Other:

o Speaks: each speech counts, including CX. Strategy and well-warranted arguments are the two biggest factors. My range typically doesn't go outside 28 to 29.5. I adjust based on how competitive the tournament is. I don't disclose them.

o Be polite to novices, even if you can win a round in 20 seconds it’s not always kind to do so. Just be aware of how your actions might make them feel.

o I am usually unpersuaded by rhetorical appeals that take it for granted that some debate styles (K, LARP, phil, theory, tricks) are worse than others, but you can and should make warranted arguments comparing models of debate.

Felix Tan Hire None

Jonas Thrasher-Evers Lindale HS

Last changed on Mon October 4, 2021 at 8:30 PM CDT

for email chain: jonasevers99@gmail.com

I debated for four years at Lindale High School and now debate at Baylor University. I have had lots of technical policy debates as well as a litany of debates about theories of power, resistance, and methodology. I will listen to whatever arguments you choose to present in the debate, provided they are not offensive or rhetorically violent.

I generally start deciding debates by evaluating relative offense vs. defense. The importance of offense is determined by whatever impact calculus or role of the ballot has been provided and can be drastically be mitigated by whatever defense is won. I can be convinced to evaluate the debate differently or vote on arguments that have been framed as prior, but absent explicit instruction, this is likely how I will evaluate your debate.

Cards should be read, not 'inserted into the debate' (including any re-cutting of opponent's evidence).

I think the 2nr and 2ar should isolate the important arguments they think they are winning and spend a good amount of time framing those arguments in the context of the other team's position. Debates that are spread too thin often require lots of intervention on my part and will result in decreases in speaker points.

I think for the most part counterplans should have a solvency advocate but that's certainly a debate to be had. If your counterplan is theoretically 'eh' then be sure to spend time on that flow specifically establishing where you think you're generating competition. Most theory is a reason to reject the argument unless I'm explicitly instructed otherwise (a 2 second "reject the team to set a precedent" at the bottom of your block isn't what I'm talking about).

Disads are more persuasive with aff specific link evidence but I'm all here for block spin and contextualization. Impact comparison and analysis is the most important part of this flow and should be where you start directing my decision in these debates.

In topicality debates I usually default to competing interpretations but can definitely be persuaded otherwise. There doesn't have to be in round abuse but you should explain to me why the offense specific to your interpretation applies to how all debates on this topic would take place.

In K debates, it's important to me that you spend time instructing me as to what kind of offense I should be prioritizing and what impacts I should be assigning the most importance to. Be sure to spend a substantial amount of time explaining and framing the alternative for me, but I'm also willing to vote on just the link and impact or presumption claims if that's your 2nr move.

I enjoy K affs as well as framework debates and would prefer for both teams to explain to me what debate looks like under their model/interpretation but am also willing to vote on 'debate bad' and straight impact turn strategies.

Alberto Tohme Westwood HS None

Anthony Tohme Hire

Last changed on Mon September 7, 2015 at 3:19 PM CDT

My name is Anthony Tohme, and I debated for Strake Jesuit in Houston for four years. I qualified to the TOC my junior and senior years. Feel free to ask me questions before the round. Here are some answers to questions that debaters usually ask:

Are you okay with speed?

I'm fine with speed, just please be clear. It's often helpful to slow down for the sake of clarity because if I don't understand what you're saying, it's not getting on my flow and I won't evaluate it. In general, slow down for tags and card names too.

How do you feel about theory?

I'll vote off theory as long as I'm given a clear reason to do so. A lot of theory debates can become super muddled and I really won't enjoy judging between competing blips with no warrants. If you're going to read theory please compare your arguments against your opponents' and signpost clearly. I won't intervene against a strategy where a debater reads tons of theory against a pretty non-abusive position, but you won't get good speaks. I guess I'd default to competing interps but I wouldn't like doing it; you really just need to justify a theory paradigm if you read a theory shell.

How do you feel about K's?

Just like any other argument, I'll vote off kritiks if you win them. I won't get excited just because you name drop and use jargon. Similarly, you need to justify every argument you make. I won't assume your arguments come first because you call them "pre-fiat" or something along those lines. Explain in concise, rational terms why that jargon means you win the round in the context of your opponent's arguments. Be prepared to explain your argument concisely in CX and rebuttals, because I'll have a pretty low threshold for responses if I can't understand the argument myself. I think a good K debate can be fun to judge, but I really want you to explain your jargon in English (pre vs. post-fiat; role of the ballot vs. methodology; etc. ) instead of throwing it around and assuming I know what you think it means.

How can I get good speaks?

I award speaks based mostly on strategy and argument quality, not the delivery for the most part (I do appreciate the occasional good joke, but don't try too hard to make one up). That being said, if it becomes too frustrating for me to try to understand what you're saying (and it's clear to me you could slow down/be more clear and choose not to), that's certainly not going to help you. And obviously, don't be rude or condescending to your opponent or say anything offensive. Even if there's a significant disparity in skill level between you and your opponent, there's absolutely no reason to be anything but civil and respectful to them. Reading four theory shells or any similar strategy against someone who's clearly new to the activity definitely won't endear you to me either. Use your common sense.

I'll pretty much vote on whatever you tell me to vote on. My decisions won't reflect how I personally feel about your arguments (but if you would like to know feel free to ask). I don't like intervening so I won't do it unless I'm forced to. Give me a standard so I know how to evaluate arguments or else I'll have to decide for myself and someone's feelings will get hurt. Tell me which arguments are important and why. Tell me why I should ignore other arguments. I don't like having the feeling that i have to evaluate every argument that was made in order to make my decision. At the very least I'd like to know which arguments I should look to first.

Mohammad Ullah Cypress Woods

Jonathan Wei Hire

Kris Wright Hire

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 8:10 AM CDT

Table of contents:

1. My Background

2. Paradigm Overview

3. LD specifics

4. Policy specifics

5. World School specifics

6. Public Forum specifics

- My Background -

I have been coaching for 20+ years. Currently, I am the head debate coach at Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School in Dallas ISD, where my students primarily compete in World School, though they have also competed in LD and Policy. Before that, I was the head debate coach at the JBS Law Magnet in Dallas ISD, where I coached both LD and Policy on the Texas and national circuits. Over the years, I've also coached national circuit LD for University School (Florida) and, in Texas, at Westlake, Southlake, Marcus, and Anderson High Schools, as well as individual LDers attending high schools across the country. I have coached TFA champions in LD and Policy, as well as to elimination rounds at the TOC and NSDA Nationals.

Most of my coaching and judging experience is in LD, Policy, and World School; however, I've also coached and judged Public Forum, though to a much lesser extent.

I have a BA in Philosophy and Government from UT Austin, where I also earned a MA in Gender Studies.

I am a co-founder and Board Member of the Texas Debate Collective (TDC) and have taught at every TDC summer camp to debate. I also previously taught LD debate at NSD, VBI, NDF, and UTNIF camps. I have taught Policy and World School debate at camps hosted by the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.

- Paradigm overview -

Below I'll attempt to speak to some event-specific paradigms, but I'll start with an overview of how I tend to judge any debate event:

In my view, a judge should aspire to resolve issues/clash in the round based on what the debaters themselves have argued, as opposed to holding either side to the burden of debating the judge. In practice, this means that I am quite fine voting against my own beliefs and/or for arguments that I have good reasons (that were not raised in the round) for rejecting in real life. This also means that I tend to be pretty open to hearing a variety of arguments, strategies, and styles. MJPs frequently result in my judging so-called "clash of civilization" debates. Finally, this means that I think the debaters have the explanatory burden; just because you read something that I might be very familiar with, do not assume that I will fill in the gaps in your warrant and/or explanation of that philosophical theory because I will actively try my best to not give you credit for more than what you actually say.
I default to the view that the resolution (or, in WS, the "motion") is the stasis point for the debate. Meaning, the official topic divides ground, establishes burdens, and will basically serve as the thing being debated/clashed over by the opposing debaters/teams. (LD and Policy debaters: please note that I said, "default." I am fine with debaters shifting what that stasis point is. See the LD and Policy specific notes below).
I think all debaters have the burden of clear communication. For me, this doesn't dictate a particular speed or style of presentation---I'm open to many. However, it does mean that I expect to be able to flow the speeches and to use that flow to decide the round. I reject (or, at least, resist) using speech docs to fill in the gaps created by debaters' ineffective oral communication.
I aspire---as a judge, as a coach, as a person---to being humble, kind, respectful, open to the possibility that I am wrong, interested in learning, and more committed to becoming right, rather than being right. I expect debaters---and all people---to aspire to cultivate and exhibit those virtues as well. If you fail to do so---particularly in terms of how you relate to me, your opponent, and other people in the room---l will choose to address it in the ways that seem most appropriate and consistent with those virtues, including (but not limited to) reducing speaker points, talking to you at length after the round, and discussing it with your coach.

- LD -

Most of my experience judging and coaching has been in LD, across a wide-range of competitive styles and circuits. Below is a list of my defaults; however, please note that debater can (and often do) push me off of my defaults. Doing so requires that you make comparatively better arguments than your opponent---not that you have to defeat whatever arguments I personally have for those defaults. All that to say, feel free to argue that I should think about these issues in different---or even radically different---ways.

The Aff has the burden of proving the resolution true and the Neg has the burden of proving the resolution false. What that actually means, though, is determined by the winning interpretation of the resolution's meaning and other framework arguments (including the standard/criterion/role of the ballot) that establish the epistemic standards for what will qualify as having proved the resolution true or false. Again, if you want to run a non-topical (or creatively topical Aff), you are welcome and encouraged to argue that this would be the better stasis point for the debate and, if your opponent challenges this, then do a comparatively better job of arguing that your alternative stasis point will make for a better debate. I have voted for (and coached) a lot of non-topical Affs over the years.
On my own, I do not default/presume neg...unless the neg has made a default/presumption neg argument and the conditions for it applying have been met. In the absence of the neg making and winning such an argument, if I am in a round where neither debater has actually met their burdens, then I will vote for the debater that is closest to meeting that burden. In other words, I'll vote for the side that requires the least intervention in creating a coherent RFD.
On theory and topicality, I default to the paradigm of competing interpretations. I also default to the view that there is no RVI on either of these debates---unless a debater has made the argument that there is an RVI. I think there are very good reasons for an RVI, so feel free/encouraged to argue for one
If the Aff does not read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does not get ground to defend topical advocacies, including topical PICs or PIKs. However, if the Aff does read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does get topical PIC/PIK ground, so long as it is competitive with the Aff's plan.

- Policy -

When judging Policy debate, here are my defaults:

(Only in policy debate) I will default to the view that I am using a broad consequentialist decision calculus to filter and weigh impacts. I do this because that is already such a strong assumption/norm in the policy debate community; however, I think this practice is intellectually and strategically deficient. All that to say, I am always open to debaters arguing for narrower consequentialist or non-consequentialist decision calcs/roles of the ballot. If that occurs, I expect the AFF team to actually be able to defend the validity of consequentialism if they want that to remain the decision calc. Indeed, my background in LD and coaching K teams in policy makes me very open and eager to see teams contest the assumption of consequentialism.
I default to the view that the resolution is the stasis point for the debate. This means I default to the AFF having the burden of defending a topical advocacy; I default to the view that this requires defending the United States federal government should implement a public policy (i.e., the plan) and that the public policy is an example of the action described in the resolution. However, these are only defaults; I am completely open to AFF's making arguments to change either of these parameters. (Perhaps it's worth noting here that I have coached policy debaters across a fairly wide range of styles, including big-stick policy AFFs, topical AFF that are critical, and AFFs that are explicitly non-topical. Most of the AFFs I have helped my students create and run have leaned critical, ranging from so-called "soft-left" plans to K Affs that defend creatively-topical advocacies to K AFFs that are explicitly non-topical.) All that to say, if the AFF wants to affirm a strange/creative interpretation of the resolution or if the AFF wants to completely replace the resolution with some other stasis point for the round, the debaters will not be asked to meet some threshold I have; they need only do a comparatively better job than the negative in justifying that stasis point.
Relatedly, I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the explanatory burden you have to develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous arguments when you debate over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.
I am not going to flow/back-flow your speech based on a speech doc because I think the normalization of judges not actually listening to speeches and just flowing off of speech docs has resulted in worse debates and engagements with issues, and judges who simply miss thoughtful and intelligent analytics. If your articulation, volume, and/or signposting are not clear---especially after I verbally indicate that you need to be clearer, louder, etc---that's on you.
Arguments need warrants. Warrants could be, but do not have to be, cards. The belief that an analytic is categorically weaker/insufficient as a warrant is an intellectually dishonest and, quite simply, ridiculous view of knowledge that some corners of policy debate have proliferated to the detriment of our intellects. Whether a claim needs to be warranted by empirical evidence, let alone carded evidence, is mostly a feature of the specific claim being advanced. Of course, in some cases, the claim is about the empirical world and only empirical evidence will suffice, but this is not true of every claim debaters might make.
Theory and topicality: I default to theory and topicality both being issues of competing interpretations; though, I'm entirely open to a debater making arguments to shift that to reasonability (or some other paradigm). I also default to the view that there are no RVIS; I am open to that being contested in the round too, particularly if the 2NR goes for theory or topicality. As a generalization, I have found the theory and topicality debates in policy rounds to be abysmal --- both shells and line-by-line arguments that suffer from impoverished warranting and implicating. In my estimation, there is far too much implicit (and sometimes explicit) appeal to some supposedly settled norm, when the debaters themselves do not appear capable of critically analyzing, let alone sufficiently, defending that norm. I will always prefer to see fleshed out warrants. In the end, I'll resolve any theory and topicality debates via the clash produced by the arguments made by the debaters. I resist the idea that my role is to enforce a norm of policy simply because it has inertia.

- World School -

When judging world school, I try to adapt to the event by doing my best to follow the international norms for world school debate. With that in mind, I'll speak to a few issues that I've noticed WS students may need to be reminded of, as well as some issues that involve the biggest shift from how I evaluate other debate events:

Don't go fast. Even though I'll be able to flow it, you should aspire to keep your speed close to conversational because that's part of the conventions that make WS unique. If your rate of delivery is quicker than that, I'll likely not score you as high on "style."
Unless the topic is explicitly about one nation, you should provide examples and analysis of the motion that applies beyond the US as the context.
You should aim to take 1-2 POIs each speech, excluding (of course) the reply speech. Taking more signals to me that you can't fill up your time; taking fewer signals that you're afraid to be taken off your script. Either of those will result in fewer "strategy" and/or "content" points.
Countermodels cannot be topical; Opp's burden is to reject the motion, even if Prop has provided a model. Opp teams need to make sure that their countermodels are not simply a different way of doing the motion, which is Prop's ground in the debate.
Make sure you are carrying down the bench any arguments you want to keep alive in the debate. If Prop 2 doesn't extend/carry an argument down that Prop 3/Reply ends up using in their own speech, I'll be less persuaded. In the least, Prop 2 won't have earned as many "strategy" points as they could have.

- Public Forum -

I view the resolution as the stasis point for the debate. I'm fine with Pro defending the resolution as a general principle or further specifying an advocacy that is an instance of the resolution. (My default is that the Pro has the burden of defending a topical advocacy; however, I'm also equally open to the Pro defending arguments that justify they are not bound by the resolution.) If the Pro side further specifies an advocacy (for example, by defending a specific plan), then the stasis point for the debate shifts to being that advocacy statement. In the context of the arguments made in the debate, I vote Pro if I'm convinced that the arguments being won in the debate justify the truth of the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement). I vote Con if I'm convinced that the arguments being won justify that the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement) are false. The specific burdens (including the truth conditions of the resolution or advocacy statement) that must be met to vote Pro or Con are determined by the debaters: I am open to those burdens being established through an analysis of the truth conditions of the stasis point (i.e., what is logically required to prove that statement true or false) OR by appeal to debate theoretical arguments (i.e., arguments concerning what burdens structures would produce a fair and/or educational debate).

I tend to think that Public Forum debate times are not conducive to full-blown theory debates and, consequently, PF debaters would be wise to avoid initiating them because, for structural reasons, they are likely to be rather superficial and difficult to resolve entirely on the flow; however, I do not paradigmatically exclude theory arguments in PF. I'm just skeptical that it can be done well, which is why I suspect that in nearly any PF round the more decisive refutational strategy will involve "substantive" responses to supposedly "unfair" arguments from the opponent.

I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the limitations and constraints that PF time-limits create for develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous debates over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.

Kris Wright Hire

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 8:10 AM CDT

Table of contents:

1. My Background

2. Paradigm Overview

3. LD specifics

4. Policy specifics

5. World School specifics

6. Public Forum specifics

- My Background -

Most of my coaching and judging experience is in LD, Policy, and World School; however, I've also coached and judged Public Forum, though to a much lesser extent.

I have a BA in Philosophy and Government from UT Austin, where I also earned a MA in Gender Studies.

- Paradigm overview -

Below I'll attempt to speak to some event-specific paradigms, but I'll start with an overview of how I tend to judge any debate event:

In my view, a judge should aspire to resolve issues/clash in the round based on what the debaters themselves have argued, as opposed to holding either side to the burden of debating the judge. In practice, this means that I am quite fine voting against my own beliefs and/or for arguments that I have good reasons (that were not raised in the round) for rejecting in real life. This also means that I tend to be pretty open to hearing a variety of arguments, strategies, and styles. MJPs frequently result in my judging so-called "clash of civilization" debates. Finally, this means that I think the debaters have the explanatory burden; just because you read something that I might be very familiar with, do not assume that I will fill in the gaps in your warrant and/or explanation of that philosophical theory because I will actively try my best to not give you credit for more than what you actually say.
I default to the view that the resolution (or, in WS, the "motion") is the stasis point for the debate. Meaning, the official topic divides ground, establishes burdens, and will basically serve as the thing being debated/clashed over by the opposing debaters/teams. (LD and Policy debaters: please note that I said, "default." I am fine with debaters shifting what that stasis point is. See the LD and Policy specific notes below).
I think all debaters have the burden of clear communication. For me, this doesn't dictate a particular speed or style of presentation---I'm open to many. However, it does mean that I expect to be able to flow the speeches and to use that flow to decide the round. I reject (or, at least, resist) using speech docs to fill in the gaps created by debaters' ineffective oral communication.
I aspire---as a judge, as a coach, as a person---to being humble, kind, respectful, open to the possibility that I am wrong, interested in learning, and more committed to becoming right, rather than being right. I expect debaters---and all people---to aspire to cultivate and exhibit those virtues as well. If you fail to do so---particularly in terms of how you relate to me, your opponent, and other people in the room---l will choose to address it in the ways that seem most appropriate and consistent with those virtues, including (but not limited to) reducing speaker points, talking to you at length after the round, and discussing it with your coach.

- LD -

The Aff has the burden of proving the resolution true and the Neg has the burden of proving the resolution false. What that actually means, though, is determined by the winning interpretation of the resolution's meaning and other framework arguments (including the standard/criterion/role of the ballot) that establish the epistemic standards for what will qualify as having proved the resolution true or false. Again, if you want to run a non-topical (or creatively topical Aff), you are welcome and encouraged to argue that this would be the better stasis point for the debate and, if your opponent challenges this, then do a comparatively better job of arguing that your alternative stasis point will make for a better debate. I have voted for (and coached) a lot of non-topical Affs over the years.
On my own, I do not default/presume neg...unless the neg has made a default/presumption neg argument and the conditions for it applying have been met. In the absence of the neg making and winning such an argument, if I am in a round where neither debater has actually met their burdens, then I will vote for the debater that is closest to meeting that burden. In other words, I'll vote for the side that requires the least intervention in creating a coherent RFD.
On theory and topicality, I default to the paradigm of competing interpretations. I also default to the view that there is no RVI on either of these debates---unless a debater has made the argument that there is an RVI. I think there are very good reasons for an RVI, so feel free/encouraged to argue for one
If the Aff does not read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does not get ground to defend topical advocacies, including topical PICs or PIKs. However, if the Aff does read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does get topical PIC/PIK ground, so long as it is competitive with the Aff's plan.

- Policy -

When judging Policy debate, here are my defaults:

(Only in policy debate) I will default to the view that I am using a broad consequentialist decision calculus to filter and weigh impacts. I do this because that is already such a strong assumption/norm in the policy debate community; however, I think this practice is intellectually and strategically deficient. All that to say, I am always open to debaters arguing for narrower consequentialist or non-consequentialist decision calcs/roles of the ballot. If that occurs, I expect the AFF team to actually be able to defend the validity of consequentialism if they want that to remain the decision calc. Indeed, my background in LD and coaching K teams in policy makes me very open and eager to see teams contest the assumption of consequentialism.
I default to the view that the resolution is the stasis point for the debate. This means I default to the AFF having the burden of defending a topical advocacy; I default to the view that this requires defending the United States federal government should implement a public policy (i.e., the plan) and that the public policy is an example of the action described in the resolution. However, these are only defaults; I am completely open to AFF's making arguments to change either of these parameters. (Perhaps it's worth noting here that I have coached policy debaters across a fairly wide range of styles, including big-stick policy AFFs, topical AFF that are critical, and AFFs that are explicitly non-topical. Most of the AFFs I have helped my students create and run have leaned critical, ranging from so-called "soft-left" plans to K Affs that defend creatively-topical advocacies to K AFFs that are explicitly non-topical.) All that to say, if the AFF wants to affirm a strange/creative interpretation of the resolution or if the AFF wants to completely replace the resolution with some other stasis point for the round, the debaters will not be asked to meet some threshold I have; they need only do a comparatively better job than the negative in justifying that stasis point.
Relatedly, I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the explanatory burden you have to develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous arguments when you debate over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.
I am not going to flow/back-flow your speech based on a speech doc because I think the normalization of judges not actually listening to speeches and just flowing off of speech docs has resulted in worse debates and engagements with issues, and judges who simply miss thoughtful and intelligent analytics. If your articulation, volume, and/or signposting are not clear---especially after I verbally indicate that you need to be clearer, louder, etc---that's on you.
Arguments need warrants. Warrants could be, but do not have to be, cards. The belief that an analytic is categorically weaker/insufficient as a warrant is an intellectually dishonest and, quite simply, ridiculous view of knowledge that some corners of policy debate have proliferated to the detriment of our intellects. Whether a claim needs to be warranted by empirical evidence, let alone carded evidence, is mostly a feature of the specific claim being advanced. Of course, in some cases, the claim is about the empirical world and only empirical evidence will suffice, but this is not true of every claim debaters might make.
Theory and topicality: I default to theory and topicality both being issues of competing interpretations; though, I'm entirely open to a debater making arguments to shift that to reasonability (or some other paradigm). I also default to the view that there are no RVIS; I am open to that being contested in the round too, particularly if the 2NR goes for theory or topicality. As a generalization, I have found the theory and topicality debates in policy rounds to be abysmal --- both shells and line-by-line arguments that suffer from impoverished warranting and implicating. In my estimation, there is far too much implicit (and sometimes explicit) appeal to some supposedly settled norm, when the debaters themselves do not appear capable of critically analyzing, let alone sufficiently, defending that norm. I will always prefer to see fleshed out warrants. In the end, I'll resolve any theory and topicality debates via the clash produced by the arguments made by the debaters. I resist the idea that my role is to enforce a norm of policy simply because it has inertia.

- World School -

Don't go fast. Even though I'll be able to flow it, you should aspire to keep your speed close to conversational because that's part of the conventions that make WS unique. If your rate of delivery is quicker than that, I'll likely not score you as high on "style."
Unless the topic is explicitly about one nation, you should provide examples and analysis of the motion that applies beyond the US as the context.
You should aim to take 1-2 POIs each speech, excluding (of course) the reply speech. Taking more signals to me that you can't fill up your time; taking fewer signals that you're afraid to be taken off your script. Either of those will result in fewer "strategy" and/or "content" points.
Countermodels cannot be topical; Opp's burden is to reject the motion, even if Prop has provided a model. Opp teams need to make sure that their countermodels are not simply a different way of doing the motion, which is Prop's ground in the debate.
Make sure you are carrying down the bench any arguments you want to keep alive in the debate. If Prop 2 doesn't extend/carry an argument down that Prop 3/Reply ends up using in their own speech, I'll be less persuaded. In the least, Prop 2 won't have earned as many "strategy" points as they could have.

- Public Forum -

Jason Yang Hire

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2019 at 3:56 PM CDT

Jason Yang

Debated for Kinkaid for 3 years with Eric Emerson and Akhil Gandra as coaches, Katy Taylor for 1 year with Gay Hollis, Eric Beane, and Neel Yerneni as coaches.

I haven't judged for a while, so please do emphasize clarity/slowing down both in speaking style and generally framing the round so that someone not as familiar with all the new lingo/debate trends are will be able to understand.

As a debater I always liked the more detailed philosophies, so I’ve done that. However, if you do not have enough time, the sparknotes should be plenty of information.

Sparknotes (in order of importance):

Speed- please go 65% speed because I’m bad at flowing and am a few years out of the activity. Esp important for analytics
Advocacy texts and interpretations of any kind must be conversational speed.
tags should be read slowly (close to conversational speed)
There is such a thing as zero risk
if theory is your strategy please read the theory section
Please explain phil
I like policy arguments and K’s that I can understand
I will vote on disclosure theory but will not hack for it.
I probably will not vote on new 2AR theory, kritiks, etc. But I might.
Extensions only need to be as detailed as needed. For example, if you’re explaining why the case outweighs a DA, probably need more detail. But if the neg only contests Aff framework, you probably don’t have to explain the contention much.
Will not vote for morally reprehensible arguments regardless of circumstance.

Hard and Fast Rules

You must transport evidence you read to your opponent by some means (flash, email, pass pages) if they request it. Giving them your case during prep time or only let them read over the shoulder it does NOT count.
You get 30 seconds to transport the documents to your opponent. In total. Afterwards it comes out of either prep time or speech time. Ideally, the flashing time for the 1AC is zero. If you can’t press save as + drag to USB/email within this time, you need to practice it. If your flashing requires more than save as + drag, then you have not completed compiling the speech doc which means you need more prep time.
I won’t vote on args I didn’t catch or don’t understand by the end of the debate.
Speech times are set- 6-3-7-3-4-6-3
jasonyang19923@gmail.com for those who wish to add me to the speech doc chain.
I vote for one debater.

Terms and Definitions

I’ve lost some debates because I had a different definition of what a term meant than a judge. So I’ll put down what I think a certain term means. Of course, you can alter the definitions in the debate- just make sure I know what they are instead of throwing out the jargon. If you don’t define the term for me, I will default to this definition. This list is not exhaustive, but these are definitions that come to mind that have caused misunderstandings.

RVI: Reverse Voting Issue, if the responder to theory has net offense that links to a competitive counter interpretation, the responder of theory should win the debate. This necessitates that theory is drop the debater (or effectually drop the debater).
Permutation as Test of Competition: Negative advocacies test the opportunity cost of the aff, and permutations means the advocacy goes away and the negative now defends something else (either another advocacy or the status quo).
Permutation as Advocacy: If the affirmative proves the negative advocacy is not competitive (through a permutation), then the permutation becomes the new affirmative advocacy. This means that any internal net benefits to the counterplan (offense that the counterplan resolves) are now aff offense that can be weighed against other neg offense.
Conditional: The negative may “kick” (not advocate for) the advocacy under any circumstance.
Dispositional: The negative may “kick” the advocacy under a given condition.
Unconditional: The negative cannot “kick” the advocacy under any conditions. This will be their advocacy for the rest of the debate unless it is proven to be not competitive to the aff.
Truth Testing Paradigm: The affirmative’s burden is to prove that the resolution (or plan text) a true statement, while the negative tries to prove that the resolution (or aff plan text) a false statement.
Comparative Worlds Paradigm: The affirmative defends an advocacy, the negative defends an advocacy (advocacies). Whichever advocacy has more net offense wins. The affirmative advocacy should be an example of the resolution.
Severance: When the affirmative no longer advocates the plan specified at the beginning of the round.
Reasonability: Negative can win on theory with defense. I think Arjun Tambe’s conception of reasonability (that he got from Christian Tarsney) is pretty good: “presumably, if it would be bad to let someone get away with abuse, it would be about equally bad to punish them when they weren’t abusive, so if it’s less than 50 percent likely that they abused you, my default assumption is that theory is not a sufficient path to the ballot.” This definition is probably the most prone to change in the debate since there are so many different conceptions of reasonability.

General

Debate is comparative- this means both debaters should weigh in addition to winning individual arguments. This is true for every kind of debate- phil, theory, substantive, etc.
Debates are also won and lost on the top level framing- isolate the key issues and use the speech to explain why you’ve won them. Line by line is excellent at winning arguments in isolation, but that’s rarely sufficient to win the whole debate because you’re probably not winning every single arg.
Cx as prep isn’t a thing for me.
I will evaluate embedded clash when I recognize it, but you would be best served to make the connections explicit for those that are less obvious and/or crucial for winning the debate.

Policy Arguments

PLANS: Great. That said, I am not afraid of voting on “plans bad” or “Nebel/Generics T”.
Counterplans: Go for it. I have less experience with complicated process counterplans or whatever. Regardless, you should explain what it does and why it solves the case. A good 2nr overview is say “Here is the advantage, here is why the CP solves it”
Disadvantages: Sure. The affirmative would benefit a lot from proving why the internal links are bad with analytics, because they usually are. I think Disad+Case debates are the most interesting type of policy debates.
Lots of people are reading Da’s that are like 30s and none of the cards have warrants… Affirmatives should point this out
Turns case arguments are really awesome esp when specific to the plan
Solvency advocate theory doesn’t make much sense to me on its own, they just seem like solvency arguments. However, a solvency advocate can be a litmus test to determine whether or not a process counterplan or a PIC was predictable.

Kritiks

“K affs”

Pretty predisposed to vote on framework if your affirmative has nothing to do with the topic. You don’t necessarily have to defend USFG, but please talk about the resolution. Otherwise I have no predisposition as to whether your aff is an instrumental/100% defense of the resolution or not.
Creative approaches to the topic do count as talking about the resolution.
Against debaters that are establishing violations for policy framework please do not be evasive.

Links:

Contextualize the link to the aff- don’t just read the state link every single time and just reread the tag from your policy backfiles in the 2NR. I think the strongest links have good evidence and include quotes from the 1AC speech, CX, etc. that demonstrate the link.

Impacts:

I feel people underutilize impact turns. Obvi do not say stuff like racism good, but cap good, heg/militarism good, is great.

Alternatives:

Negatives should do comparison- how do the DA’s to the perm outweigh the net benefits?
What does the alt look like, and how does it solve the links? That’ll make it a lot easier to vote for it. Even if your aff is just plain old rejection- questions like who rejects the aff, what distinguishes this from the status quo, etc. are all still relevant. If I have to ask myself what the alternative is or does at the end of the debate, you lost.

Framing:

The presumption that kritiks are always “pre fiat” and therefore excludes the aff doesn’t make sense to me. This distinction should be explained not only generally, but also in the context of the affirmative.
Theory vs K is kind of a wack debate. To make it less so, you should try to make your warrants as specific as possible.
I am usually very confused when people kick the alt and claim that the K independently turns the aff. To my understanding, the alt generates uniqueness for the link/impact. If you do decide to pursue this strategy, explain to me why you don’t actually need an alt.

Ethical Framework

I’m not going to pretend to be the best judge for these kinds of debates. You can fix my lack of understanding by explaining the phil like I’m a child. This includes even common frameworks like Ripstein equal outer freedom, Rawls Veil, etc.
I will default to being “epistemically confident”, simply because that’s the norm at the time. This means that I will only use the winning framework to evaluate offense. I can be easily persuaded to use epistemic modesty.
Lots of frameworks are impact justified- point that out and explain why that’s bad.
I have no idea why RoB arguments should preclude a standard just because it has the words Role of the Ballot in front of it. This should be explained.
Reasons to prefer a framework should be weighed against eachother: for example, the affirmative FW is better for actor specificity, while the negative FW is better bc it links to a superior meta ethic. Which moral theory is more likely to be true?

Tricks

I’ll vote on them (unhappily). Innovative spikes are a plus.

Theory

Defaults:
- Competing Interpretations
- Drop the Argument on Theory
- No RVI
I don’t really care if your theory argument is shell format as a “new off” or just “x is a voting issue” tagged as an argument against the counterplan etc.
If your theory is clearly trying to abuse competing interpretations, the threshold for responses goes way down. For those that read this kind of theory, remember your opponent can win on zero risk of the interp under competing interpretations.
Theory debates need tons of weighing, and not just “ground outweighs predictability because we need ground before we can predict it”, but weighing that accounts for your strength of link to the standards. For example: perhaps lambos are worth more than a ford focus, but the same cannot be said for the driving wheel of a Lambo.
Competing Interpretations means offense defense paradigm. Other shenanagins like the answerer has to write down the CI, has to have a CI, should be justified.
If the answerer does not have a counter interpretation, I will assume that it means the opposite of the interpretation.
Unsure what drop the argument means on theory arguments concerned with advocacy like spec- it can mean drop solvency, drop the whole 1AC flow (so the aff can still win on link turns to the NC), re-evaluate the plan under the new interpretation, etc.
I think conditionality is good but that contradictions are bad.
Unsure what drop the argument means on theory arguments concerned with advocacy- it can mean drop solvency, drop the whole 1AC flow (so the aff can still win on link turns to the NC), re-evaluate the plan under the new interpretation, etc.
I am somewhat persuaded by the argument that goes something along the lines of “It would have been just as hard to give the 1AR if I replaced the CP with a DA or a few case turns. Condo bad devolves to multiple arguments bad.”

Topicality

I think that topicality is more than just tech, it requires a vision of what the topic should look like through your interpretation.
It would be cool if your interp/counter interp was very specific to the topic for example, providing caselists, evidence when appropriate from the topic literature to quantify limits or ground arguments, etc.
Semantics vs pragmatics I do not really have a default here.
But debaters should make clear the implications of what it means if you win semantics vs pragmatics: does semantics first mean the affirmative must have a counter definition? Does it mean the definitions debate always comes first?
Drop the arg doesn’t make much sense here and should be specified- does this mean we drop the 1AC piece of paper? Does it mean we re-evaluate the interp? Can the aff read a new advocacy? Drop the debater?
Just like for theory, reasonability should have a brightline that is clearly explained.
Again, a caselist would be great.
Random pet peeve - try not to call theory topicality and vice versa.

Speaks

28.0 is average
Speaks will be awarded for good debating (strategy, technical ability, persuasiveness, good CX, etc). I do realize it’s kind of arbitrary, sorry about that.
Lower limit is a 27.0, less than that means you did something severely unsettling.

Bonuses

Not speaking incomprehensibly quickly
Good CX
Good overviews
Using less prep time (if more prep = better speech, that will probably result in better points than the time you save)
Using less speech time (same stipulation as above)
Unique arguments
Good disclosure practices (I will check wikis before or during the debate)
Fast speech doc transfers

Login to Tabroom

Strake Jesuit Tournament

2017 — Houston, TX/US

VLD Judges Paradigm List

Judges