Tabroom.com

Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas Austin

2017 — TX/US

PF Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Muaaz Ahmad Hire 5 rounds

Maheen Ahmed Hire 6 rounds

Maheen Ahmed Hire 5 rounds

Shayan Ali Hire 5 rounds

Anish Antony Hire 6 rounds None

aashna bharwani Hire 4 rounds

Nicole Boarnet Winston Churchill HS 5 rounds

Anish Chotai Hire 6 rounds

Dinah Chukwu Cypress Falls High School 5 rounds None

Sarah Cleveland Dulles High School 5 rounds

Dhruv Dhuper Hire 6 rounds

Victor Fu Hire 6 rounds

Anson Fung Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 5 rounds

Gaurav Gomber Hire 5 rounds

Gaurav Gomber Hire 4 rounds

Caroline Hao Hire 5 rounds

Yusaf Hasan Hire 4 rounds None

Ron Hester Pflugerville High School 5 rounds

asim hirji Hire 6 rounds None

Davy Holmes Dripping Springs High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 12, 2024 at 5:19 AM CDT

Harvard update (2/12/2024)

Not great for the K, except for maybe K's of language/rhetoric. In Policy v K rounds, I vote aff for the perm quite a bit. Not sure I have ever evaluated a K v K debate. In K aff v T-framework debates, I usually vote neg. Fairness and clash are pretty persuasive to me. I have voted for a non-topical aff a few times, but it's probably an uphill battle.

You should probably go slower than you would like in front of me, but I can usually keep up. If you really want me to keep up, I'd recommend leaving analytics in the doc.

I expect everyone to be nice and respectful to each other. Please be mindful of pronouns. Ask your opponents if you don't know.

I err neg on most counterplan theory questions, but I can definitely be persuaded that conditionality is a reason to reject a team, especially if there are more than 2 conditional worlds. Process CPs are kind of a gray area for me. I like them, but I could be convinced that they are bad.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain (davy.holmes@dsisdtx.us).

Some info about me:

Policy Debater from 1996-1998 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Assistant Policy Debate Coach from 1998-2002 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Debate Coach/Teacher at Sinton HS (Texas) from 2002-2003

Debate Coach/Teacher at Hebron HS (Texas) from 2003-2007

Debate Coach/Teacher at San Marcos HS (Texas) from 2014-2017

Debate Coach/Teacher at Dripping Springs HS (Texas) from 2017-present

Updated 1/3/2024

Top level observations for all debate events:

-You should not assume what your opponents' pronouns are. Ask if you don't know, and then make every effort to use them. When in doubt, referring to your opponents as "the aff" or "the neg" is probably a good idea.

-Slowing down and explaining things clearly is usually a good idea, especially in rebuttals.

-Perms that aren't explained aren't arguments.

-If a timer isn't running you shouldn't be prepping.

-I can't vote for something that I didn't flow or understand. I won't feel bad or embarrassed about saying I just didn't understand your argument.

Policy: My favorite event, but I am getting old. I am okay with speed, but clarity is important. I'm definitely more comfortable with plan-focused debate. If I was still a debater, I would probably be reading a small, soft-left aff, and my preferred 2NR would include a counterplan and the politics DA. For the most part, I think debate is a game. The negative should have access to predictable, topic-based ground. While fairness is likely an internal link to other impacts, it is also an impact in and of itself. Affirmatives that don't defend topical, hypothetical action by the resolutional actor will have a tough time getting me to vote for them. Neg kritiks require a lot of explanation and contextualization. I do not just assume that every K links. I have found that I am much more persuaded by links to a team's rhetoric or representations than other types of links. "They use the state and the state has always been bad in the past" won't usually beat a permutation. I am pretty bad for alts rooted in pessimism or alts that seemingly require an infinite amount of fiat. More than 2 conditional cps and/or alts dramatically increases the persuasiveness of condo theory.

Worlds: I tend to judge Worlds more than other debate events these days. I try to judge rounds holistically. My decision on who won the debate will be made before assigning points on my ballot. Line-by-line refutation is not an expectation. Debaters should focus on core topic arguments and major areas of clash. When appropriate, I enjoy detailed explanations and comparisons of models. Speakers 1-3 should take at least 1 POI.

LD: Even though I dislike this term as applied to debate, I am probably best for LARP and/or util frameworks. Not great for the K. Probably terrible for tricks or phil. Even though I think disclosure is good, there is less than a 1% chance that I'll vote on disclosure theory.

PF: I don't think PF judges should have paradigms. Unless your opponents are ignoring the resolution, I will not vote on theory in PF. #makepublicforumpublicagain

Congress: I pretty much never judge Congress. Students who expect to rank highly should make good arguments, clash with other representatives as much as possible, and participate fully throughout the session.

Peter Huang Plano West Senior High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 24, 2020 at 3:44 PM EDT

If you're too lazy to read through all of this, feel free to just skim and ask me questions before round.

Arguments:

The second-speaking team doesn't have to answer first-speaking team in rebuttal. However, if second-speaking team chooses not to, then defense from first-speaking team's rebuttal will not have to be extended in summary for me to evaluate it, but turns from first-speaking rebuttal will still have to be extended.

I try my best to not bring my own knowledge into the round, so I'll evaluate whatever I'm told, given that there's sufficient warranting, even if it's a really wacky argument. But there's probably some subconscious bias deep inside of me that will prefer arguments that are more believable, so keep that in mind. I wish I could be a completely "blank-slate" judge but unfortunately I am still a human who suffers from biases.

I am unfamiliar on how to evaluate progressive stuff (e.g. counterplans, theory) so you will have to make these really clear to me if you want me to consider them. I prefer substance-based clash but am willing to listen to theory if there is a legitimate claim to abuse. This is not an invitation to run theory just because – if I think you are doing so just to win, as opposed to doing so because there's actual abuse going on, then I probably won't vote off of it.

Weighing your arguments is nice because that lessens the chance that I am forced to intervene and do work for either side. Also, be sure to address your opponent's weighing and explain why it's wrong and why your weighing is better. If two teams are giving me two different ways of weighing arguments and neither gives me a justification for why their weighing is "better", then I will have to pick which one I like better, meaning I have to intervene. And if neither team gives me weighing, then I will have to pick which arguments I believe are more important, meaning again that I will have to intervene. I prefer to not intervene because that will increase the likelihood that one of the sides feels judge-screwed, and I want to be as fair as possible.

Evidence:

I am fine with paraphrasing, but will probably hold debaters that use directly-cut cards in higher regard, speaker point and argument-wise.

I will probably call for evidence if I think that it is really good or crucial to your argument and it's a super close round. I usually call for 2-3 pieces of evidence in outrounds and tight prelim rounds. I think that it's a new policy to allow Internet to access PDFs, so I'm cool with that if your opponents are too. If that is true, then I will expect you to be able to procure the original. If you can't, I'll try to consider the argument and how logically sound it is, but that will make the argument much weaker in my eyes.

If I read the evidence and think you are exaggerating it, then I won't necessarily entirely discount it, but I will definitely not consider the argument as much. This means that even if your opponents don't point out your evidence is misconstrued in the round itself, its inaccuracy might still be part of my evaluation. I think that if you are exaggerating, then it shouldn't be the opponents' burden to call that exaggeration out.

This is all especially true for wacky arguments that rely on obscure link chains or for impacts that I think are extremely potent.

Speaking:

I generally give around 27-30 points, with 30s reserved for speakers that I think did exceptionally in the round. I'll take points off for unnecessary rudeness. I place more of an emphasis on arguments over speaking, so you can still get a 30 provided your argumentation is good and clear.

Try to be as clear and concise as possible whenever speaking, because that will make it easier for me to flow. I am also bad at flowing people who spread (and I mean really bad), so do so at your own risk. In cases where the speaking is super great, I might add points. Similarly, I might docks points if the speaking is really cruddy to the point where I am straining to understand the arguments.

Don't be mean!!

Varun Hukeri Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat December 2, 2017 at 5:00 AM CDT

Experience: I competed mostly in PF and Extemp, but I have experience in LD; competed at local (Houston-area), state, and national level.

Preface: Debate is inherently pedagogical; that is, the core purpose of debate is education. I believe that a debate round is disconnected from the real world; the only real-world implications of a debate round are that one side will win and the other will lose and that all participants in the round will be slightly more educated. That's it. Policymakers, governments, and individuals outside the realm of the round don't care about your advocacy or your solvency or your arguments. Although it is impossible to be purely tabula rasa (we are all defined by our experiences), I attempt to weigh the round based ONLY on the frameworks/arguments presented by the two sides. Debate is also NOT a safe space. Many judges state that they vote down arguments that are racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/whatever other prejudice; I don't buy into this, and I accept any argument as long as it is warranted, contextualized, and defended.

Speed: I am okay with speed and spreading as long as you slow down on tags/authors and either provide an off-time roadmap or signpost in speech. I expect competitors to time themselves and not go unreasonably overtime.

Speaker Points: I am fairly generous with speaks; I award 28-29 like 99% of the time and I'll only give a >29 if I think you were phenomenal, and <28 if I think you were a disaster.

LD Specifics:

Kritiks: I'm a big fan of Ks and accept them on both aff and neg. I look favorably on a K that has more specific link arguments and is embedded within the constructive. I can not buy a K if I can not buy your links, so I expect any K to be well contextualized and have strong links.
Theory: Not a big fan, would prefer you avoid it. If you run T, I won't hold it against you, but I basically never vote on T.
Counterplan/Disad/Topicality: Fine.
Role of the ballot: Must justify why this is an a-priori argument in the resolution's context.
I'm ok with flex prep.

PF Specifics:

Framework: PF is essentially competing worlds, one advocated by the pro and one advocated by the con. If you have a specific framework through which you want me to view the round, like deontology, then I will weight your frameworks. If I buy into your framework, then it is very likely that I buy into your world and vote for your side. If I don't buy any framework or if framework debate is a wash, then I resort to cost-benefit analysis.
Impact calculus: Must be explicit on what your impacts are and how they should be weighed in round.
Rebuttal: Line by line argumentation.
Summary Speech: Big picture and extensions. If you do not extend arguments then I consider them dropped and don't weight them.
Final Focus: Voters only.
I am ok with kritikal debate in PF.

David Huston Colleyville Heritage High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:45 AM CDT

Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.

NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.

THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.

THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.

For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.

TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.

KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.

Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.

EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.

Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.

STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

Archana Jain Westwood HS 5 rounds None

Pranav Jayaraman Hire 6 rounds

Derek Ji Plano West Senior High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat December 2, 2017 at 11:43 AM EDT

Derek Ji

Plano West '17 | UT Austin '21

Paradigm:

I debated for three years and consider myself a flow judge. I found moderate success on the regional (TX) and national circuit in Public Forum Debate.

A couple tips:

1. Write my ballot for me. Make it explicit, make it simple. You should make me confident in my choice.

2. Don’t just tell me to extend something. I want to see explanations, analysis on warrant and impact extensions.

FAQ

FYI: I love a case with multiple warrants. I don’t think it’s smart to put all of your eggs in one basket/one warrant. In addition, if you go for a link turn, PLEASE don’t go for the impact turn. Choose one or the other for your own sake.

Theory: I won’t evaluate it unless I feel one sides’ abuses warrant the use of theory in round. If brought up in a regular round with no reason, I won’t evaluate it and speaks may suffer. BAD/UNNECESSARY THEORY WILL COST YOU THE ROUND.

Speaks: I understand just how important a tenth of a speaker point can be in determining breaks. That being said, I'm usually generous with speaker points as long as you’re not excessively rude or illogical. DON’T give me a reason to give you poor speaker points and you should be fine. Just don’t be an azz!

Speed: N.O. to spreading. I’m cool with anything from a slow to brisk pace. I can handle a fast pace but PLEASE know the difference between going fast and spreading. If at any point I can’t follow you, you run the risk of me missing critical evidence or parts of an argument that could play vital in my decision.

Weighing: Do it.

Evidence: Sometimes I will call for it, sometimes I will not – it really depends on the round. If a piece of evidence becomes part of a crucial voter or if it seems unlikely to be true/valid, I will call for it. I’m fine with paraphrasing as long as you don’t skew your evidence. Indicts via evidence MUST be clear and explicit.

I really prefer PDFs over cut cards - I will take nothing less than cut cards. *A lack of evidence will make your argument much weaker.*

Jargon: Should be fine. Just don’t be confusing.

Extensions:

1. Extend both warrants and impacts throughout the round; explain to me why it is extended despite ink.

2. 1st summary doesn’t have to extend defense.

3. I think it is strategic for 2nd rebuttal to respond to first rebuttal at some point, but it is totally up to you and your discretion.

Argumentation:

I need to see a claim, warrant, and impact in each argument. Likewise, when extending arguments, I don't want to see just an extension of a warrant or an impact. Tell me why I should extend your argument. Weighing is extremely important for my ballot. I don't have a specific preference for line by line or big picture in summary/FF because I believe that it really varies round by round, but the two speeches should mirror each other in structure. I prefer well flushed out arguments to blimpy arguments.

Intervention: I’m very unlikely to intervene, but here are things to avoid ~

1. Falsified/Fake Evidence.

A) It wastes valuable time in the debate for other topics. Falsifying evidence not only takes time out of the round for me to verify that it is falsified, but it also takes away from the other team’s ability to dispute your argument and crystalize the round. I won’t hesitate to vote you down if you have falsified evidence – especially if this is one of the most important pieces of evidence being debated (this is mostly directed to those who paraphrase).

B) I believe that it detracts from PF debate in the first place. The point of PF is to debate a hotly discussed topic that applies to the social, political, and economic status of the domestic and foreign atmosphere. There is no room for “fake” debate.

2. No weighing mechanism/Frameworks provided:

a) I will default to a util framework. If it is a good round though, I do expect there to be weighing/framework provided to me. If not, I will be thoroughly disappointed.

b) Impact weighing is hecka important if you want my ballot. Don’t just spurt out different weighing mechanisms and say you outweigh. Rather, explain to me how the magnitude, per say, of your impact is larger than your adversary and why that’s significant. If there is no weighing, you allow me to decide if I think an impact is better than that of your adversary.

If you have any other questions after reading this, feel free to ask me before the round.

Also, now that I have your attention, some shameless plugs:

Follow me on Soundcloud @shauce

Ranie Lin SUCKS! He is a TERRIBLE debater. Sad!

Also, for your sake and for mine, DO NOT, for the love of god, follow Peter Huang on spotify. 'tis indeed a trap.

Aftab Jivani Hire 5 rounds None

Farhan Kassam Ali Hire 4 rounds

Jo Kleinsasser Edmond North High School 5 rounds None

David Koeller LC Anderson 5 rounds None

Ravi Kolagotla McNeil HS 5 rounds None

Gage Krause Lake Travis HS 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue August 18, 2020 at 6:39 AM EDT

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

Here's a short version of my paradigm:

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

- Don't steal prep

- Fine with K's

- Fine with speed

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

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

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

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

- I will not extend or kick arguments for you

- Don't steal prep (really)

Long version:

DA's:

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

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

CP's:

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

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

K's:

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

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

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

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

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

K Affs:

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

Framework:

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

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

T/Theory:

Will vote on it.

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

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

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

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

Dylan Kreis Midway High School 3 rounds

Ishaan Kurji Hire 5 rounds

Kyle Lim Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri December 1, 2017 at 9:14 AM CDT

I am currently a student at the University of Houston. I am currently a student at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Hospital in the Houston Medical Center. I graduated High School in 2014, and debated all 4 years of my High School career so im relatively up-to-date on debate styles, jargon, etc. I debated in LD for all four years and PF (on and off) for the last 2 years of HS. Out of High-School, I judged regularly on the NFL/TFA/UIL/HUDL circuits for the first two years. I haven't been judging since my acceptance in to MD Anderson.

SPEED

I have a relatively high threshold for speed, so i am able to keep up with spreading for the most part. If anything, go as fast as you need to but SLOW DOWN on tag lines and important information so that i know where your information goes on the flow. I'll pick up the main ideas of whatever card or philosophy you're spreading, but for the sake of clarity for the rest of the round, slow down on tag lines, last names, etc.

ARGUMENTS

Generally, I'll accept whatever you have to run, simply because you put in the time and effort to present that. With that being said, if you've never run a topicality before, and you read a topicality that isn't unique to what's being argued on in the debate, it'll be obvious. Run things that you're ready to run, and well versed in, because doing the contrary looks really bad and just gives your opponent room to call you out.

EVIDENCE

Evidence is really important, but not a make or break. I will accept empirical argumentation, as long as you're willing to defend it. With that being said, there will always be conflicting evidence, and when it comes down to that, I'll ask for your cards, preferably uncut, with the source, date, and original text (in context).

WHAT I WANT

I love line-by-line debates, where everything is addressed to the debaters' best ability. It makes the round easier on me, because i know where to make drops, extensions, etc. Give me something to weigh the round on. If there is an agreement between debaters on what is most important in the round, it makes it a lot easier on me to decide on who won the round, and makes it easier on the debaters since they know what to focus on.

TlDr: Fine with speed, slow down on tags. I'll accept anything as long as you run it well. Make sure your cards are legitimate, but evidence doesn't always mean a card. I love line by line, tell me what the round boils down to.

Karen Long Mountain Brook HS 5 rounds None

Sahil Maherali Hire 5 rounds

Drew Marks Hire 5 rounds None

Mindy McClure Grapevine High School 5 rounds None

Austin Meek Hire 6 rounds

Miriha Meghani Hire 6 rounds None

Shariq Memon Hire 6 rounds None

Arjun Menon Hire 4 rounds None

LaWanna Miller Carroll 5 rounds None

Konan Mirza Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 5, 2017 at 1:18 PM CDT

Konan Mirza

Austin High School '16; UTD '20

I competed public forum debate for all 4 years of high school. In my senior year, I got to deep out rounds and championed numerous invitationals, quallified fot TFA my junior and senior years, and broke at TFA senior year

Flow - I flow basically everything. Make your own extensions, don't make me do them for you. Stress the warrants in your arguments, I don't care how many flashy numbers you have if you don't provide the proper justification for them. Weigh your arguments - tell me which arguments matter more/come first and why.THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE FOR FRAMEWORKS.

Speed - I am fine with speed, however, if you start reading an "above-pf" pace and are also unclear then I will dock speaks. I don't give out too many 30s at nat circuit tournaments unless I am very blown away by the performance. The more funny/sarcastic/chill you are in round (w/o going overboard or rude) the higher the speaks.

Argument types - I am open to almost everything. DA/CP/Plans are all fine as long as they are executed properly. Kritiks, in my personal opinon, don't belong in PF but I will evaluate them (reluctantly). On the other hand, if you read anything that even hints at theory, I will disregard it and tank your speaks. Theory debates have become, in my opinion, a plague to modern day debate and serves no purpose in the debate space. You can complain about abuse all you want, but that does not warrant dropping the debater. I'm always going to default to reasonability over competing interps, and the brightline is always going to be my gut check.

I want to clarify that my paradigm does not prevent teams from calling out abuse. Just do not read a shell and ask me to drop the debater (that's what will cause for tanked speaks and an annoyed me). My gut check will decide whether actual abuse is occuring or not, and at max, I will drop the argument.

Won't vote for any arguments that are discriminatory/racist/sexist/homophobic. Just entertain me and be nice. Have fun.

Blake Muskiet Klein HS 5 rounds None

Alex Mutammara Hire 6 rounds

Alex Mutammara Hire

Xena Nam Hire 5 rounds

Rachel O'Reilly Dulles High School 5 rounds None

Gargi Pingale Hire 5 rounds

zane rashdan Hire 5 rounds

David Rihn Hire 6 rounds None

Miranda Sanford The Kinkaid School 5 rounds

Peter Shen Hire 6 rounds None

Connor Smith Kingwood High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 23, 2017 at 1:48 PM CDT

Background:

I debated public forum for four years for Kingwood High School. I was moderately successful on both the state and national level, qualifying for TFA state three times and the TOC my junior year. I now attend the University of Texas and am currently pursuing a degree in finance. Do with this information what you will.

Argumentation:

I am a firm believer that debaters can read whatever arguments they would like as long as they are well warranted and not racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. My partner and I could been considered more "progressive" as far as public forum debaters go, so I guess I'm up for whatever. That being said, well warranted and extended stock arguments will likely serve you better than reading obscure args for the sake of reading obscure args.

Extensions:

Please for the love of all that is good, extend your arguments PROPERLY. That means claim, warrant, and impact need to be extended. Simply saying "extend the Johnson analysis" is not extending an argument. This will leave me with the name of an author and nothing else to evaluate at the end of the debate. Any offense you want in final focus needs to be in summary. Rebuttal to final focus extension of defense is fine I guess. Collapse down in both summary and final focus please. You should not go for every argument you made in constructive, and chances are you won't do it well if you try.

Weighing:

Please for the love of all that is good, weigh your arguments. If you do not weigh or give me a mechanism with which to weigh your arguments, that will put me in an awkward situation when it comes to making a decision, and chances are you will not be pleased with the decision I make.

Evidence:

I believe paraphrasing is quite possibly the worst practice that has ever found its way into debate. It is not productive. It is not educational. Do not paraphrase. If either I or your opponents call for a piece of evidence and you cannot show where the author says what you claim they say, I will be incredibly annoyed, your speaks will suffer, there is a good chance I will not evaluate the evidence, and, depending on how liberal you are with the paraphrasing, you may be dropped. Claiming an author says something they do not say so your argument sounds a bit better is not okay. It is lying. Also, if you're reading cut cards, please have the full cite and PDF ready too.

Speed:

Don't spread. I am okay with some speed. However, if I miss something on the flow, it's your problem not mine. Quality over quantity of arguments.

The split:

Respond to turns in second rebuttal. Leave the rest for summary. Don't be the obnoxious first summary and expect second rebuttal to answer every argument your partner made.

Speaks:

I'll likely be rather generous with speaks. I know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of a 4-2 screw and would not wish that disappointment on many but a select few. I appreciate humor and sass in round, but too much can be obnoxious. Don't be rude. Don't focus on making me laugh. Just bonus points if you do.

The rest:

I don't care what you wear. I don't care whether you sit or stand. I don't care how or when sides and speaker orders are determined, just tell me what to put on the ballot. More often than not, off time road maps are just a waste of time. Unless you're giving an abnormal speech, you don't need to tell me that you'll be going down your opponent's case in the first rebuttal. I can probably guess that's coming.

If you have any questions or think I missed anything, find me on Facebook and message me, email me at connoresmith@utexas.edu, or ask me before the round.

Christian Soenen LC Anderson 5 rounds

Steven Stogel Hendrickson High School 5 rounds None

Grace Thomas Hire 4 rounds

tiffany tong Hire 6 rounds

Joseph Uhler Westlake High School

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 4:46 AM CDT

I did not do debate in high school or college.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pronouns: he/him

Kevin Wang Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri December 1, 2017 at 8:09 AM CDT

Background: I competed at Flower Mound High School for 4 years. I did every debate event through my career but spent most of my time doing PF. I broke at State twice in PF and once in extemp, qualified for state in policy, qualified for nats in PF

General Views on debate: There isn't a type of debate that I particularly like or dislike as I feel a good util debate can be just as entertaining to listen to as a K heavy debate. I have no presuppositions as to what my role as a judge should be so feel free to read a role of the ballot. That in mind, don't be afraid to make arguments against a role of the ballot or provide a counter one. I will also try to disclose in every round.

Speed: Go as fast as you want but keep in mind my teammates made fun of me because I was awful at flowing. That doesn't mean I didn't hear what you said but just that I probably didn't get the time to pen it down. If I'm flowing on my laptop then this shouldn't be a problem but if I'm flowing on paper try to slow down for tags. I'll say clear if you need me too.

T/Theory: I loved Topicality/Theory as a debater so read them if you feel like there is abuse in the round, but if I think the shell was unnecessary you won't get great speaks.

Kritiks: I have read lots of K lit and love hearing authors like DnG and Foucault. That being said, I think many debaters are bad at running Ks so unless you are reading a generic cap K, think carefully about how well you know your arguments and how the K would function in the round before reading it because if it's done badly you will probably lose.

Da/Cp/ CX style args: Go for it. All have a place in debate.

Yes you can sit down and debate.

Things I don't like

Presumption: I won't vote on presumption so don't bother running it. I assume there is always a risk of offense in the round and there is no such thing as terminal defense.
Debaters not understanding their arguments: If you are going to read an argument, you have to know what it means and be able to explain it. This is especially true with dense philosophical arguments. I'm not going to do any work for you.
Being racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, etc

Feel free to ask me any questions before round.

Clay West Hire

Clay West Hire 6 rounds

Neal White Plano Clark HS 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 29, 2024 at 12:42 PM CDT

I'm a full-time teacher and coach in the North Texas area. I have experience coaching, teaching or competing in every event. I've been involved in Speech and Debate, as either a competitor or a coach, for 14 years.

Theory and Ks - I'll evaluate and probably be able to understand these, but it's honestly not my preference to judge this kind of PF round. On theory in particular - please try to only run this if you believe you're the target of intentional and flagrant unfair behavior. Otherwise, I'd rather you just talked about the topic.

Speaking quickly is okay but please do not spread. The teams that get the highest speaks from me tend to talk at conversational or slightly faster than conversational speed.

If you're goal is to qualify for and do well at the TOC, you probably wouldn't consider me a "tech judge" ; I'll flow the round line-by-line in the case, rebuttal and summary but also want to see a lot of summation / weighing / big picture breakdowns of the round in the summary and especially in the final focus. I like a nice, clean speech that's easy for me to flow - tell me where to write things. Signpost more than you would think you have to.

Some answers to questions I've been asked:

-I think that it is strategically smart for the second speaking team to defend their case in rebuttal, but I don't consider it a requirement. In other words, if all you do in your rebuttal is attack your opponent's case, I won't consider all of your opponent's responses to your case to be "dropped."

-If you want me to vote on an issue, it should be present in both the summary and the final focus. The issue should be explained clearly by both partners in a similar way in each speech.

-If you say something about the opposing case in rebuttal and your opponents never respond to it, you don't need to keep bringing it up (unless it's a turn that you really want to go for or something like that).

-Speaker points - My 30 is "I feel like I'm watching someone debate out rounds at a national circuit tournament" and my 25 is "I'm going to go ask to talk to your coach about what I just saw." The vast majority of my scores fall in the 29-27 range.

The question I get asked most often at tournaments when judging LD is "are you okay with speed?" The answer is yes, but you'll probably find that I understand your case/arguments better if you slow down during any analytics (interpretation, plan text, standards, spikes, etc.) that you expect me to write down or remember. You'll also probably find that unless you don't spread much, I won't achieve 100% comprehension of your "top speed." And I'm big on this one - if your opponent doesn't understand spreading, don't spread.

Another question I get asked a lot is "are you okay with policy-style arguments?" Again, the answer is yes, but with some caveats. The farther your argument goes from traditional LD or traditional policy case structure, the harder it will be for me to grasp it and the less likely I am to vote on it.

I used to have a lot of really negative stuff about theory arguments in my paradigm. My position on that has softened a bit. There is a place for theory arguments in modern LD debate, but I still generally think theory should be in the minority of LD rounds, and the abuse should be substantial, deliberate, and clearly demonstrable if a theory argument is being made.

I do not disclose speaker points.

Congress

I generally include the PO in my ranking of a round, although not as highly as the best speakers in a round. Expect a rank in the 3-6 range unless you screw up often, are an exceptionally good PO, or are POing a round full of very bad speakers.

A few particulars:

-It's a good idea to break down the what exactly a piece of legislation says and does as the first negative and/or first affirmative speaker. Never assume that the judge has read or analyzed the item you're discussing!

-Refuting or extending the argument of at least one specific person by name is mandatory if you're the fifth speaker on an item or later.

-From the second you step foot into a Congressional Debate chamber, my expectation is that you are IN CHARACTER as a member of the United States House of Representatives or Senate. Breaking character (even during recess, or AGDs) and acting like a high schooler will disappoint me.

-I care about how good your best speech was more than how many speeches you gave.

-I am rarely impressed with three-plus main point Congress speeches. Unless you're in a round that has four minute speech times, this is a bad idea.

-I want to see a strong debate, not parliamentary games.

Extemp

The single most important thing to me is whether or not you answered the question. Your three main points should be three reasons why your answer is correct. Somewhere between 7-10 sources is ideal. You should present an extremely compelling reason in your intro if you are giving something other than a three main point speech; 95% of your speeches or so should be of the three main point variety. Your speech should be over at seven minutes. Grace time is for you to finish a sentence that got away from you, not deliver a conclusion. I often rank people down for talking longer than 7:10.

Oratory/Info

It's important to me that I be able to tell, based on your oratory, how exactly you are defining your topic and what exactly you are proposing we do about it. This may sound obvious, but one of my most common negative comments on oratory ballots tends to be something to the effect of, "be more clear about what your persuasive goal for this speech is." Speeches should have a personal story. They should have a literary reference. They need to include some research.

The most important thing to me about your informative speech is whether or not you are actually informing me about something. Again, this might sound obvious, but I feel like many Infos are either disguised persuasive speeches or speeches that are repeating very widely known information (and therefore, no actual "informing" is taking place). I tend to have a "less is more" attitude when it comes to Info visual aids - this isn't to say that I penalize students who have elaborate visual aids; just that if you only have a couple unsophisticated visuals you could do still quite well with me if you have a good speech.

For both of these events, I want a balance of "hard" evidence (research, data) and "soft" evidence (anecdotes, stories, literary examples).

Interpretation Events

My overarching philosophy with all interp is that as a performer, you are baking a cake. The three main ingredients of this cake are "characters," "emotion," and "story." Everything else - blocking, accents, how your intro is written, suitability of subject material, author's intent, humor - is icing on that cake. Not totally unimportant - just not the first thing I think about when I'm deciding whether or not I liked it.

On the "what's more important, author's intent or creatively," I don't have a strong opinion, other than that is important to know and follow the rules for your event in whatever league you're competing in.

I prefer in HI, POI, and Duo fewer characters to more characters; 3-5 is perfect, more than that and it is likely I will get confused about your plot unless your differentiation between characters is exceptionally good.

I'm not the judge you want if you have a piece that pushes the envelope in terms of language, subjects for humor, and depictions of sex or violence.

My attitude towards blocking is that it should be in service of developing a character or making a plot point. I find myself writing comments like "I don't know what you were doing while you said XXXX" and "you doing XXXX is distracting" way more than I write comments like "need to add more blocking."

Policy

I judge this event extremely rarely, so if you have me judging you here, treat me like an old-school, traditional debate coach. You'll do best debating stock issues, disads, topicality, and fairly straightforward counter plans. I probably haven't judged many (or any) rounds on your topic. As I said earlier with LD, spreading is fine but probably not your "top speed" if your goal this year is to qual for/break at the TOC.

Sophie Wilczynski Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 4:48 AM CDT

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

theory - if you must

misc

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

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

prep ends when doc is saved

be nice & have fun

Caroline Yatsu Legacy HS 5 rounds

Harry Yu Stratford HS 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:38 AM CDT

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

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

Email: mhsdebateyu@gmail.com

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

Interp. Paradigm:

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

PF Paradigm:

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

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

LD Paradigm: (*updated for Glenbrooks 2023)

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

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

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

CX Paradigm:

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

Congress Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Login to Tabroom

Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas Austin

2017 — TX/US

PF Paradigm List

Judges