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!

I am open to all arguments and will do my best to adapt to you. I am very focused on my flow so be mindful when moving from one card/argument to the next to leave a gap or say "and" to clearly indicate motion. Slow down on authors and dates please.

CX: I'm a policy maker but am always open to other arguments. My main concern is whether or not you've proven the resolution is true or false.
Topicality/theory: I default competing interp. If there aren't good extensions or if it's a wash I probably won't vote here.
K: If the lit is obscure you'll need to explain it to me a little more than popular Ks. Feel free to ask.
Case: I want the aff to extend in every speech. I will likely not vote exclusively on case defense, so negs please have another voter.

LD: I'm very line-by-line driven, and focus on the flow. Be very specific with voters.
Value/criterion: Not a must-have, and in many rounds I judge I find debaters will spend time on this without ever impacting it as a voter. If you go for this, that is totally fine, but give a clear reason why it matters in determining the resolution's truth.
Pre-standards/observations: Fine with these, but I feel the more outlandish ones need a little more work to actually matter. In any case, it is important that these are answered and not dropped.
Off-case: totally fine and love to see it, so long as whoever runs any off has an understanding of how to run that argument.
NC: I tend to be less persuaded by strats that try to spread the aff thin and just go for whatever they drop/undercover, and while I won't stop you from doing that, I begin to err heavily in the aff's favor when they have four minutes to answer 4 off, respond to your case, and defend their own. In my opinion, it's better for debate for you to demonstrate your skills by thoroughly arguing a really good voter rather than throwing half-hearted args at your opponent to see what sticks.
Aff: The most frustrating part of judging LD is watching 1ARs that try to do line-by-lines on everything and drop part of the flow. I want to see a 1AR identify the reason the 1AC theoretically wins, extend that and respond to attacks against that premise, identify why the neg would theoretically win, and respond to that. The aff does not have to win every single argument in round to prove the resolution true, so show your skill by covering what you absolutely must in this small period of time. Too often I see 2ARs make good arguments that are too little too late, so do whatever it takes to give a 1AR that doesn't drop anything important (only drops stuff that isn't important) be it taking extra prep, going with opposing framework, etc.

Exp: I debated for four years at Winston Churchill High School in San Antonio, Texas between 2008-2012. I went to camps at UTNIF and GDI. And I've been judging since 2012. Needless to say policy debate and I go way back.

Overview: While I ended my debate career on the left side of argumentation, experimenting with form and critical theory, I would still bust out a strategic cp/D/A where strategy required. At this juncture I enjoy a great policy-oriented debate as much as I enjoy a well argued critical position. If your coach or buddy says they knew how I debated and high school and that you should do 'X' in front of me, disregard them. Be you. Do what you do best. Read the arguments you like to read, just take strategy into consideration.

How I Judge: I default to an offense/defense paradigm, regardless of whether critical or traditional arguments are being read. Given the nuanced uniqueness of the activity - that the rules can be debated while debating - I think it is important for debaters to establish their interpretations of what is acceptable through T, Theory, and Framework where it is applicable. It is on you to tell me how I should see the round, how I should evaluate the arguments within it and how I should vote. It's also on you to tell me what type of calculus to use when I vote (impact weighing, f/w, theory, etc). Should I be a utilitarian or should I look at the round in another way? What is the role of my ballot? Should an argument deemed theoretically objectionable in round be rejected or should the team that read it be voted down? You tell me.

Etiquette: Whether you think policy debate is a fun place to role play and prep for college or you think it is a revolutionary ground for X movement, above all this activity is two things: a student activity and an educational activity. As students, you are expected to interact on the spectrum between not rude and cordial. I understand that arguments can get heated, particularly those that a debater might have a personal connection with. Don't be afraid to express what you need to express and say what you need to say, but be mindful that stark disrespect and gratuitous foul language don't float in my boat. Be competitive, be authentic. As long as you are mindful of the line between competition and flat out aggression in terms of how you carry yourself, all should be well in my book.

Tech Considerations: Paperless debates tend to give me 1,001 headaches as a judge. A lack of proficiency amongst students causes rounds to drag on and reflects a lack of preparation. Ballpark estimate, I think 75% of you are bad at doing this in an efficient and effective manner. Don't be a statistic! Prep time ends when the flash drive is out or when the speech doc is sent.

I'm open to answering any specific questions pre-round.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Boyd%2C+Megan

For email chains and/or any questions: mvboyd@sbcglobal.net

Public Forum

I am open to both traditional and progressive styles. My only preference is that you debate the style that is most comfortable for you.

Framing: Please give me lens through which to view the round. If you don't give me any framing, I'm either going to vote based off your opponent's framing, or worst case scenario something completely arbitrary. It's incredibly difficult to judge a debate with two entirely different impacts and zero weighing mechanism. Please, please, please don't waste your time reading me definitions for literally every single word in the resolution.

Theory: This is public forum, I truly believe you have no time to read incredibly progressive and complex arguments here. If you want to, I will listen. However, keep in mind I am now four years out and have not kept up with the literature. With that being said, basic arguments relating to topicality, reasonability, and competing interps are always welcome.

CP/K/Aff Advocacy: Sure. I personally think the time constraints of PF make it hard to do any of these things, but that doesn't mean you can't pull it off in an abbreviated sense.

Flow: Now for what you all really came here for, I do not expect the second speaking team to extend offense in the first rebuttal. If you have time to extend offense, more power to you. I understand that four minutes is an incredibly short amount of time to attack your opponent's case then literally defend against all their attacks. This was literally never an issue when I debated and don't know who decided the second speaking team has to work twice as hard to win the round. If you actually want to waste your breath calling out your opponent in your two minute speech for not extending offense I will literally sit there and stare at you until you actually say something worthwhile. Your summary is your second, and final rebuttal. I expect you to take 1 or 2 (3 if you're fast) of the round's biggest arguments at this point. The final focus is not meant for line by line debate. At this point, hand me clear voters and call it a day.

Speed: Chances are if you are spreading in PF you're literally just doing it for clout points you won't get. Mind you, I'm not saying you cannot speak fast. I understand how short four minutes is to get through a lot of information. Speak as fast as you'd like, but I will tell you to stop if I nobody can discern a word you're saying.

Speaker Points: I don't hand out 29s or 30s. If you're looking for presentation points, I suggest you go ahead and strike me right now. If you have a pretty voice, but terrible argumentation skills I'm not your girl. A 29 from me is rare, but very possible. My range is generally 27.25-29.25. I don't tolerate racism, sexism, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, the list goes on. I will dock your speaks for those issues. If your opponent calls you out, you might even lose the round. If it's utterly abhorrent I will stop the round.

Lastly, I will not do any work for you. I'm not here to babysit you, or connect any dots that you may have missed. It is your job, and your job alone, to tell me why I should vote for you.

burdettnolan@gmail.com

Experience

I debated on the TFA and TOC circuits for 4 years in high school (2012-2016) and have been coaching and judging on/off for the last few years. I'm comfortable with speed and familiar with most arguments around the circuit. If there's anything else you need to know, just ask!

Paradigm

I will generally vote on any argument that is warranted, extended, explained with reference to the ballot, and does not create an unsafe space for students or participants involved. I encourage creativity with arguments and don't have strong feelings toward any specific style or type of position. I will not evaluate arguments that don't have warrants, even if they are conceded. Bad warrants are OK - they just have to be impacted to a ballot story.

I do not assume any particular role of the ballot or theory of debate - I will look at debate, education, and arguments in whatever way you tell me to. I do generally assume that my ballot must be connected to some decision-making paradigm and that my decision about the winner must stem from this paradigm, regardless of what that may be. I am open to diverse arguments that apply to debate in creative ways and will evaluate offense accordingly.

Evidence/Flowing

I tend to flow constructives off of speech docs and rebuttals by ear, even when there is a doc sent out. That means if you add an analytic in your constructive while in the middle of a speech doc, it is highly likely that I will miss it and not vote for it. Clarity, sign-posting, and spacing are really important to me because they help me flow. Flowing speeches well is hard. If your speeches are easier to flow, you will have an advantage.

I will only look at evidence if 1) It is explicitly called for in round 2) A warrant/explanation is mentioned that I do not have in speech 3) If I feel it is possible that evidence is being misrepresented. I generally think that debaters should be explaining the warrants in their evidence during speeches - but at the very least, tell me how good and warranted your evidence is in the speech so I can verify the claims you are making.

Speaker Points

I do not have an objective scale for awarding speaker points. I try to award them based on how well I feel a debater has performed relative to their own average performance (average being 28). But, if I think you deserve to break at the tournament you're at, I'll usually start with a 29. I acknowledge that this is not a perfect system but it is how I award speaks. If you are a stronger, more experienced debater hitting someone significantly less experienced: the way to get high speaks from me is to win the round effectively and efficiently with a clear ballot story, then continue to use the rest of your speech time to have an engaging debate with your opponent's position. The more educational, the better. I'm begrudgingly receptive to strategically sidestepping clash in most situations, but not this one - respond to their position, please!

Otherwise, I generally award speaker points based on strategy, execution, efficiency, creativity, performance, clarity, and personality.

Feedback

I give oral disclosures and feedback unless explicitly instructed not to. I try to spend a few minutes going through each speech offering feedback and constructive criticism. If you want to test out a new position, I'm a good person to innovate in front of - I'll try my best to give a few tips and thoughtfully engage with what you've written or put together.

Conclusion

Once again, if you have any questions or are confused by what's written above, just ask. I'm very open to questions. Otherwise, try to learn something, get along, and have some fun!

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Carranco%2C+Sophia

My paradigm for judging Lincoln-Douglas debates is simple. The goal of the each side is to persuade me that their side of the resolution should stand. I flow the debate. I track topics brought up in CX. I know which arguments were dropped by both sides. But L/D is not a T-chart enumerating each argument and whether or not it was countered. L/D can be won or lost on a single, coherent statement that effectively ties a contention to the criteria which is then reinforced by the definition and application of the value.

I want to see debates in which the debaters actually debate, rather than try to counter the opposition's every contention. That may seem like a distinction without a difference, so let me explain. If the two teams have different value standards and/or criteria for measuring those values, I want to know why they think their value and criteria are superior to the opposition. In CX, I am looking for penetrating questions regarding the basis of the opposition's value or criteria. (Why and How questions, not What.) Each side must make the other justify and defend their value & criteria. That is the real question we're looking to answer -- not that AFF put together 4 contentions and NEG only refuted 2 of them. If the two sides are using the same value but different criteria, that's even more fertile ground for justifying why your side is a better application of value to the topic than the opposition. Those are debates I love to judge. Debaters find those hard (and they are) because you have to think, often extemporaneously, and about big issues -- not just how to refute a certain contention. An Internet-bought case is not going to provide you with this information, by the way.

A word about speaking style. Without exception I find the speaking styles of debaters I judge to be extremely poor. Their heads are buried in a laptop (OMG!) or they are holding up their speech in front of them. In both cases an artificial barrier is created between the speaker and the judge. Can you imagine someone seeking public office holding a laptop or written speech up in front of their faces -- separating themselves from the audience they are trying to persuade? I don't really care if you got the topic yesterday or last summer. I expect the 1AC and 1NC to be prepared to an extent that it can be presented to me with passion, persuasion and impact. You can use notes or have points captured on a document, but simply reading something to me defeats the purpose of the debate.

Finally a word about speed. The faster you speak, the less persuasive you are. Imagine you are in rural Illinois in the mid-1800's trying to convince farmers and townspeople that you are the best candidate for US Senate. You would speak slowly, clearly, and with passion. You would not bury them with bullsh*t. You would have a point of view and spend the time you have speaking trying to convince the people your point of view is the best for them and their families. That is the model for Lincoln Douglas and it is the standard by which I judge.

I am a pretty tab LD judge. The more work you do on the flow, the less I will do when making my decision. I will hear any argument as long as you make it comprehensible. I want to intervene as little as possible in the decision as to be the most fair. The more explicit in meaning you are, the more helpful my feedback will be. I enjoy framework debates, especially when debaters know what they're talking about and can communicate it efficiently.

General things to keep in mind:

Speed is fine if you're clear and sufficiently summarize your extensions. If I cannot understand you, I will yell "clear".

If an argument is conceded, I will consider it to be true, even if it's absolutely ridiculous.

If an argument has NOT been conceded, I will consider true or false based upon which side's argument is more logical.

I have a lower standard for AR extensions, but don't abuse this. Clearly state the author.

Avoid strategies that require you to debase your opponent. For example, don't just call people racist even if you think their arguments lean that way. Explain why you think that specific argument is racist and then why racism is not a justifiable idea. People are NOT their ideas or what they argue for in a debate round. Taking this extra step is the difference between committing an ad hominem logical fallacy and making a compelling argument I can vote for. Besides that, calling people names is just rude and makes them feel bad :(. Remember that your opponent is a person too.

Be assertive, but respectful. Assholes may end up winning, but they will get speaker points low enough that it will likely prevent them from breaking.

*Bolded information is for skimming if you're short on time.

**Online Tournament Notes: I'll unmute and let you know if you're having audio problems. Still comfortable with speed, but ask that we slow down a couple of notches from top speed to account for lag.

Round Info:

Feel free to just call me Kay; pronouns are she/her. I did policy for four years at North Lamar High School and graduated in 2017. I am currently a full-time social worker, so I don’t judge as much as I used to, which means that my topic-specific knowledge isn’t super high this year.

If you are using an email chain, my email is kay.edwards1027@gmail.com. If you are flashing, I don't want the flash and I'll ask if I need a specific piece of evidence post-round.

Attaching to the flash/email isn't prep unless it's excessive. If you're moving stuff between documents or around inside the document, that should be on the clock. If anything gets excessive, I'll let you know to start prep again.

Philosophy (all events):

Debate should be about the arguments you find "best" for you. I am comfortable and equally happy in well-warranted policy debates as I am in well-warranted kritikal or performance debates. When not given another framing mechanism, I tend to default to an offense/defense paradigm. My general answer to what "should" be allowed in a round is that theory read/answered by the debaters will parse that out.

[added on 2/23/2023] - For the sake of transparency, I want to add a few caveats to the above. The more I listen to it, the more I've discovered that I have a pretty high threshold for voting on disclosure theory. Just something to be aware of if you choose to read it in front of me.

Speaker Points (all events):

I assign speaker points on strategic decision-making and organization (including signposting and coherent line-by-line). I will dock speaker points for excessive rudeness, demeaning others in the debate, and intentionally making offensive/discriminatory arguments or comments in the debate.

Easy Routes to my Ballot (policy but also everything else really):

1. You should construct the narrative you want on my ballot. This means that I don't want to have to fill in internal links, test truth claims, or filter your offense through the framing that wins the debate.

2. Consistency across speeches is important. That means I'm not voting on 2NR/2AR arguments from the 1AC/1NC that aren't in the block or 1AR. I also have a pretty high threshold for buying arguments that are shadow extended through the block/1AR.

3. I prefer evidence analysis/extension over card dumps. I very seldom find dumping cards onto the flow in the 2NC/2AC compelling if I'm not getting some articulation of how the evidence functions in the round.

LD Paradigm:

I'm fine with everything from more traditional value/criterion debate to more policy-style debates, performance debates, etc. Have the debate you want and are most comfortable having. That being said, some of the less common LD arguments (skep, NIBs, etc.) are pretty out of my wheelhouse and will require some serious explanation for me to understand them enough to feel comfortable voting on them.

One other thing I like to add for LD'ers: winning framework (morality good, util good, etc.) isn't enough to win the debate if you aren't winning a piece of offense through your framing. I won't do the work of weighing your offense for you, either, so please show me how your offense connects to your framing.

PF Note (updated September 2020): I don't judge very much PF, but you all ask this question, so I'll go ahead and make it easy on you: defense isn't sticky. If you want me to vote on it, I need to be able to track the argument from speech to speech.

Feel free to email or talk to me in person before or after the round with any questions that come up!

TLDR: I am pretty tab and will vote on anything so long as its not morally repugnant and you tell me why it matters.

I would like to be on the email chain; Katyaaehresman@gmail.com . please time yourselves, flashing isnt prep unless its egregious. Let me know what pronouns you use & pls abide be your opponents pronouns.

Extensions of an aff arent 'overviews to the 1ar'.. they are just on case.. you prob want me to extend them n the flow not in a clump... idk why this is a trend

on this - i tend to haave a higher threshold for extensions, you need a warrant and impact for me to vote on it.

If things get uncomfortable, you need to leave because of mental health/personal safety reasons etc. just message me or knock on the table & give me some look and you will be allowed to go get water/we can stop the round/whatever is best in that situation. Debate should be safe & accessible in order to get these ~portable skillz~ all the kids are talking about.

Short version: Give me some sort of framework to weigh offense under or tell me why the impacts that you are winning are the top layer and I will be happy. I try to do as little work for you as possible so if you didn’t do big picture analysis or weighing the I’ll have to cipher through flows to make a more arbitrary decision and then we are all sadbois. You can read anything you want, though I am probably better at evaluating K/Larp debates and worse at evaluating dense Phil/friv theory debates ~~~ do with that what you will. I care about how you treat one another in round so if you are being obnoxious or problematic in anyway to your opponent, I will start dropping your speaks and if its irredeemable then I won’t vote for you. *shrug emoji* If you are worried about your behavior then… err on the side of being nice?????

Long Version:

I think paradigms are supposed to be more like what sorts of strategies I like to see on each type of flow to help you W30 in front of me so these are things that make me very happy:

Ks:

• Great, love them
• Pls win some sort of link or a reason why me voting for you matters & WARRANT it - I will probably call you on just regurgitating tags if that’s all you do for extensions.. do work please
• Performance is fine, the resolution isn’t always necessary as a stasis point if you tell me why - but I don’t have a default on this.
• PIKs are fine, be clear on what exactly you (my ballot) is solving for
• Subsequently I can be persuaded by PIKs bad, again just warrant it and do top level weighing

K affs:

• Again, love these! Read a wide spectrum of them myself.
• Apply strategy/framing issues from the K section here too
• Win why either talking about the topic is bad, your approach to talking about the topic is better, why your method or approach is good etc. and importantly what happens when I sign aff on the ballot.
• Don’t shy away from your off in the 1AR - a big pet peeve of mine is when debaters invest a lot of work into a solid K aff that has warrants about why your pedagogy or performance comes first and then you kick it and go for theory or barely extend it and the round comes down to the neg flows… don’t be like this

Performance:

• This is great, I love this - go for whatever you feel like/want, make the round your own - again just warrant why its important and importantly what my role in endorsing your performance is/why the round is important for this medium.

DAs:

• Great, some of my favorite debates are really good topical, substantive larpy rounds
• Give me clear impact calculus/ an internal link story
• I don’t think there are really many paradigm issues surrounding DAs normally… ask me whatever

CPs/PICs:

• Great and super strategic
• CP/Pic theory also viable - I don’t really have a default on pics good/bad but am probably persuaded that its good to test the policy of the aff from different angles
• Analytic, actor, delay etc. Cps are fine - just warrant solvency & competitiveness and give me some sort of net benefit to your world
• This is true with DAs too but try to give me some comparative worlds weighing, again - tell me where & why to vote

Theory:

• Have a low threshold for frivolous theory, would prefer people to just have substantive debate but I am very receptive to engagement and in round abuse preventing topical clash
• Just warrant an abuse story
• Go slow on interps

T/framework:

• very open to this
• If you’re hitting a k aff then try to weigh offense from the shell under the k fw - do interactions or clear layering, these debates get v messy v quick

Phil:

• Slow down a bit on long analytic dumps
• Err towards over-explaining phil warrants

Speed/speaks:

• Go as fast as you want but emphasize clarity
• I give speaks based off of strategy not speaking quality but strategy requires me to flow it and so clarity is somewhat necessary for that
• I will tank your speaks if you are rude, aggressive, say something morally repugnant, demeaning to your opponent etc. so pls don’t do this

I'll listen to anything but am generally not a great judge. Especially bad with philosophy and kritiks. 

Good luck and don't be late for rounds. 

Congress Judge-I want to hear evidence in your speech. Your opinion does not usually impact the speech very much. Try to address issues brought up by other members of the chamber. Try to avoid rehashing positions unless you are giving very late speeches. I am fairly hard on the PO. I expect them to know the procedures and pay attention. Slowing the chamber down a bit to avoid mistakes is better than going quickly and making errors that get called out.

Speech Events-I am not a speech judge normally. I will fill in for OO, Info, and Extemporaneous Rounds as needed. Anything beyond these speech events, I have not judged or have less than 3 rounds total in my life. I will look towards the piece as a whole. A typical selection that is POI, HI, DI, or Duo/Duet will mean very little to me as I really do not have the background to judge if a piece is a great standard. As such, I will be looking for pieces that make me feel like the performance was a selection or segment of the real life situation that is unfolding. I have watched a few pieces performed that were so real, the actor could have been the author of the selection.

I debated for three years at Claudia Taylor Johnson High School in San Antonio, Texas, between 2008-2011. Before that, I did middle school debate; so I entered high school with a fair understanding of LD and continued with that style of debate through HS. And I've been judging since 2010 (novice judging until I graduated in 2012 then I became a hired judge). Needless to say, debate and I go way back.

Overview: I began my debate experience as a traditional, value-driven LD debater. After winning my first novice tournament in HS, my coach required I compete in VLD and I competed against a girl from Hockaday. I learned VERY quickly how I needed to adapt to the ever-changing style of debate. I taught myself speed, off-cases, policy-style debating and have an appreciation for the new style of debate. I also appreciate nods to the older style.

How I Judge: I default to offense/defense, unless I am persuaded to judge differently. I typically let you lead the round and I will do exactly what you tell me and write exactly where you tell me but I will NOT do your job for you. It is completely up to you to tell me how to see the round, evaluate the arguments, and vote. It's also up to you to tell me how to weight the round/vote (impact, theory, etc). Also, I do not appreciate or accept new arguments (or the revival of a dropped argument) in the last speech. Unless it follows my line-by-line in the flow, I typically don’t even write it down.

I am a firm believer and advocate for this competitive sport/activity being an educational experience. Knowing this, you should know that I do not accept or tolerate inappropriate behavior, language, and belittling. In any way. If you are a 4 year debater who knows policy-style LD, don’t treat the traditional novice like a kindergartner. Treat them with PROFESSIONALISM and just plain kindness. This is a competition/tournament, so make sure that you are showing your “good sportsmanship”.

I also don’t time debate rounds for you. I do it for myself to weight your time management.

I'm open to answering any specific questions before starting the round.

grossly overqualified parent judge

Current affiliations: Director of PF at NSD-Texas, Taylor HS

Prior: LC Anderson (2018-23), John B. Connally HS (2015-18), TDC,UTNIF LD

Email chain migharvey@gmail.com; please share all speech docs with everyone who wants them

Quick guide to prefs

Share ALL new evidence with me and your opponents before the speech during which it is read. Strike me if this is a problem. A paraphrased narrative with no cards in the doc does not count. This is an accommodation I need and a norm that makes debate better. I have needed copies of case since I was a high school debater. Even with me complaining about this, it often doesn't seem to make a difference. The maximum amount of speaks you can get if you don't share your constructive with me is 28.4 and that's if you are perfect. This guideline does not generally apply to UIL tournaments or novice debate rounds unless you are adopting national circuit norms/speaking style

PF:

Tech > truth unless it's bigoted or something

Unconventional arguments: fine, must be coherent and developed (K, spec advocacies, etc)

Framing/weighing mechanism: love impact framing that makes sense; at the very least do meta-weighing. "Cost-benefit analysis" is not a real framework. Must be read in constructive or top of rebuttal

Evidence sharing/disclosure: absolutely necessary but i won't ever vote for a disclosure shell that would out queer debaters. I will err toward reasonability on disclosure if there is contact info on the wiki and/or the case is freely shared a reasonable time before round.

Theory: I am gooder than most at evaluating theory but don't read it if you don't know how. Evidence ethics is very very very very very important

Speed: Fine. Share speech docs

Problematic PF bro/clout culture: ew no

Weighing: wins the majority of PF debates, especially link weighing

Default: offense/defense if there's no framing comparison or reason to prefer one method of weighing

Flow: yes, i flow

Sticky defense: no

LD/Policy:

LARP/topicality/MEXICAN STUFF: 1+

1-off ap, setcol, cap/1nc non-friv theory: 1-2

kant without tricks: 1-2

deleuze/softleft/psycho/non-pess black studies: 2

most other k/nt aff: 3

rawls/non-kant phil/heavy fw: 3-4

Baudrillard/performance: 4-5

queer pess/tricks: probably strike although I'm coming around on spikes a little bit

disability pess/nonblack afropess: strike if you don't want to lose

UIL: Pretty much anything is fine if it gets us through the round with minimal physical or emotional damage. Try to stay on the line by line. Read real evidence. Weigh, please. For CX, maybe don't read nontopical affirmatives against small schools or novices. For LD, make sure your offense links to your framing and that you have warranted justifications for your framework. Read on for further details

TLDR: Share speech docs. Don't be argumentatively or personally abusive. Debate is a game, but winning is not the only objective. Line by line debate is important. No new case extensions in 2AR or final focus. I will intervene against bigotry and disregard for others' physical and mental wellness. I don't disclose speaks, sorry :). I promise I'm trying my best to be nice. LD and policy-specific stuff at the bottom of this doc. I love Star Wars. I will listen to SPARK, warming good, and most impact turns but I generally believe that physical death is not good. Pronouns he/him/his.

Speaks range: usually between 27 and 29.8. 28.5 is average/adequate. I usually only give 30s to good novices or people who go out of their way to make the space better. If you are a man and are sexist in the space I will hack your speaks.

Note on ableism: It is upsetting for me personally to hear positions advocating unipolar pessimism, hopelessness, or the radical rejection of potential futures or social engagement/productivity by the disabled or especially the neurodivergent subject.DO NOT read disability pessimism/abjection or pandering arguments about autism to get me to vote for you. You will lose automatically, sorry

Post-rounding: I can't handle it. This includes post-rounding in email after rounds. I am autistic and it is psychologically and behaviorally triggering for me. I'll take the blame that I can't handle it, just please don't.

Afropessimism: I will vote you down regardless of any arguments made in the round if you or your partner aren't Black and you read afropess. Watch me I'll do it

I have the lowest threshold you can possibly imagine for a well-structured theory argument based on the refusal to share evidence not just with me but with your opponents.

Long version:

Personal abuse, harassment, or competitive dishonesty of any kind is strictly unacceptable. Blatantly oppressive/bigoted speech or behavior will make me consider voting against a debater whether or not the issue is raised by their opponent. If a debater asks you to respect and use preferred pronouns/names, I will expect you to do so. If your argument contains graphic depictions of racial, sexual, or otherwise marginalizing violence, please notify your opponent. Also see mental health stuff below, which is personally tough to hear sometimes. You do not need to throw trigger warnings onto every argument under the sun, it can be trivializing to the lived experience of the people you're talking about. Blatant evidence ethics violations such as clipping are an auto-voter. Try not to yell, please; my misophonia (an inconvenient characteristic shared by a lot of autistic people) makes unexpected volume changes difficult.

Our community and the individual people in it are deeply important to me. Please do your part to make debate safe and welcoming for competitors, judges, coaches, family members, and friends. I am moody and can be a total jerk sometimes, and I'm not so completely naive to think everything is fluffy bunnies and we'll all be best friends forever after every round, but I really do believe this activity can be a place where we lift each other up, learn from our experiences, and become better people. If you're reading this, I care about you. I hope your participation in debate reflects both self-care and care for others.

(cw: self-harm)

Mental and emotional well-being are at a crisis point in society, and particularly within our activity. We have all lost friends and colleagues to burnout, breakdown, and at worst, self-harm. If you are debating in front of me, and contribute to societal stigmas surrounding mental health or belittle/bully your opponent in any way that is related to their emotional state or personal struggles with mental wellness, you will lose with minimum speaks. I can't make that any more clear. If you are presenting arguments related to suicide, depression, panic, or self-harm, you must give a content warning for me. I am not flexible on this and will absolutely use my ballot to enforce this expectation.

PF: Speed is fine. Framing is great (actually, to the extent that any weighing mechanism counts as framework, I desire and enthusiastically encourage it). Framing should be read in constructive or at the TOP of rebuttal. Nontraditional PF arguments (K, theory, spec advocacies) are fine if they're warranted. Warrants in evidence matter so much to me.

PF Theory: I agree with the thesis behind disclosure theory, though I am less likely to vote on it at a local or buy an abuse story if the offending case is straightforward/common. Disclosure needs to be read in constructive. Don't read theory against novices. I will have a low threshold for paraphrasing theory if the violation is about the constructive and/or if the evidence isn't shared before the speech. Don't be afraid to make something a paragraph shell or independent voter (rather than a structured shell) so long as the voter is implicated.

I will always prefer evidence that is properly cut and warranted in the evidence rather than in a tag or paraphrase of it, especially offense and uniqueness evidence. I have an extremely LOW tolerance for miscut or mischaracterized evidence and am just *waiting* for some hero to make it an independent voter.. So nice, I’ll say it twice: Evidence ethics arguments have a very low threshold.

DO NOT PERPETUATE THE TOXIC, PRIVILEGED MALE PF ARCHETYPE. You know *exactly* what I’m talking about, or should. Call that stuff out, and your speaks will automatically go up. If you make the PF space unwelcoming to women or gender minorities, expect L25 and don’t expect me to feel bad about it.

I absolutely expect frontlining in second rebuttal, and will consider conceded turns true. I will not vote on new arguments or arguments not gone for in summary in final focus. No sticky defense.

"It's not allowed in PF" is not by itself a warranted argument.

Crossfire: If you want me to use something from crossfire in my RFD, it needs to be in subsequent speeches. I am not flowing crossfire; I am listening but probably also playing 2048 or looking at animal pictures. I don't really care if you skip Grand, but I won't let you use that practice as an excuse to frontload your prep use then award yourselves extra prep time.

LD/Policy Specifics:

Speed: Most rates of delivery are usually fine, though I love clarity and I am getting older. If you are not clear, I will say "clear." Slow down on tags and analytics for my sake and for your opponent's sake, especially if you don’t include your analytics in the doc. For online debates, the more arguments that are in the doc the better. I will listen to well-developed theoretical or critical indictments of spreading, but it will take some convincing.

Kritik: I have a basic understanding of much of the literature. Explain very clearly why I should vote and why your opponent should lose. For me, "strength of link" is not an argument applicable to most kritik rounds - I ask whether there is a risk of link (on both sides). Your arguments need to be coherent and well-reasoned. "Don't weigh the case" is not a warranted argument by itself - I tend to believe in methodological pluralism and need to be convinced that the K method should be prioritized. A link is *not* enough for a ballot. Just because I like watching policy-oriented rounds doesn't mean I don't understand the kritik or will hack against them. If you link to your own criticism, you are very unlikely to win. I believe the K is more convincing with both an alternative and a ballot implication (like most, I find the distinction between ROB and ROJ somewhat confusing).Please be mindful and kind about reading complicated stuff against novices. It is violent and pushes kids out of debate.

Theory/T: Fine, including 1AR theory. Just like with any other winning argument, I tend to look for some sort of offense in order to vote on either side. I don't default to drop the debater or argument. My abuse threshold on friv shells is much higher. I will not ever vote for a shell that polices debaters' appearance, including their clothes, footwear, hair, presentation, or anything else you can think of (unless their appearance is itself violent). I'll have a fairly high threshold on a strict "you don't meet" T argument against an extremely common aff and am more likely than not to hold the line on allowing US/big-ticket affs in most Nebel debates. One more thing - all voters and standards should be warranted. I get annoyed by "T is a voter because fairness and education" without a reason why those two things make T a voter. I don't care if it's obvious. Don't abuse theory against inexperienced debaters. A particularly egregious example would be to read shells in the 1AC, kick them, and read multiple new shells in the 1AR. Underviews and common spikes are fine. Please, I strongly prefer no tricks or excessive a prioris.A little addendum to that is that I do like truth testing as an argument, but not to justify skep or whatever dopey paradox makes everything false

Frameworks: Fine with traditional (stock or V/C), policy, phil, K, performance, but see my pref guide above for what I am most comfortable evaluating. While I don't think you have to have your own framework per se, I find it pretty curious when a debater reads one and then just abandons it in favor of traditional util weighing absent a distinct strategic reason to do so. I think TJF debates are interesting, but I seldom meet frameworks that *can't* be theoretically justified. Not sure if there's a bright line other than "you need to read the justifications in your constructive," and I'm not sure how good that argument is. I will vote on permissibility/presumption, on which I often lean aff in LD/policy.

LARP: My personal favorite and most comfortable debate to evaluate. Plans, counterplans, PICs, disads, solvency dumps, case turns, etc. Argue it well and it's fine. I don't think making something a floating PIK necessarily gets rid of competition problems; it has to be reasoned well. I'm very skeptical of severance perms and will have to be convinced - my threshold for voting on severance bad is very low. Impact turns are underutilized, but don't think that means I want you to be bigoted or fascist. Cap/heg good are fine. I'm very skeptical of warming good but will vote for it. To the extent that anyone prefs me, and no one should ever pref me under any circumstances, LARPers ought to consider preffing me highly.

Condo: Be really, really careful before you kick a K, especially if it is identity-related - I think reps matter. I am more likely to entertain condo bad if there are multiple conditional advocacies. More likely to vote on condo bad in LD than policy because of time/strat skew. One conditional counterplan advocacy in LD or 2 in policy is generally ok to me and I need a clear abuse story - I almost never vote for condo bad if it's 1 conditional counterplan.

Flashing/Email/Disclosure: I will vote for disclosure theory, but have a higher threshold for punishing or making an example of novices or non-circuit debaters who don't know or use the wiki. Reading disclosure at locals is silly. Lying during disclosure will get you dropped with 25 speaks; I don't care if it's part of the method of your advocacy. If you're super experienced, please consider not being terrible about disclosure to novice or small-school debaters who simply don't know any better. Educate them so that they'll be in a position to teach good practices in future rounds. My personal perspective on disclosure is informed by my background as a lawyer - I liken disclosure to the discovery process, and think debate is a lot better when we are informed. I won't vote on disclosure theory against a queer debater for whom disclosure would potentially out them. One caveat to prior disclosure is that I do conform to "breaking new" norms, though I listen to theory about it. In my opinion, the best form of disclosure is open-source speech docs combined with the wiki drop-down list. Please include me on email chains. Even if you don't typically share docs, please share me on speech docs - I can get lost trying to listen to even everyday conversation if I'm not able to follow along with written words. Seriously, I have cognitive stuff, please send me a speech doc.

Sitting/Standing: Whatever.

I do not care how you are dressed so long as your appearance itself is not violent to other people.

Flex prep/open CX: Fine in any event including PF. More clarity is good.

Performative issues: If you're a white person debating critical race stuff, or a man advocating feminism against a woman/non-man, or a cis/het person talking queer issues, etc., be sensitive, empathetic, and mindful. Also, I tend to notice performative contradiction and will vote on it if asked to. For example, running a language K and using the language you're critiquing (outside of argument setup/tags) is a really bad idea.

I do NOT default to util in the case of competing frameworks. If the framing debate is absolutely impossible to evaluate (sadly, it happens), I will try to figure out who won by weighing offense and defense under both mechanisms.

I tend to think plan flaw arguments are silly, especially if they're punctuation or capitalization-related. I have a very high threshold to vote on plan flaw. It has to be *actually* confusing or abusive, not fake confusing. I do like interp flaw arguments as defensive theory responses in the 1ar

I won't ever hack against trad debaters, but I am what you’d call a “technical” judge and if a debater concedes something terminal to the ballot, it’s probably game over. If you’re a traditional debater and the field is largely circuit debaters, your best bet to win in front of me is probably to go hard on the framework debate and either straight-turn or creatively group your opponent’s arguments.

Warrant all arguments in both constructives and rebuttals. An extended argument means nothing to me if it isn't explained. “They conceded it” is not a warranted argument.

Policy:

New for 2022: I'm older than most judges and I don't judge policy regularly anymore; I need you to slow down just a tick (300 wpm is fine if clear). I generally don't get lost in circuit LD rounds; think of that as your likely standard.

I was a policy debater and consultant at the beginning of my career. Most of this doc is LD and PF-specific, because those are the pools to which I'll generally be assigned. Most of what is above applies to my policy paradigm. I am most comfortable evaluating topical affirmatives and their implications, but I am a very flexible judge and critical/plan-less affs are fine. That said, just like in LD I like a good T debate and I will happily vote for TFW if it's well-argued and won. One minor thing is different from my LD paradigm: I conform a little bit more to policy norms in terms of granting RVIs less often in policy rounds, but that's about it. Obviously, framework debate (meaning overarching framing mechanisms, not T-Framework) is not usually as important in policy, but I'm totally down with it if that's how you debate. I guess a lot of policy debaters still default to util, so be careful if the other side isn't doing that but I guess it's fine if everyone does it. Excessive prompting/feeding during speeches may affect speaks, and I get that it's a thing sometimes, but I don't believe it's particularly educational and I expect whomever is giving the speech to articulate the argument. I am not flowing the words of the feeder, just the speaker. While I'm fairly friendly to condo advocacies in LD, I'm even more friendly to them in policy because of norms and speech times. I'll vote for condo bad, but it needs to be won convincingly - I'll likely err neg if it's 1 or 2 counterplans. Much more likely to vote for condo bad if one of the advocacies is a K that links to the counterplan(s).

Everyone: please ask questions if I can clarify anything. If you get aggressive after the round, expect the same from me and expect me to disengage with little to no warning. My wellness isn't worth your ego trip. I encourage pre-round questions. I might suggest you look over my paradigm, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask questions.

Finally, I find Cheetos really annoying in classrooms, especially when people are using keyboards. It's the dust. Don't test my Cheeto tolerance. I'm not joking, anything that has the dust sets me off. Cheetos, Takis, all that stuff. I get that it's delicious, but keep it the hell out of the academy.

I like all types of style of debate and can flow it all. I really love K arguments so if ran I need to be able to flow the clear link and alternative of your case. I debated in LD for three years in high school as well as my freshman year in college. I ALSO WANT TO PUT A BIG EMPHASIS ON VOTERS. Let me know why you won the round and why your opponent lost because it is very critical to highlight what I should look at after the round is over. I can also flow pretty fast so i am okay with spreading. Don't be shy to ask any extra questions before the round. 

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with. I will do my best to offer you the same consideration.

Doc Sharing

Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop.

Speed

I am old - likely 10 years older than you think if not more - this impacts debaters in two ways 1. I get the more triggered when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you are using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it to outspread your opponent then I am not your judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time. If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible. 2. I just cannot keep up as well anymore and I refuse to flow off a doc. I only have four functional fingers on one hand and both hands likely 65% what they used to be. This is especially true as the season moves along and at any tournament where I judge lot of rounds.

General Principle

I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).

Speaker Points

This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Do not docbot. If you do not intonate you are not debating you are reading and that is just frustrating to me. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.

Policy

Theory

I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.

Kritiks

A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).

Performance/Pre-Fiat

If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.

Competition

Arguments should be competitive otherwise they are just FYI. This means kritikal argument should likely be doing more than simply reading a topic link and moving on. All forms are perms are testable - I do not default to a view on severance/intrinsic - it's all debatable. I do default on perms do a test of competition. If you want to advocate the perm this should be clear from the get. A perm should have a text, and a net benefit in the opening delivery otherwise it is a warrantless argument.

Condo

In policy, (LD its all debatable) a few layers are fine - 4+ you are testing the limits and a persuasive condo bad argument is something I would listen to for sure. What I am absolute about is the default. All advocacy are unconditional unless you state in your speech otherwise. No this is not a CX question. You should be saying, I present the following conditional CP or the like, explicitly. Not doing this and then attempting to kick it means an advocacy shift and is thus debatable on theory.

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

I note above that I cannot keep up as much anymore. If your approach is to spam theory (which is increasing a norm in LD) I am not capable of making coherent decisions. I will likely be behind on the flow. I am trying to conceptualize your last blip in a manner to flow and you are making the 3rd or 4th. Then I try to play catch up, but argument is in the wrong place on the flow and it is written as a partial argument. I am not against theory - I loved theory as a debater, but your best approach is to go for a couple shell at most in the NC and likely no more than 1 in the 1AR if you want me to be in the game at all. This is not to say I would not vote on potential abuse/norm setting rather keep your theory to something you want to debate and not using it just a strategic gamesmanship is best approach if you want a coherent RFD.

Disads/CPs/NCs

I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.

Philosophy/Framework Debate

I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might be and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.

Public Forum

I have very frustrated feeling about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.

1. Debate

If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.

2. Speech

If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.

If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.

Theory

I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.

Framework

I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.

Finally Word for All

I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.

Experience:
I am the head coach at Plano West. I was previously the coach at LC Anderson. I was a 4-year debater in high school, 3-years LD and 1-year CX. My students have competed in elimination rounds at several national tournaments, including Glenbrooks, Greenhill, Berkeley, Harvard, Emory, St. Marks, etc. I’ve also had debaters win NSDA Nationals and the Texas State Championship (both TFA and UIL.)

Email chain: robeyholland@gmail.com

PF Paradigm

· You can debate quickly if that’s your thing, I can keep up. Please stop short of spreading, I’ll flow your arguments but tank your speaks. If something doesn’t make it onto my flow because of delivery issues or unclear signposting that’s on you.

· Do the things you do best. In exchange, I’ll make a concerted effort to adapt to the debaters in front of me. However, my inclinations on speeches are as follows:

o Rebuttal- Do whatever is strategic for the round you’re in. Spend all 4 minutes on case, or split your time between sheets, I’m content either way. If 2nd rebuttal does rebuild then 1st summary should not flow across ink.

o Summary- I prefer that both teams make some extension of turns or terminal defense in this speech. I believe this helps funnel the debate and force strategic decisions heading into final focus. If the If 1st summary extends case defense and 2nd summary collapses to a different piece of offense on their flow, then it’s fair for 1st final focus to leverage their rebuttal A2’s that weren’t extended in summary.

o Final Focus- Do whatever you feel is strategic in the context of the debate you’re having. While I’m pretty tech through the first 3 sets of speeches, I do enjoy big picture final focuses as they often make for cleaner voting rationale on my end.

· Weighing, comparative analysis, and contextualization are important. If neither team does the work here I’ll do my own assessment, and one of the teams will be frustrated by my conclusions. Lessen my intervention by doing the work for me. Also, it’s never too early to start weighing. If zero weighing is done by the 2nd team until final focus I won’t consider the impact calc, as the 1st team should have the opportunity to engage with opposing comparative analysis.

· I’m naturally credulous about the place of theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD/CX, I default reasonability over competing interps and am inclined to award the RVI if a team chooses to pursue it. Don’t be surprised if I make theory a wash and vote on substance. Good post fiat substance debates are my favorite part of this event, and while I acknowledge that there is a necessity for teams to be able to pursue the uplayer to check abusive positions, I am opposed to this event being overtaken by theory hacks and tricks debate.

· I’m happy to evaluate framework in the debate. I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default Cost-Benefit Analysis.

· Don’t flow across ink, I’ll likely know that you did. Clash and argument engagement is a great way to get ahead on my flow.

· Prioritize clear sign posting, especially in rebuttal and summary. I’ve judged too many rounds this season between competent teams in which the flow was irresolvably muddied by card dumps without a clear reference as to where these responses should be flowed. This makes my job more difficult, often results in claims of dropped arguments by debaters on both sides due to lack of clarity and risks the potential of me not evaluating an argument that ends up being critical because I didn’t know where to flow it/ didn’t flow it/ placed it somewhere on the flow you didn’t intend for me to.

· After the round I am happy to disclose, walk teams through my voting rationale, and answer any questions that any debaters in the round may have. Pedagogically speaking I think disclosure is critical to a debater’s education as it provides valuable insight on the process used to make decisions and provides an opportunity for debaters to understand how they could have better persuaded an impartial judge of the validity of their position. These learning opportunities require dialogue between debaters and judges. On a more pragmatic level, I think disclosure is good to increase the transparency and accountability of judge’s decisions. My expectation of debaters and coaches is that you stay civil and constructive when asking questions after the round. I’m sure there will be teams that will be frustrated or disagree with how I see the round, but I have never dropped a team out of malice. I hope that the teams I judge will utilize our back and forth dialogue as the educational opportunity I believe it’s intended to be. If a team (or their coaches) become hostile or use the disclosure period as an opportunity to be intellectually domineering it will not elicit the reaction you’re likely seeking, but it will conclude our conversation. My final thought on disclosure is that as debaters you should avoid 3ARing/post-rounding any judge that discloses, as this behavior has a chilling effect on disclosure, encouraging judges who aren’t as secure in their decisions to stop disclosing altogether to avoid confrontation.

· Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions you may have before we begin the round, or email me after the round if you have additional questions.

LD/CX Paradigm

Big picture:

· You should do what you do best and in return I will make an earnest effort to adapt to you and render the best decision I can at the end of the debate. In this paradigm I'll provide ample analysis of my predispositions towards particular arguments and preferences for debate rounds. Despite that, reading your preferred arguments in the way that you prefer to read them will likely result in a better outcome than abandoning what you do well in an effort to meet a paradigm.

· You may speak as fast as you’d like, but I’d prefer that you give me additional pen time on tags/authors/dates. If I can’t flow you it’s a clarity issue, and I’ll say clear once before I stop flowing you.

· I like policy arguments. It’s probably what I understand best because it’s what I spent the bulk of my time reading as a competitor. I also like the K. I have a degree in philosophy and feel comfortable in these rounds.

· I have a high threshold on theory. I’m not saying don’t read it if it’s necessary, but I am suggesting is that you always layer the debate to give yourself a case option to win. I tend to make theory a wash unless you are persuasive on the issue, and your opponent mishandles the issue.

· Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you.

· I’m voting on substantive offense at the end of the debate unless you convince me to vote off of something else.

· You should strive to do an exceptional job of weighing in the round. This makes your ballot story far more persuasive, increasing the likelihood that you'll pick up and get high speaks.

· Disclosure is good for debate rounds. I’m not holding debaters accountable for being on the wiki, particularly if the debater is not from a circuit team, but I think that, at minimum, disclosing before the round is important for educational debates. If you don’t disclose before the round and your opponent calls you on it your speaks will suffer. If you're breaking a new strat in the round I won't hold you to that standard.

Speaks:

· Speaker points start at a 28 and go up or down from their depending on what happens in the round including quality of argumentation, how well you signpost, quality of extensions, and the respect you give to your opponent. I also consider how well the performance of the debater measures up to their specific style of debate. For example, a stock debater will be held to the standard of how well they're doing stock debate, a policy debater/policy debate, etc.

· I would estimate that my average speaker point is something like a 28.7, with the winner of the debate earning somewhere in the 29 range and the loser earning somewhere in the 28 range.

Trigger Warnings:

Debaters that elect to read positions about traumatic issues should provide trigger warnings before the round begins. I understand that there is an inherent difficulty in determining a bright line for when an argument would necessitate a trigger warning, if you believe it is reasonably possible that another debater or audience member could be triggered by your performance in the round then you should provide the warning. Err on the side of caution if you feel like this may be an issue. I believe these warnings are a necessary step to ensure that our community is a positive space for all people involved in it.


The penalty for not providing a trigger warning is straightforward: if the trigger warning is not given before the round and someone is triggered by the content of your position then you will receive 25 speaker points for the debate. If you do provide a trigger warning and your opponent discloses that they are likely to be triggered and you do nothing to adjust your strategy for the round you will receive 25 speaker points. I would prefer not to hear theory arguments with interps of always reading trigger warnings, nor do I believe that trigger warnings should be commodified by either debater. Penalties will not be assessed based on the potential of triggering. At the risk of redundancy, penalties will be assessed if and only if triggering occurs in round, and the penalty for knowingly triggering another debater is docked speaks.

If for any reason you feel like this might cause an issue in the debate let’s discuss it before the round, otherwise the preceding analysis is binding.

Framework:

· I enjoy a good framework debate, and don’t care if you want to read a traditional V/C, ROB, or burdens.

· You should do a good job of explaining your framework. It's well worth your time spent making sure I understand the position than me being lost the entire round and having to make decisions based on a limited understanding of your fw.

Procedurals:

· I’m more down for a topicality debate than a theory debate, but you should run your own race. I default competing interps over reasonability but can be convinced otherwise if you do the work on the reasonability flow. If you’re going for T you should be technically sound on the standards and voters debate.

· You should read theory if you really want to and if you believe you have a strong theory story, just don’t be surprised if I end up voting somewhere else on the flow.

· It's important enough to reiterate: Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you. Also, if you do not heed that advice there's a 100% chance I will miss some of your theory blips.

K:

· I’m a fan of the K. Be sure to clearly articulate what the alt looks like and be ready to do some good work on the link story; I’m not very convinced by generic links.

· Don’t assume my familiarity with your literature base.

· For the neg good Kritiks are the ones in which the premise of the Kritik functions as an indict to the truth value of the Aff. If the K only gains relevance via relying on framework I am less persuaded by the argument; good K debates engage the Aff, not sidestep it.

Performance:

· If you give good justifications and explanations of your performance I'm happy to hear it.

CP/DA:

· These are good neg strats to read in front of me.

· Both the aff and neg should be technical in their engagement with the component parts of these arguments.

· Neg, you should make sure that your shells have all the right parts, IE don’t read a DA with no uniqueness evidence in front of me.

· Aff should engage with more than one part of these arguments if possible and be sure to signpost where I should be flowing your answers to these off case positions.

· I think I evaluate these arguments in a pretty similar fashion as most people. Perhaps the only caveat is that I don't necessarily think the Aff is required to win uniqueness in order for a link turn to function as offense. If uniqueness shields the link it probably overwhelms the link as well.

· I think perm debates are important for the Aff (on the CP of course, I WILL laugh if you perm a DA.) I am apt to vote on the perm debate, but only if you are technical in your engagement with the perm I.E. just saying "perm do both" isn't going to cut it.

Tricks:

· I'm not very familiar with it, and I'm probably not the judge you want to pref.

Feel free to ask me questions after the round if you have them, provided you’re respectful about it. If you attempt to 3AR me or become rude the conversation will end at that point.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Hsun%2C+Kim

I debated for Stony Point High School in LD for 4 years at the local, state, and national level. I previously coached for Westlake High School. I am willing to listen to almost any argument.

I will usually ask for pronouns before/after the round. Include trigger warnings if appropriate. Be kind to your opponent. This does not mean “don’t be explicitly rude”, it means be kind.

Regardless of what argument you read, be clear about the strategic implications and have a thorough understanding of your own position. It can truly undermine your chances of winning a debate round if your case is poorly written or if you do not understand the implications of your own position.

General:

- Be clear and slow down on tags or anything you want to ensure that I flow.

- I prefer strategies that are explained at the meta level, do not just do detailed work on the flow and assume I know how this means you win the round. Explicit impacting will minimize judge intervention.

Speaker Points: I award points based on a combination of strategy and clarity (of speech not clarity of arguments). To be clear by strategy I mean how effective your strategy was in the round and whether it was purposeful.

Theory: I default to a competing interpretations paradigm for theory. I enjoy listening to unique and specific interpretations. If you have specific theory questions, feel free to ask.

Ks:

Please do not assume I am well versed in the literature/theory you are using. The more specific link arguments you have, the more compelling the kritik will be. If you plan on reading a long kritik with minimal explicit work on the aff flow, that is fine, but I need to see embedded interaction with the AC while the K is read. That means specific references to the AC. Do not rely on 1 or 2 generic links.

Policy Arguments: Specific evidence is better. The debater who does more comparative analysis and weighing usually wins these rounds.

I've been active in LD activity since 2001 with a few gaps. For example, I'm currently coaching a student while attending law school. As such, I have rarely judged during the last 2 years. Although arguments generally have not changed over time, the jargon used to express those arguments frequently have. Be cognizant of jargon and explain the argument rather than relying on jargon to ensure that we are on the same page.

I'm fine with K, Util, and Framework debates. Historically, I've competed and coached all three.

K/ROB: I'm extremely familiar with K literature, but not necessarily the literature that is currently in vogue (less knowledgeable on Deleuze as example). However, I can usually pick these arguments up quickly when explained. Things to be careful of when debating in front of me:

1) many K alts are shallow and are used as a means to bypass strong link chains. A K does not link to an AC merely because the alt is mutually exclusive and happens to solve a link chain.

2) ROB is theoretically a valid argument -- running a standard that is analogous to the K (minimize cap, black body, etc...) generally is not. ROB is generally sustained via critical pedagogy or epistemology links and no author who truly values knowledge production will limit knowledge to a single field without significant justification as to why. Merely saying a group is denied information isn't sufficient to then prioritize only a single piece of knowledge in all circumstances (created since the ROB is used to exclude other forms of knowledge and doesn't provide a weighing mechanism between competing structures). If you wish to establish that a particular form of knowledge production is critical, then you should be required to provide the actual justifications used by the author.

3) Try/Die arguments need to be explained. Merely stating it is "Try or Die" is not persuasive because the term has been diluted and used to justify every K approach. Try or Die means there is no alternative approach that could ever solve the injustice and therefore it is worthwhile to sacrifice your life to obtain the change -- this is how it gains weight. Merely stating it is "try or die" without explanation of how this is the ONLY method that will potentially resolve harms is meaningless.

Util debates: These debates tend to be straightforward. I have good understanding of how Util arguments fit together and play out. things to watch out for:

1) Extinction/Util args need solid link chains. For example, if you presume a nuclear terrorist impact you need to explain how terrorists A) want the weapons. B) have access to the material. C) have the capability to develop those weapons. A card that merely states X action -> nuclear terrorism is insufficient.

2) I'm less solid on politics -- I've evaluated many politics rounds, but never personally ran these arguments and have rarely coached students on them. As such, I will be less solid on the politics debate than other Util debates.

Framework debates: I've given lectures on how frameworks should be developed available on the web. If you're unsure whether you are addressing all of the necessary elements, refer to those lectures. Things to be aware of:

1) Skep triggers from one liners such as "the only motivation" don't make sense. This relies on winning the underlying claim that motivation is required which is generally contingent on other arguments. If you are winning those arguments, then skep wouldn't trigger. If you are losing those arguments, then your claim is false.

2) Framework philosophers used constantly shift. If you have a framework heavy case, I will likely call for cards early to ensure the round unfolds in context of the necessary framing and that I fully understand that framing. Do not be worried if this happens unless you do not plan to be held accountable to the theory.

General judging philosophy:

1) I will go off of my flow 1st and then call for cards later if deemed necessary. Since arguments require claim, warrant, impact to be valid -- I will look for these elements first before calling for a card. If the debate goes into nuances of a card, and I need to look beyond the text read in round to understand context of card, then I will call for the card to ensure I am accurately evaluating that nuanced debate. However, the basic elements of an argument will not be compensated for by calling for cards.

2) I'm fine with speed and will give cues to ensure debaters are within my threshold and are maintaining clarity.

3) I won't call for cards unless required. This means my flow may not be 100% accurate on author names. Signposting via author names exclusively may cause problems. If you reference the argument + author name, then no issues arise.

4) Taglines are irrelevant in my evaluation -- too often they do not match the analysis in the card. If the tagline doesn't match the analysis, then I will ignore the tagline. As such, be careful with extensions in which the tagline is being extended rather than the actual analysis.

5) Speaker points will be awarded based on clarity AND likelihood of success at tournament (higher speaker points for debaters who I'd expect to be in finals vs. quarters vs. breaking vs. 0-5).

6) Everything mentioned thus far is subject to how the round plays out. I will still go off of what both debaters tell me to do unless I'm morally opposed to such arguments (racism good, child molestation good, etc...). These are merely guidelines to help debaters understand my approach and provides a way for debaters to easily separate themselves from others.

Theory debates: I am convinced theory is a necessary evil. For the most part, debaters merely rehash arguments without truly understanding the context of those arguments (the actual abuse they were checking). Similarly, debaters establish rules without understanding what the implications of those rules are. Since the community has no good way to check theory without external help or judge interference, I am opting for the latter:

1) Topicality = theory... there is no difference. The fact that many debaters perceive a difference based on legitimacy illustrates my point that 99% of "theory" is illegitimate.

2) Threshold for theory will be: extreme abuse in which the opponent links but you don't. comparative worlds will not be evaluated. This works off of the real world: If you violated the law by stealing $500 and your opponent violated the law by stealing $600, both would go to jail/trigger the impact. If you can establish a bright line and separate the nature of abuse then I'll similarly listen to those arguments: stealing $100 is a misdemeanor whereas stealing $500+ is a felony. Both are forms of punishment but with different outcomes that may be valid (drop debater vs. drop argument). Since using this philosophy, i've voted for theory less than 5 times.

If you have any questions regarding the above judging philosophy or if you are uncertain if an approach will work, feel free to reach out.

Yes I want to be on the email chain: khan.aimun@gmail.com. In an effort to reward clarity, I will no longer look at docs until after the round.

Tldr: I don't care what you read. I like: 1) Good argument resolution that makes me not have to think, 2) Seeing smart strategic decisions, 3) Learning something because an argument I didn't understand before was explained well. I type fast but my flow gets messy when I'm not told where to flow things.

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

I graduated in 2016, debated in Texas and on the national circuit, and qualled to TOC my senior year. As a judge, my goal is to get out of the way of the debaters and let them do their thing. Since graduating I've become pretty familiar with different styles of debate, and I don't really care what you read as long as you read it well. Policy, K, phil, theory, tricks are all the same to me as long as I understand the argument resolution. I enjoy watching debaters make smart/strategic decisions much more than I care about the particular arguments being read.

I'm willing to vote on anything I understand by the end of the round if it's won (and warranted). If an argument is bad, the other debater should be able to point it out. My only exception to that rule is I will not evaluate actively problematic arguments e.g. racism good.

Things that get you good speaks (and make it more likely that I make the decision you want me to):

1) Spell it out for me. Some amount of implicit clash is inevitable, but the more I'm left to resolve on my own, the lower your speaks will be. If I'm left to resolve two arguments, I will look for the path of least intervention. Good collapses get good speaks. Tell me what to care about and what not to care about.

2) Make yourself easy to flow. Slow down on important things that you want to emphasize. It's really hard to get warrants down in blipstorms. I have trouble with flowing big blippy analytic dumps so go like 80% of your top speed.

3) Explaining complex theories in a way that is understandable to a non-debater or someone with no background in the literature base you're reading will get you high speaks. I appreciate slower thesis explanations at the top of the 2NR/2AR. If I learn something from the round because you explained an argument I didn’t understand well, your speaks will be great.

In short, the easier you make it to evaluate the round the better your speaks will be.

Other things that affect your speaks:

1) Err on the side of slightly over-explaining warrants and interactions between args.

2) If you're reading stuff on case, I'd appreciate if you tell me where to flow your arguments. Good line-by-lining of the 1AC/1NC, as opposed to card dumps, is a lost art. Good warrant-to-warrant comparison and smart analytic responses make rounds enjoyable, and I express that enjoyment in the form of speaker points.

3) If you're debating a novice and you knowingly spread them out of the round, the highest your speaks will be is a 28.5 and I won’t feel bad about going even lower. By contrast, if you're debating a novice and you slow down and explain things simply to them (in other words, if you make the round accessible), your speaks will be high. Just use your best judgment here and don’t be mean.

4) In theory or K rounds, tell me what your model of debate looks like and how that frames the way I evaluate things.

5) I'd prefer you be straight up about what you're reading. If someone asks where the a prioris are in the aff, say where the a prioris are in the aff.

6) Big pre-written overviews are generally not incredible at argument resolution, and fully doc'd out speeches can make it hard to know where to flow things. If you’re reading off a doc for most of the 2NR and it makes my life harder, your speaks will reflect that.

I've been a part of the activity for a little over a decade now and have judged pretty much everywhere. I'll briefly summarize how my thought process breaks down when I'm judging debates so that you have a pretty straightforward route to the ballot.

Framework

I always start by asking what we use to frame the debate (aka Framework). I'm pretty liberal in terms of my views on Frameworks that are acceptable in debates and will typically allow debaters to tell me what framing matters in each debate. The only exception of intervention would be frameworks that I personally find morally reprehensible (basically if your framework would advocate the removal/elimination/discrimination/otherization of groups/subjects I'm not going to be for it). I think a framework can take many forms and I am open to whatever that form takes. It can be theory args, Phil framing, Role of the Ballots, Larping, etc. As long as you can explain why your framing is the one that should be used to evaluate/weigh offense then I will accept it as my primary determination of offense.

After Framework, I look at the case or your Offense when evaluating my decision. I try to keep my biases out of debate but, admittedly, there are some arguments I am fond of and others that I'm skeptical of (this doesn't mean I will automatically vote for you if you read what I like or vice versa, it just means you might have some degree of difficulty or ease in convincing me to buy your f/w and arguments). I'll just make a list of what I like and dislike here and my reasoning for each one so you can see what arguments you want to go for:

Phil Positions: I'm pretty neutral to these positions and will accept nearly all of these arguments. I read a little bit of some Phil positions and have had students read authors such as Kant so I'm not too unfamiliar with the positions. I will certainly judge and accept these arguments as long as they are well-defended and easily explained. I have a fairly moderate threshold to responses towards these arguments and expect debaters to clash with the analysis and foundations of the arguments rather than just reading blocks of evidence and not making a good comparative analysis.

Ks: Admittedly, my favorite position. I love any argument that challenges any underlying assumptions being made by either the debaters or the topic. And I enjoy these arguments b/c I believe that they provide a level of argumentative flexibility and uniqueness to the positions. That said, I am not a fan of lazy K debate and will be able to pretty easily sniff out if you are reading arguments that you have no underlying understanding of (aka reading policy backfiles) vs. actually knowing the literature base. You should always make sure you explain the arguments effectively and why your position would resolve whatever harm you are Kritiking. Do that and you should be in good shape.

I also am a fan of performative responses to other arguments made in the debate. For example, using the K to clash with theory and claiming K comes prior is an argument that I enjoy seeing and have voted on more times than not, if it has been well explained and defended. This will be a good way to get extra speaker points.

Larping: I have a policy background so I am fine with people reading policy args in debate. Plans, CPs, DAs. I'm familiar with and can understand them. I'm not a huge believer that PICs are legitimate arguments and do have a fairly low threshold to answer these arguments. Just make sure to explain your internal links and your impact analysis and you should be good.

Theory: I believe that education is the internal link to fairness. That doesn't mean that you can't win otherwise, but I am biased in believing that the educational output of the activity is more relevant than the fairness created in the activity. That being said, I will evaluate theory and weigh it under whatever voters you make. My threshold on the responses to shells will flip depending on the interp. If the interp is clearly a time suck and designed to simply throw off your opponent or abuse them then I have a fairly low threshold for answers towards it. If it is a legitimate concern (Pics bad, Condo) then I have a fairly middle ground towards responses to it.

I default on reasonability unless specified otherwise in the debate.

I default RVI's unless specified otherwise and not for T (unless you win it)

Some other random items that you might be looking for:

Extensions

I need impacts to extensions and need extensions throughout the debate. For the Aff, this is as simple as just giving an overview with some card names and impacts.

When you are extending on the line by line be sure to tell me why the extension matters in the debate so I know why it's relevant

Speed

I am fine with speed in debate. I would prefer that both debaters understand each other and would ask that you spread within reason and be compassionate towards your opponents. If you know that you are debating someone that cannot understand the spread and you continue to do it bc you are going to outspread your opponent then you will most likely win, but your speaks will be absolutely nuked.

Tricks

Tricky args like permissibility and the args that fall under these, I'm not a fan of. I think that these args are fairly lazy and don't believe that there is much educational value to them so I tend to have a low threshold to responses towards these args. And, if you win, you're not going to get great speaks from me.

Speaks

I give speaks based on strategic decisions and interactions with your opponents as opposed to presentation and oratory skills. I usually average a 28.5

Disclosure

If you're at a local tournament, I don't expect there to be disclosure from debaters and don't really care too much about disclosure theory. My threshold is really low to respond to it. If it's a national circuit or state tournament, then I would prefer you disclose but will always be open to a debate on it.

I do not disclose speaks but will disclose results at bid tournaments. I will not disclose for prelim locals, for the sake of time.

Email for chain is: jacob.koshak@cfisd.net

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.

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.

Debated for Winston Churchill High School (TX). Debated at Texas. Camps worked at: VBI, Baylor, UTNIF.

Email: jacoblugo101@gmail.com

Please have the email chain ready as soon as both opponents meet before the round.

A few thoughts:

• I consider my role in the debate is to decide who did the better debating.
• I prefer for there to not be any room in the debate to input my own opinions. Prefer debates to be as clean and explicit as possible to make the most objective decision.
• I'll listen to most any type of argument. Not a fan of vacuous theory arguments or paragraphs of spikes/preempts (most pertinent to LD).
• I tend to/prefer to flow on paper. Take that into consideration. If you see me flowing on my computer, be mindful when you are transitioning between arguments.
• I flow what you say. Not looking at the doc during speeches unless I have absolutely no idea what you are saying (at which point I will stop flowing and stare at you until you notice). I read the docs between speeches/during CX/after the round.
• Please slow down during analytics. For some reason people tend to read through these faster and faster every year.
• I'm very expressive. My face is a good indicator of where the debate is going.
• If I'm absolutely unsure of what is going on/no arguments have been made, I'm most likely going to err neg.
• I'm always listening.
• Speaker points: I like to be entertained. I care about pathos. I enjoy creative and strategic argumentation. I generously doc speaks if I feel that you are being unnecessarily rude.

I am a traditional judge and listen for structure in argumentation.

I highly value clear communication. Debaters should articulate their arguments logically, with well-structured speeches. Signposting and clear transitions are crucial for guiding me through the flow of the round. Avoid rapid speech that sacrifices clarity for speed. Analytical depth, backed by evidence and examples, is essential for winning. Show me how your arguments interact with those of your opponents. I prefer well-researched and credible sources. Maintaining a respectful demeanor towards opponents, partners, and the judge is crucial. Avoid personal attacks, derogatory language, or any behavior that undermines the respectful atmosphere of the round. Politeness and courtesy are highly valued.

The primary role of my ballot is to determine which team presented the more compelling case and debating skills. My decision is based on the arguments presented in the round and not influenced by personal biases. I am open to various debate styles and appreciate creative and effective strategies.

Current coach/DOF at Lindale High School.

For email chains: mckenziera @ lisdeagles.net

CX - This is where I have spent the majority of my time judging. While I am comfortable judging any type of round, my preference is a more traditional round. Debate rounds that are more progressive (kritikal affs, performance, etc...) are totally fine, but you'll do best to slow down and go for depth over breadth here. I think that judges are best when they adapt to the round in front of them. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

LD - Despite judging policy debate most, I was raised in a traditional value and criterion centric area. Still, I think that policy debates in LD are valuable. See my notes above about progressive argumentation. They're fine, but you'll probably need to do a few things to make it more digestible for me. Again, though, you do you. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

PF - I judge only a few PF rounds a year. I'm not up-to-date on the trends that may be occurring. I naturally struggle with the time restraints in PF. I generally feel like teams often go for breadth instead of depth, which I think makes debate blippy and requires more judge intervention. I'd rather not hear 20 "cards" in a four minute speech. Framework is the most reliable way to construct a ballot. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

Congress - Speeches should have structure, refutation, research, and style. Jerky Parliamentary Procedure devalues your position in the round.

Speech - Structure and content are valued equally. I appreciate, next, things that make you stand out in a positive way.

Interp - Should have a purpose/function. There's a social implication behind a lot of what we perform. I value great introductions and real characters.

I like to see value and Criterion clash. I like to have a well organized debate going first through the main arguments of the round and explaining how your case better achieves the resolution. If you have been able to attain your stance  and destroy your opponents or at least explain why your stance is better than you will have persuaded me to vote for you. 

Former University of Texas at Austin Policy Debater

2x NDT Qualifier

I debated LD for Winston Churchill HS in San Antonio for 3 years with two state quals. I was a traditionalist in my approach to LD, although I experimented with policy argumentation. I have estranged myself from the world of debate since graduation so i am not 100% the debater I once was (which wasn't a whole lot tbh :P) so best bet is to assume you are better than I am and make your arguments simple to digest.

If you want good speaks, do/don't do this:

-Speak with clarity and articulation. (i can handle speed if you aren't mumbling, gasping, or just generally hard to understand)

- Be non-confrontational toward your opponent. (Basically don't be a sarcastic ass)

- Logical argument progression with good signposting, i don't want to have to flip back and forth flows or have to guess where you want me to flow your arguments.

- Don't extend arguments in diminutive, insignificant blips. Explain how or why your argument addresses your opponent's, because if I don't understand what the connection is, you might as well have just skipped the argument and saved the time.

- Don't make your strat an obvious attempt to gimp your opponent (EX: don't run multiple policy arguments agains every AFF just because you think they are edgy and hard to understand)

Things That I Will Straight Up Ask You To Stop Speaking And Then Drop You For:
-Sexism, racism, homophobia, and any general offensive comments or behavior
-Impact turning oppression arguments (I will never vote on oppression good. Sorry not sorry.)
-Doing anything explicit that makes your opponent, myself, or anyone else in the room feel unsafe

Theory/T:

- Not my favorite kind of round to arbitrate to be perfectly honest. Frivolous theory is among my greatest pet peeves. This is not to say that you can not run theory in front of me, especially if you and I notice obvious abuse from the opposing debater, but keep it relevant to the round and try not to just drop all substantive topic focused debate on a dime because theory was introduced.

Final note: If you consider yourself a skilled debater, or your strategy for debating is one that appeals to more complex rounds, air on the side of caution, and if it helps, treat me like a lay judge. Lets all remember that this is an activity that we engage in (hopefully) for enjoyment and enrichment, so don't debate like you have a chip on your shoulder. Relax and have FUN!

About Me:

NLHS Policy 2013-2017

UT 2017-2021 (just judging, no debate)

A&M Law 2021-

Top Level

Email for chain: steelemusgrove17@gmail.com

Email for contact: steelemusgrove@yahoo.com

The easiest thing I can tell you about my paradigm is that I am tab. I'll vote on anything, and I essentially ran anything while I was in high school, so you're not going to lose me in running any of your favorite arguments.

Further in-depth stuff (this is primarily for policy, but can be cross-applied to LD (or PF I guess)):

When I say I'm tab that means that I will vote in any framework you give me, don't mistake that for if you win the framework you win the round (this is especially true in traditional LD). I have voted for teams that lose the framework debate, but still had better offense under the opposing framing. Therefore, you need to both win your framework and meet that framework better than the opponent to win the round. However, if you don't run a framework I default to an offense-defense paradigm where I vote on whichever team has managed to generate the most offense.

If you're baffled by a decision it is because you did not warrant. I am a stickler for warranting, especially in extensions, and if you don't extend a warrant, even over a dropped argument, then I'm not doing that work.

Kritiks

Like I said, I'm tab, so naturally I'm fine with/a fan of Ks. I am NOT a fan of 2NC/2NR overviews of kritikal buzzwords that do nothing to advance debate in the round. I'm not 100% read on all K literature, so if you're going to use technical terminology - define them, tell me how they relate to your alt, to the link debate, and to the aff. Line-by-line is generally much easier for me to flow and understand a K debate.

That being said, I would avoid reading one-off K in front of me. I won't vote down one-off K on face, but I find that it's not terribly strategic, and doubly so if you're the type to concede all of case by going for the one K. All of the eggs in one basket just isn't good strategy, and it's super boring to listen to.

People will talk about how you need a specific link - I'm not that type. If the aff has a good reason that you need a specific link then you should be able to provide one, but a good generic link to the topic, state, or debate will suffice without aff contest.

Presentation

Stylistically I don't really care what you do. I can handle your spreading if you can handle your spreading. If you're unclear then don't spread. Furthermore, signposting is an absolute must between flows and cards. That can be as a simple as saying "next off" or "onto the K," and between cards inserting an "and." If I miss a card or argument that you didn't signpost clearly where I should've flowed it will not be evaluated, and that's on you.

Offensiveness in round is always bad, and I'll penalize any aggression appropriately depending on severity of the aggression. There are instances where you might just be ignorant which will only result in a minor speak penalty and a stern reprimanding in RFD. Above all, be polite to your opponents. You can be competitive, but don't be rude, especially in CX.

Redundancy isn't great. That means reading a bunch of repetitive cards, putting an explanation under a card that explains the card you just read, or just saying the same thing over and over. I get tired of this quickly and it does harm speaks. Card dumps seriously aren't persuasive or strategic about half the time. If you're card dumping like five new impacts onto a undercovered disad in the 2NC that's chill, but just reading like 5 uniqueness cards that all say the same thing isn't.

I evaluate speaks through strategy, not presentation. A 30 happens through really good decisions, time allocation, unique argumentation, etc. I can't tell you what exactly gets a 30, nor will I attempt to define it further decisively here, but I know it when I see it.

Theory

I don't err anything on any argument before a debate, so all theoretical objections are up for dispute. That being said, I've seen a lot of debates where people read two shells at each other (such as states bad v. good) and don't have any actual clash. If that is the ONLY sort of argumentation being put down on a theory flow before the 2NR/2AR, do not try to convince me to vote for theory because it'll end up being a wash, and I'll vote on presumption.

Speaking of presumption; I tend to vote it on it a lot because many people end up not winning anything. So in the case that there doesn’t seem to be any offense for any team I default to presumption. Most of the time for me that means neg, but if there’s an alternative advocacy on the flow then it goes aff. If you have a different model of presumption in mind - make it an argument, but otherwise that's how I vote.

Note about disclosure: I have an impressively high threshold for voting on disclosure, and there are a number of ways that debaters articulate disclosure that I find objectionable. Please do not make arguments for disclosure based on the capabilities of small/rural schools (especially if you are from a (sub)urban/large school). Moreover, please do not read interpretations that mandate your opponent post any sort of contact information on the wiki - I will not vote on this interp no matter how hard you're winning the flow.

T

I wouldn't say that I have a high threshold for T, I will vote on T if you win it, but you need to win each part of the T: interp, violation, standards, and voters. (Theoretically you could get me to vote on a T with just an interp, violation, and standards if you win that a stock FW is good)

The "all three branches T" is really popular right now. I'll vote on it, but it's the worst T argument. Nothing uses all three branches because that's not how government works.

Disads/CPs

I don't think you absolutely have to have either of these in the 1NC to win; if you like em, go for em, and if you don't, don't. I'm not a person who's super convinced that things have to be super specific or anything like that - generic links are fine, just try to contextualize to the aff or give a good scenario analysis.

Misc.

Please, god, do not sit at the door weirdly if I'm in the room waiting for my queue to give you agency. Just walk in. I'm the judge; you are ALLOWED to come in if I'm in here.

I don't care where you sit. I don't want to shake your hand before or after the round (especially true as of March 2020).

“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer, and if you use it it’s minus 1 speak.

Same thing goes for asking questions that are prefaced with "in your own words."

I am timing, my time is the time. You should still time yourself. I do not give signals during speeches, CX, or prep.

This is specifically for UIL tournaments: there's no such thing as "UIL style" and most "UIL rules" aren't actually rules. Any appeal to the UIL that aren't in any UIL handbook will not be flowed and is again, -1 speak.

PF Debate:

- I don't judge this event nearly at all, but please just select sides in such a way that pro always speaks first. I get confused when it's reversed.

- Also, there's nothing I hate more than the PF convention of sharing evidence. Please just flash entire cases.

churchill '20

i competed in policy debate for 4 years and debated on the national circuit.

put me on the email chain - alexmdebatejudging@gmail.com

***i flow on paper. when reading topicality, theory, or framework arguments, please slow down. if i don't flow an argument, it's because you did not articulate it clearly.***

-- topicality --

i generally default to competing interpretations, but most certainly can be persuaded otherwise. have thorough explanations of the internal link and impact - repeating the phrase "they explode limits" 5 times tells me nothing.

-- counterplans --

good counterplan debates are great to watch. explain why the counterplan is distinct from the affirmative and why it solves. aff specific counterplans are always better than generic ones.

-- disadvantages --

have impact analysis and comparison of internal links. turn case arguments are important and underutilized. always answer the framing debate. there should be comparison between models of decision making. surface level, tag-line phrases about extinction being irreversible aren't enough to persuade me to value extinction first, especially when aff teams have well warranted framing args - the 2nr needs a clear, warranted link story, particularly true with politics disads because the evidence is notoriously shallow

-- kritiks --

for neg teams reading the k: no large overviews, i'd rather have that explanation done on the line by line. regarding framework, i generally default to weighing the aff. framework on the kritik is a link-framing argument. i need warrants why your interpretation/model of debate/role of the ballot is preferable and/or resolves the affirmative's offense. why should i utilize your framing as the lens through which i make my decision?

have specific links to the aff. even if you read a generic piece of link evidence, you can still utilize the warrants in that evidence and contextualize it to rhetoric or action of the 1ac. if you're making an ontology claim, i won't just vote on ontology - you still need a link to the aff. you should make arguments as to why the links turn the case.

i'm not familiar with a majority of kritik literature, so don't assume that i know what you're talking about. please explain your theory/thesis. buzzwords are vague and don't actually articulate the implication of your argument. i need to know what the alternative is, what it does, and why is the ballot necessary. arguments about why the alternative resolves the impact of the affirmative are always useful. generally i think you need an alternative in the 2nr, but can be convinced that you don't - just explain why

***no death good/death inevitable args -- i don't find those arguments persuasive at all***

aff teams debating the k: far too often i think affirmative teams are too defensive and aren't prepared to defend why the aff is good. have reasons why discussions about the 1ac and its content are good for debate. framework interpretations along the lines of "neg should read a competitive policy option" are not that strategic or compelling. make sure you're responding to the negative's specific framework standards.

the 2ac should line by line each link argument; waiting till the 1ar will put you behind in the debate. don't group the all of links. saying "their ev is not specific to the affirmative" is also no a sufficient response. you should address the argument made by their evidence and explain why the aff doesn't say/do that. please explain what the permutation is and how it functions. have warranted analysis as to why the permutation resolves the negative's offense.

-- k affs/performance/framework --

i'm more inclined to vote for framework but can definitely be persuaded to vote against it. i need to know what your model of debate looks like and how that compares to their model of debate.

neg teams: just like with topicality, have a well-developed internal link and impact explanation. fairness is probably more of an internal link to education than its own impact, but you should make the argument that fairness is an intrinsic good. you'll likely need a tva otherwise aff arguments about why you exclude their education become more convincing.

aff teams: i'd prefer that the 1ac would have a close connection to the topic. i need to know what the 1ac means and what it does. if the speech act of the 1ac is significant, why? why does the ballot have a causal influence on that?

-- theory --

what specifically did your opponent do? why did that make it structurally more difficult for you to debate? new affs bad and aspec are 2 arguments in debate i never want to vote for. please slow down when you're reading theory.

-- for LD debaters --

everything i said above about how i evaluate policy debates applies to LD too.

i don't like a lot of the theory stuff that y'all do. if you must go for theory, like any other procedural argument, have a well-developed internal link and impact explanation. i won't vote on an RVIs. they don't make sense, and you shouldn't be punished for reading a theory argument.

-- for PF debaters --

at the beginning of the round, the team speaking first should start an email chain. both teams should email out your entire case before your first constructive speech. in speeches after the first constructive, send out all the evidence you read *again before the speech* -- the amount of time wasted after/in between speeches asking for and sending evidence is ridiculous -- if you don't flash evidence, that will be reflected in your speaker points

-- last updated for the Longhorn Classic 2022 --

I am the coach at Lake Travis High School in Austin, Texas.

Policy: 

Speed:
I'm fine with speed and any argument style. I'll say clear or slow if needed, start off slower at the beginning of your speech so I can get used to your speed and voice. You probably won't be too fast for me but gauge your speed - I make pretty evident facial expressions if I am lost. I ran a lot of CRT during my high school career, favoring Afropess, so I am comfortable with a lot of critical theory but far left lit like Deleuze or Virilio will need more explanations. Really do whatever in front of me, I'm pretty tab - you can do 1off k or 8 off policy making args as long as you impact and provide a clear framing.

Speaker Points:
My scale is 25-30. I have given few 25s and 30s this year and average about 28.5/29. Here is a rough outline of my scale;
25 - you said something racist, sexist, homophobic etc., were rude or demeaning to your opponent and/or make the debate space unsafe
26-27 - You tried. You dropped some pretty big things on the flow, had inconsistent speed/clarity, didn't impact things out on my flow etc.
27.5-28.5 - you were clear but behind on the top layers of the flow but had decent delivery
28.5-29.5 - you probably deserve to break and you are average/above average. This is the most common speaks I give so don't be surprised if this is what you get.
30 - literal mic drop. You will probably win the tournament if you get a 30. Props.

Theory:
This is fine. Do it if theres abuse. I'm prob not the most receptive to frivolous theory.

Topicality:
I used to have a sticker that said "Topicality is a Timesuck" but my paradigm on this front has probably changed. Especially on this topic I think Topicality is a pretty good litmus test at weighing arguments and offense but I don't think I would hedge my bets entirely on T with me as a judge. I think policy ignores a lot of standards comparison/clash that it probably needed to have an in-depth T debate leaving me mostly disappointed a lot of the time. T probably isn't enough to win you a debate round on neg so if you are going all in on T you probably aren't winning unless your opponent drastically mishandles it. Overall not a huge fan.

CPs:
Do it, I'm receptive. A strategically ran CP/PIC is probably a good strat in front of me as long as you weigh under a given policy fw. They're good if you run them well.

DisAds:
Im fine with it - I am more receptive to specific links/internal links and won't just sign a ballot if you have a big stick impact. On this note, I am probably decently persuaded by a 2AC that does a lot of impact defense. However, defense isn't enough to win on the flow here.

Ks:
Probably my favorite style of argumentation. My kids run a lot of fem and critical/performance stuff so I am familiar with the way kritiks exist & their debate application. Make sure you articulate the alt well and the impact story following the links. I am fine with K affs as long as you emphasize the framing and why my ballot is important.

Performance:
Do it. I am very receptive to this style and write/work with a lot of this on my team. Impact the ballot story well and you will do better in my eyes. Performance is cool and I am a big fan. (Don't forget to extend the performance and embody it all the way through...people don't do this enough and it makes me sad.)
Have fun, make good choices. Framework is the most important thing to me so impact things under it and you'll do great in my eyes. Debate is supposed to be enjoyable and educational so make it that way.

LD:

Pretty much the same as above but I do think the neg in LD seems to warrant an advocacy, especially in Value/Criterion debates or in truth testing the resolution. I default to an offense-defense paradigm a lot here because of a lack of framework weighing. FW is a pretty easy way to get my ballot in LD, I would suggest leveraging this on other arguments as well.

I debate for 3 years in high school and graduated in 2017 and I've been judging off and on since then. I debated some policy arguments but I gravitated more towards critical arguments by my last year of debating. I'm not here to tell you the kinds of arguments you can or can't run. Just run stuff that you're comfortable with and try to have fun. Don't be racist, misogynist, transphobic, etc. and we'll be good. I'm also happy to answer any other questions you have before round.

Add me to the email chain: kalebobregon@utexas.edu

K affs are fine. doesn't have to be directly related to the topic. Please explain your method or advocacy throughout the debate.

Kritiks:

Specific links contextualized to the aff are great. You're articulation of the links is much more important that what the evidence says. Please have a clear explanation of the alt. The permutation debate is really important for both sides, especially vs K affs. One or two good perms is better than 5 blippy ones

Da’s:

Good link analysis and turns case arguments will get you a long way. I want to see impact calc by the block and the 1AR.

Cp’s:

Explain the solvency mechanism and how it solves the aff. The aff should have solvency deficits to the CP. PICs are fine. The solvency advocate should be as specific as the aff solvency.

Topicality:

Default to competing interps but can be persuaded to vote on reasonability if there are good warrants for it. Reasonability is just a question of whether the Aff counter-interp is good.

Framework:

Tva are important to weigh your impacts. I’m fine with education and fairness impacts.

Theory:

Slow down. If both teams spread through theory blocks then I will probably make an arbitrary decision based on the arguments i can understand.

Some additional notes for LD:

All the same stuff above still applies.

I think that LD needs some kind of framework to weigh offense under. If the aff doesn't read framework, I'll default to a truth-testing paradigm or policy-making based on the aff's structure but that can easily change.

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!

Overall Notes- I don't really like speed or spreading. If you choose to spread then you will need to make your taglines clear. If I cannot understand your tags then I cannot flow the argument. Also do not expect me to be able to understand all the analysis from your arguments if you do not slow down for it.

LD- I tend to consider myself to be more of a traditionalist when it comes to LD. I enjoy a solid framework debate. I tend to vote for the debater that impacts out their arguments the best. I tend to judge based off the quality of arguments not the quantity of arguments. I think that one good argument can win the round for either side. I am not as comfortable with policy arguments in LD, but I was a CXer, so if you are in a panel situation I won't automatically vote you down for running them.

CX- I am a policy maker judge. I tend to judge based from a util mindset unless you give me another framework to work through. I really like to hear debate that focus on balance between terminal and real world impacts. I tend to like cohesive negative strategies that work together. Personally I am okay with conditionality, but if you want to get into the theory debate and impact it out in the round go for it. I am fine with any sort of theory debate. On T I default to reasonability. If you have any other questions feel free to ask.

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

-- 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.

DA

-- 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.

Email chain: richardsonmichael98@gmail.com

TL;DR. I’m cool with whatever you have to say in whatever format you would like to say it. I think that your arguments should interact with the topic in some way, though that doesn't necessitate having a plan text or defending the federal government. Assume you need to over-explain arguments and link stories, I like to refrain from doing work for the debater(s) - that has gone poorly for some folks I've judged in the past that assumed too much. I’ve lost some flowing proficiency since high school, but I will try my best to keep up.

Stuff about me:

I haven't debated for several years, so I’m not going to trick myself into thinking that I remember everything about every debate argument or that I'm still able to effectively flow at super high speeds. However, I vow that I will do everything in my power to be present and alert of what is happening in the round and be respectful of your time. I will also do my best to explain my thought process for every decision so that you understand why I voted a certain way if the tournament allows. If not, I will make myself available to you to provide my insight or comments if you wish.

I debated for 4 years at Ronald Reagan HS in San Antonio, TX (2012-2016) and I am a recent graduate of the University of Texas at Austin (hook'em). In my first three years, I did exclusively LD and Extemporaneous Speaking. I attended many national tournaments for LD, so I am very familiar with the argument types and strategies on the national circuit. I also attended UIL State for Informative Speaking. Policy debate, however, was the highlight of my senior year. As a 2A/1N, my partner and I attended elimination rounds at various national tournaments, was the top seed at TFA State where I was 5th overall speaker, was in late elims of NSDA Nationals, and attended the Tournament of Champions.

My advice to you: Do what you do best. That doesn’t mean that adaptation isn’t important. I’ve had to do my fair share and I know of its challenges and rewards. The big takeaway is that I am open to anything you have to say in any manner or format to which you would like to say it.

Some house-keeping items:

- Be Kind. Please.

- Prep stops when the email is sent/when the document is saved to the flash drive and is out of the computer.

- Speed is fine. Go slower on Theory/T Interpretations and CP Texts, as you should. I try to flow everything said in the round including the text of evidence and cross ex. Hopefully this isn’t anything new, but clarity is very important.

- I like reading evidence, and I'll call for it if it's pertinent to my thought process at the end of the round.

- Sure I'll be on the email chain: richardsonmichael98@gmail.com

Affs -- Read whatever you're comfortable with.

- I believe that affs should be a critical discussion of the topic. What that "critical discussion" entails is entirely up to the debaters. Heg/Econ scenarios, poetic performances, whatever you do best, do it. Though, I'm likely not going to be persuaded by an aff that I feel could be cross-applied to any other topic (I think you lose out too).

- In order of how much I've read them in HS (from the most to the least), it would go "middle-of-the-road" affs, K affs, then Policy affs. I do not have a proclivity towards any one of them: I've enjoyed reading them all.

- In LD, I do not have a preference as to what the aff should look like. You can do the traditional "definitions, framework, contentions," thing or you can switch it up and do it in reverse, I don't care. As long as the information is read.

Topicality -- I enjoy Topicality debates and have no qualms voting on a well-executed topicality shell.

- I default to competing interpretations if all things are equal - actually, I probably default to an offense/defense paradigm on most things.

- In HS, I rarely read any other standard than predictable limits; I intuitively think that both sides have reasonable ground for argumentation if they're smart enough, but I can be persuaded to vote for other standards. That being said, I generally think along the lines of "the caselist" in topicality debates, so doing your due diligence in these debates should be rewarded.

- I don’t think that RVI’s are a thing and I'm not sure why they ever were; I've yet to vote for an RVI argument I thought was persuasive. BUT, *shrugs* if it's conceded, then there's not much I can do about that, now can I?

Framework/T-USFG -- Go for it.

- As a 2A I've both defended and not defended a plan text, so I have experience with both sides of the framework debate. I've also read it quite a few times on the negative, so I'm familiar with how it ought to be executed.

- I don't think that FW is inherently violent, but that doesn't mean there aren't sweet impact turns to roleplaying/policy education.

- Carded topical versions of the aff are very persuasive for me.

LD Frameworks -- Do your thing.

- I don't have an expectation as to what the Framework should look like for the aff or neg. You can do the Value/Value-Criterion if you want. You can do a Standard if you want. You can read a Role of the Ballot/Judge interpretation if you want.

Theory -- With me, you should explain the violation more than normal if it's anything other than disclosure or condo.

- In all honesty, based on my skill level I'm probably not a good judge for you if your strategy is to spam 4 tricky theoretical violations and go for the undercovered ones.

- Except for conditionality and disclosure, I am not really experienced with the various types of theoretical violations floating out there, especially on the LD national circuit. In my HS experience, I'd never read anything on the affirmative that justified opponents making theory a 2NR position, so I rarely had to give a substantive 2AR on anything other than condo.

- If theory ends up being a "game-winning" 2NR/2AR strategy, I would implore you to please go slow and over-explain the argument. It’s not that I am incapable of understanding theory (I think I'm actually selling myself a little short), it's just an area of the argument spectrum that I don't have much personal experience with.

- I am more receptive to theory as a result of actual cheating, whatever that means for the debate.

- I don't think theory needs to be in a traditional "shell" format - as long as all the components are there, we should be good.

Counterplans -- Explain to me what they actually do.

- The only caveat I have with CPs is the quality of solvency advocate evidence; I'm just a sucker for evidence that actually says what you're claiming it says.

- An explanation as to what the counterplan actually does would really help me conceptualize how it interacts with and is different from the plan, especially if it deviates from being textually and functionally competitive.

- I don't have an expectation as to what the net benefit should be. Internal Net Benefits, DA's, on-case DA's. All fair game.

Disadvantages -- I'm game for anything you've got.

- I'm a stickler for strong, definitive pieces of evidence, especially on the uniqueness debate. Though, I'll probably give you the benefit of the doubt if you do a fair amount of explanation as to why that piece of evidence may be true.

- I've read politics, linear, and on-case DA's with extinction-level or structural violence impacts so I shouldn't be unfamiliar with whatever you decide to read.

- I've done my fair share of impact turning DA's on the affirmative (I am particularly familiar with dedev or "warming irreversible" arguments) and I think these can be particularly strategic.

Case debate -- Underrated, and that is a darn shame.

- I've had some 1NRs where I just extended the warrants of 1NC evidence, read 5 minutes of cards, or a mix of the two. I’ve got no qualms voting negative on presumption if the aff’s responses are lackluster.

- Some of my best and most fun 1NRs to give were impact turns to the aff (dedev and "warming irreversible" again).

"Critical" arguments/K Affs/The K -- Read whatever you want, but be smart.

- Out of anything on this page, the K is probably what I have the most experience reading in HS. K affs and one-off K strategies were the bread and butter of my senior year.

- Some authors/criticisms that I enjoyed reading and deploying in-round include: Anti-Blackness, Berlant, Oliver, Settler Colonialism (plus every Eve Tuck article, ever), Critical Asian Studies/Orientalism/Model Minority Myth, (Racialized) Capitalism, and the Academy K.

- I prefer the line-by-line to long-winded overviews (oftentimes, they are hard to reconcile).

- Big overarching theme: you do you. This also encapsulates different arguments characterized as “performance,” though I tend to think that how you choose to debate is a performance of sorts. If you need to play music, dance, scream, do your thing.

In conclusion, some parting words.

Since my paradigm page is part love-letter-to-debate, part diary, I would like to share a thought about my philosophy on judging that may be helpful for you to know. Reflecting on my experiences as both a debater and a judge, I am a firm believer that debate, while an educational activity, is also primarily a persuasive activity. I have become increasingly annoyed with debaters and judges that are disappointed with someone's skill level (particularly if they are a novice debater or judge) and verbally express those frustrations to the public or behind their backs. Yes, having an experienced judge gives you more options to deploy different arguments and strategies, and that can certainly make for a more entertaining and enjoyable debate. But the world is not full of debate hardos. The next time you have a "lay" judge in the back of your debate, consider this: if you lose, perhaps it has less to do with the judge missing something and more about your inability to persuade someone outside of the activity (i.e. 99.9999% of people). This academically elitist pedestal some debaters find themselves upon is incredibly insufferable. So don't vent to me about how your last round's judge was a random mom or pop, you will find the opposite of sympathy from me.

If there are any lingering questions about how I view the debate or argument types I haven't listed above, don’t hesitate to ask!

Thanks y’all. Happy debating, and good luck!

LD paradigm: I am a traditional LD debate judge. I like clash and argumentation throughout a round. I like to see value and criterion level debate carried out throughout the round. I also like sources presented to me in a manner that upholds the arguments you are using. I don’t want number and values just thrown out without some type of evidence of source to support it.

PF paradigm: I like to see a lot of clash throughout the round but do not want it to turn into cattiness. There should be no CX jargon brought into the round. PF was created for an average person to sit in on the round and understand what is going on, let’s do our best to keep it that way.

Extemp: I want your speech to be set up in a way that it flows. Give me an intro, your points, and a conclusion. I like sources to be used throughout in a way that supports your topic. If you want to provide me information on the number of immigrants who enter the country make sure to not just throw a number out but instead have a source that backs up the information you are providing.

Congress: Do your best to be active in the chamber. If you don’t have speeches to give during the round or don’t want to at least try to ask questions and participate. The number of speeches does not determine where you place in the round, the quality of your speech does. Give me sources to back up your information, provide clash with other speakers, and try your best to not repeat the same points others have gone over multiple times.

Interp: Do your best to draw me into your piece. Give me a hook in your intro that draws me in and makes me want to listen to what is coming next. Make sure your characters are well defined and distinguishable. Try to have good eye contact and don’t rush.

*****MOST IMPORTANTLY HAVE FUN! As long as you know you did your best and left it all in the room when you exit that’s honestly all I can ask for. Don’t get tied up in making sure you hit everyone of my paradigms because then you don’t focus on the fun you’re supposed to be having in your event! :)

Very close to a tab judge. Very flow based. Willing to listen to any avenue of argumentation and the answers to those points.

I am a former High School Debate Coach and UT Debater. As a competitor my background was in CX Debate.

I view the round entirely through offense/defense. The debater with the most offense at the end of the round wins.

Plans - I'm happy to view the round through a moral framework or as a policy maker depending on who wins the way the round ought to be viewed on the framework debate.

Critiques - These are great to read in front of me. I am very proficient with most critical authors and arguments. Links that focus on "You don't talk about X issue enough" tend to have problems in front of me because I don't understand why "permutation do both" does not resolve them.

Theory - Some LD theory arguments don't make sense to me. I view the impacts to theory as fairness and education, make it clear for why your opponents violation restricts those. Also impact why this violation is big enough to reject the debater and not just the argument. Necessary But Insufficient Burdens and RVIs are examples of some theory arguments that can be very difficult to win in front of me. If you can clearly impact the arguments then I can still vote for them.

Speed - Feel free to go as fast as you like, I can probably follow you. If I have trouble I'll let you know.

george ranch 17

boston university 21

I debated LD in high school for four years and am fine with listening/voting on pretty much anything. Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions before the round or you can also facebook message me.

put me on the email chain - aishasheikh989@gmail.com

Again, read whatever you are comfortable with and speed is fine, but slow down on tags/authors/interps etc.

Short Cut:

1 - K/topicality

1 - Policy Args

4 - Framework (dense phil)

3 - Theory

2 - sketchy shit

* this is just a guideline of things i am personally comfortable but you do you. The most important thing for me, and the point of debate, is to weigh and impact/extend arguments/alts/etc. If you do this, make the round as clear as possible, and are engaging so i am not bored you'll probably end up winning*

- i tend to give high speaks especially to clear and concise debaters who make the round easy to judge. Also, if there is a clear skill gap, it provides the opportunity for the debater(s) to use it as a learning experience, not an opportunity for you to boost your ego. I will tank your speaks for problematic behavior/rhetoric and not providing trigger warnings.

I competed in LD throughout high school at Jack C. Hays. I'm currently a freshman at Cornell University on the Speech and Debate team as well as the Mock Trial Association. I have ample experience in public speaking and policy/political advocacy.

Concise arguments, presented clearly will get my ballot. I can understand spreading and will flow it, but you will lose speaks if I have to ask for clarity.

Traditional arguments are preferred, I like to see standard linkage throughout, and IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT! Tell me why I should care that your case achieves justice better.

I flow loosely and based on what you tell me to do. After the 1NC I won't be searching out anything to flow, tell me what to do!

Rebuttal speeches should be orderly and go down the flow, I won't flow it if it's not clear and you will not get my ballot.

All of this said, I can sit before you and determine who is the better debater, speaker, etc. by the way in which you carry yourself and deliver your arguments, I hope to give that person my ballot each round.

experience:

high school cx 4 years

Email: asodders1156@gmail.com

I don't need to be on the email chain

I was a 2n/1a throughout high school up until the present. I went for the K mostly but had to read other arguments on the local circuit. I am familiar with everything. I am open to all arguments and am willing to evaluate them. Do what you are best at.

Argument thoughts:

Kritiks

I prefer specificity in these debates. You should be able to contextualize link arguments to the aff. Critical literature is familiar to me, but that doesn't mean I know everything. Explain your argument and win your framework/impact framing in whatever way that may be that you are best at.

I'm good with whatever just do the thing.

K affs

The topic is not necessary for an affirmative. If you're not reading a plan that's cool. However, your aff should probably do something. Whatever that may be. Topic based or not.

Topicality

I like T debates. Specific caselists are helpful. Competing interpretations is the way I tend to default, but I can be persuaded otherwise given good arguments for reasonability.

Disads/Counterplans

Cool. Win the net benefit. Permutation exists fix that. Win your framework. Counterplans that are both textually and functionally competitive are preferable, but not a must.

Disads are fine. Just do what you need to do.

Theory

These debates are generally impossible to flow and result in a whole lot of awkward judge intervention. Don't do that. I should be able to flow the things you are saying. That's on you. Go slow enough that I can catch the arguments you're making.

Good luck :)))

Updated for Fall 2020

Background: I competed on the San Antonio circuit for three years, in PF for two years and LD for one year. I went to TFA state in both competitions. I also have spent four years judging both events at tournaments on the San Antonio circuit, on and off. I formerly coached for John Paul II Catholic High School in New Braunfels, Texas. If you need help, I can offer advice in verbal or e-mailed critiques (ralexs42@gmail.com). I have been more distant from debate since 2018, but I remember quite a bit from my experience.

Argumentation: I evaluate everything fairly, there really isn't any arguments I won't vote off of. With kritik arguments, don't let your cards do all the talking. I am not super familiar with a majority of K literature so I ask that you explain in compressed terms what the card is. Of course, don't compress it to the point where meaning is lost.

Not super familiar on the nuances of theory debate so if it comes down to that, don't spread on theory. I would rather have theory start in the 1st CX rather than the NC, if that makes sense. I don't have the strongest foundation for theory but I know the structure of the shell and the importance of RVIs, so work with me by explaining your voters and the RVI so I can make a fair decision.

Presentation/Speed: An easy way to get 29-30 speaker points is by slowing down on tag lines and author names. Spreading cards is fine. I will make this clear in the round if you don't read this and will follow it closely. Also, if I stop flowing, you've lost me on either speed/clarity. I'll try to say clear but observe your judge (Me) first, if I'm not flowing, we have problems.

Repetitive speech is another place where I'll dock off on. You don't need to spend 40 seconds repeating yourself if you can do it in 10.

Also, sign post, sign post, sign post. Very important that you sign post correctly and for every new piece of argumentation. These rounds get very messy on my end when you don't do this bit of work and I am willing to take you down to 26 SPs if you consistently forgo signposting.

Also, I do dock speaker points for lazy extensions. Give me a reason to extend argumentation/contentions/rebuttals/etc., tell me why it matters, give me something to weigh it on. Telling me just to extend it is not cool, so even if you win while doing that, the speaker points will not reflect a good performance.

How I vote in LD: NR and 2AR are the most important speeches for how I decide my vote. There are a bunch of in-round issues that I could evaluate but would rather not because I like to be fair to both debaters. Sign post your voters, only give me voting issues that have been extended through all speeches (I will know), and be comparative. Does this outweigh the other side, is it an a prori issue, etc. The Aff/Neg arguments do not occur in a bubble, the voters should reflect that. For voters, I like looking at the big picture rather than by the line by line, we already spent about 30 minutes doing it line by line so big picture is fresh.

How I vote in PF: I vote on issues that only the Pro or Con have made the most prominent in the round. Summaries and Final Focus speeches should direct me to an RFD. I'll evaluate arguments comparatively based on weighing made in the round and arguments made on why I should prefer one side's impact calc. Argumentation should still follow a claim-warrant-impact type of logical progression, but I highly encourage teams to lean into a persuasive form of delivery. I'm also less tolerant of a full LD/CX style spread, speaking fast is fine but we don't need to be gulping for air in a debate designed for laypeople.

On paperless, I'd prefer if Aff flashes to Neg before round, Neg flashes whatever they need ASAP. Less time spent on this, the better. If your laptop dies, malfunctions, etc. and you don't have backups, I feel no sympathy so try to prep for the worst case scenario.

On digital tournaments in the age of COVID-19, I highly recommend you do tech troubleshooting before round to ensure the best audio quality possible. If turning on video causes your audio to cut out (and I'll kindly let you know if it is), I'd prefer to hear and evaluate the quality of your words than seeing you present. Not all judges may feel this way, but if you need to turn off your cam due to bandwidth, please do.

Updated 1/10 for Churchill Classic: I will boost speaks by .3 if you draw me a picture (you must present this at the start of the round). Control F to view noteworthy updates to my paradigm.

Disclaimer: I don't care where you sit, if you sit, whether you wear a jacket, whether you're going to use flex prep- just do it.

IMPORTANT UPDATE 1/11: If you are confident that you have won my ballot in your final speech then just stop there. Do not talk just to fill up the allotted time. I will reward you for your concise and strategic approach with higher speaks.

SPECIAL CHALLENGE-GUARANTEE 30 POINTS: If you win and end your final speech within half of your given time (IE 1:30 minutes for the 2ar and 3 minutes for the 2nr) I will give you an instant 30 speaks.

TL;DR: I'm not a great theory/t judge and have very specific expectations for these arguments (see below), I think DAs should be as reasonable/realistic as possible, but that extinction is usually a no-risk freebie that you should take advantage of (so do both), I really love ks- cap, discourse, ableism, decol, etc, but I'm not going to know your pomo stuff like the back of my hand so please take it easy on me (basically anything that is v philosophical and uses words that I won't know unless I just read the book) so I'll need explanation aside from the repetition of buzzwords (you can ask me before round about my knowledge of your specific authors so you'll know what degree to explain things). Speed should be fine. Ask for triggers before the round starts. Don't be #TheWorst.

Foreword: I feel like knowing who I am as a person is very important to understand how I judge and why I do some of the things that I do, so we're gonna have a little crash course. A v important thing to know about me is that I have aspergers. Debate wise, that means I take ableism really seriously and will always love to hear a good ableism discussion. In terms of how that affects other things, it means that sometimes eye contact is really uncomfortable for me, so I may not look at you during an RFD or during speeches. Sometimes the acoustics of a room will really bother me, which may affect how well I will understand you if you are quick or very loud. It also means that it takes me a little while longer to give you a very articulate RFD. With very close rounds, I often make a list of 'round facts', things which have definitively been lost or conceded, and then connect the dots to determine how these facts interact and what that means for the round- you will probably hear me scribbling furiously when this happens.

ALSO please read my paradigm carefully, I have some probably unpopular opinions about some arguments people make and I really do not want to have to explain that the reason you lost is because you went for something I have already articulated I do not understand or find acceptable.

when i say ask for triggers/give a content warning i am being super serious

UPDATE: Topic specific stuff: authoritarian something

-PLS GIVE ME AN AFF ABOUT THE US BEING AUTHORITARIAN AND SHUTTING DOWN THE MILITARY

-maybe don't use yemen as the neg probably

-I love seeing interesting takes on a resolution, so if you've got some wacky, not strictly topical (or completely nonT) aff, hit me with it.

-ur nebel t will make me hate my life but explain it and I'll give it to you

General Paradigm: Speed- Fine with it. I will repeatedly yell clear if I can’t understand you. I may ask you to flash me what you're reading just to be on the safe side/assume I want in on email chains. It’s msteve884@gmail.com. ***If I don't flow it, I'm not going to supplement your argument through the speech doc- be clear, I don't do work for y'all.

Update: Theory is slowly growing on me, but I’m very particular about shells (thanks @jason yang) Your theory checklist in front of me:

1. 1. Specific interps- I don’t mean, restate the resolution and the month and the tournament in your generic plans bad interp; I want theory that engages specific abuse and articulates the abuse story well.

2. 2. No one needs more than three standards. Honestly two is what makes the most sense to me, since they all get repetitive and cease to be unique or meaningful, but hey.

3. 3. If you’re devoting time to theory, I want well warranted standards and voters. Why does your standard matter? How have they violated it and how much? What is the effect on the ballot from that violation? Spell it out!

4. 4. If theory is a quick off, condense it- don’t read a whole slew of standards and voters- especially since everyone has education/fairness impacts memorized- I don’t need a card for fairness or education or to articulate why limits matter. And I don’t need 6 things to flow and have you waste speech time on.

5. 5. Again, cards in shells= overrated, don’t read to me telling me you’re missing out on spending time with your wife and kids.

6. 6. If your tricks are so well hidden that I don’t catch them, that’s just unlucky for you.

Biggest takeaway is that I hate generic interps because they produce boring rounds, I want good interaction between standards, and I need to be able to flow what you’re saying- that means rapid fire blips aren’t cool. I default reasonability, convince me otherwise if you want.

Topicality- I am very susceptible to arguments of why ks come before t. I think t can be really interesting (like, what IS a medical procedure?? we just don't know!!), but y'alls obsession with grammar is painful, so I'll be less eager to hear "this colon has x implication". Most of the time, t will not be the place where I sign my ballot.

Ks- yes pls. I understand stuff like cap and ableism, not so much DnG and whatever you kids are doing these days (if you're going to read Heidegger or other authors whose work I would have to have read several times pre-round in order to understand, you're going to need to do more work explaining that to me than you would "x is ableist and ableism is bad")
As a sidenote, I don’t really think discourse k’s need much of an alt aside from reject.
UPDATE: I love K’s but I also get really burnt out with them; if you read a role of the ballot in front of me, you better be prepared to explain what it means in the debate community or world at large, and how you can perform it- if it doesn’t come up in round, I’ll likely ask after I’ve made my decision because IT’S IMPORTANT. Y’all can’t hide behind Giroux forever and pat yourselves on the back for being intellectuals and revolutionaries. This ESPECIALLY goes for pre-fiat conversations about the debate community; I don’t want to hear that things need to get better, I want to know how you’re setting forth to MAKE them better.

UPDATE: policy args- I think CPs are hella fun and I really like rounds which include them. I think DAs are usually pretty bad unless you're going to articulate them through an oppression lens rather than some outrageous extinction scenario. *I’ve been won over to terminal impacts, but I’d still prefer that you include systemic ones as well rather than relying solely on extinction/low probability outcomes. @Willie Johnson convinced me that it’s always good to have extinction on the table as a fallback so go wild.

speaks- please don't call me judge, please don't shake my hand, don't call me by my first name

My speaks range:

<27: You said something that annoyed me, were rude, misrepresented an argument (without being called out), etc

27-27.5: I didn't find your performance very compelling, there was too little clash or weighing, etc

27.5-28.5: This was an average round. There's a lot of room to grow, but I believe you could have done really well with just a few changes to strat or performance.

28.5-29.5: Good decisions were made, I am generally pleased with this round: you were very funny, or strategic, or persuasive.

29.5-30: I will enthusiastically tell someone about this round. I think you should be in late outrounds and I will tell my kids to read your cases and give rebuttal redos of this round.

philosophy heavy rounds- Probably the only philosopher I ever got really acquainted with was Rawls, if your case is 4 minutes of deontology or ethics of care or something, I'm most likely not a great judge for you because where things don't make sense I will try to fill in gaps on my own and def misconstrue the argument.
PLEASE WEIGH BETWEEN LAYERS. ALSO JUST WEIGH IN GENERAL.

General stuff: Things I hate to listen to
UPDATE: *For personal reasons, I’m leery of pessimism arguments. Usually I only see this for queer pess, but I just don’t want to anymore. I especially don’t want to see any suicide alts- you will get zero speaks.

- Ableism is a huge nono for me. Even if you don’t think it’s a big deal, your opponent might, and I definitely will. So, calling something “dumb” “crazy” “lame” “stupid” etc will definitely hurt your speaks (less so if your opponent doesn’t say anything about it, moreso if they call you). A good standard: If you’re using a word which describes disability or impairment to ridicule something, don’t. Another tip: If something can be used as a synonym for the word ret*rded, don’t say it. (Instead of calling something stupid or whatever, say it ‘doesn’t make sense’ or ‘isn’t valid’ or is ‘ridiculous’, etc etc. Go to autistichoya.com for more alternatives if you want) (Also "stupid" absolutely is ableist, I don't care if you see in the dictionary that it means "in a stupor", in the same way that the f slur is also defined as burning sticks or cigarettes, the word "stupid" has multiple definitions and you are 99% definitely not using it to describe someone "in a stupor", so don't pull this)

-Same goes for racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, etc. NEVER dismiss any oppression because of util calc or any other factor (this is not to say “don’t run util”, this is to say “don’t make me relive the time someone told me gay people don’t matter because there are more str8s”). Stop co opting one form of oppression by saying ‘oh, racism isn’t really the problem!!! We gotta solve cap first lmao!!!’ I reserve the right to be offended by your discourse and/or proposal, and though it won’t probably be a voting issue unless your opponent makes it one (unless you just bite the bullet and go rape good!!!! Racism good!!!! Those, and things in that vein, are auto drops for me), my displeasure will show in speaks (even if I’m the only one who noticed/cared).

-Arguments that are like “I hate debate because it’s boring so instead of discussing this topic which might be super important to other people in this round, lets do x (like tell jokes all round)!” If you think debate is boring, don’t do it. If you want to tell jokes, do it out of round or be a friggin standup, I don’t care. This is distinct from critiquing the debate space for exclusion, those arguments have purpose aside from being a super edgy le troll lololol w0w!!! If you want to run stuff in front of me that says ‘this norm is bad let’s do y instead’, more power to you. If you want to goof off and make light of something that is important, save it for someone else. I will not vote you up for being bored and ridiculous.

*UPDATE: DISCLOSURE- for the love of lorde will yall prepped big schools who are prepped TF out stop reading disclosure against kids who literally don't know the wiki exists/don't have the access and experience w circuit norms you do?? I'm all for disclosure and I think it's a good norm but stop penalizing kids for not being able to be as engaged as you!**


I like positions that make me think, things that indict systems of power and privilege, things that make me interrogate my assumptions. I like rounds that have respectful interactions (IE you don’t tell your opponents that they “don’t understand English” or anything like that) while still being fast paced and fun. I’m a simple judge of simple means, if anything is unclear or seems unfair, talk to me before round and I’ll consider an exception (if you have a rEALLY good PAS aff, for instance, that is absolutely not ableist then argue with me to run it, I like seeing those advocacy skills put to good use)

I debated for Cedar Park High School for four years.

I qualified to TFA State every year, UIL State every year except for my senior year (because I went to the TOC instead), and the TOC my senior year.

I am comfortable evaluating both progressive and traditional debate.

I can flow spreading. That being said, if you are unclear, I will say "clear." If you are too quiet, I will say "loud." Please keep in mind I am hard of hearing, so err on the side of being louder rather than quiet. I will say loud or clear twice before I start deducting speaker points.

I was a K debater and LARPed a lot my senior year. I am open to any argument but HATE the super, silly tricks debate. I am receptive to T against non-T affs, but I will vote for non-T affs. If you have any questions pls ask.

PLEASE PUT ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN. macalahlthomas@gmail.com

If you have any questions after round, please find me or email me.

Reeda Virani (reedavirani@gmail.com)

hs cx & ld

**Respect other debaters.

*I will approach every round I judge with the same level of attention, dedication, and respect as I'd want from my judges.

*I think debate should always be about the debaters, and therefore you should do what you wish to do and what you think you are best at--debate should be fun as well as educational and I want to hear whatever you want me to hear.

This is my way of saying "read what you want"; I think there is something important to be gained from any "area" of debate you wish to do.

Thoughts on debate args:

Kritiks

Do what you have to do to get your point across. As with everything else, just warrant/explain your arguments. Win your framework/impact framing and you should have no problem.

I prefer line by line to large OVs, but sometimes complex kritiks require larger levels of explanation and I understand the need for longer overview type explanation.

Kritik AFFs

You do you--feel free to do what you wish to get your point across (as with above). I will say that I am more likely to enjoy a kritikal aff based within good topic research rather than a generic arg.

Topicality

While I probably default to competing interpretations, I think there are a lot of good arguments for reasonability. Caselists for your interp never hurt. I think that predictable limits is probably the best neg standard on topicality and generally more persuasive than ground but there also a lot of good ground args to be made (among other standards/impacts) and I will leave that up to your judgement.

Disads

High level impact work/comparison is good and I think quality > quantity for ev absent any other context (sometimes this is an uphill battle with args like politics)

Counterplans

I prefer cps that are textually and functionally competitive, but I understand the strategic value of conditions/consult/etc. Theory ev regarding the CP never hurts

Theory

I need to flow, I probably can not flow the entirety of a theory debate where the args are read at the speed of a piece of evidence. Unlikely to vote on cheap shot claims.

Other:

I'll say clear if you're unclear and after repeatedly doing it, it's probably a sign that you should be clearer.

** Be kind and avoid shadiness and we’ll have no problems. **

Have fun and have a great year!

I am a traditional LD debater and judge. I can flow. I can follow spreading to a point but if you lose me that's on the debater. I don't care for the critiques and counter plans that have influenced LD in recent years. Give me values, a criteria to judge the value and solid philosophy to underpin your arguments.

Updated January 2024

About me:

I am currently the speech and debate coach at Theodore Roosevelt HS.

I debated policy and LD for four years at Winston Churchill HS and qualified to the TOC senior year.

I have been judging debate (mostly policy and LD) for over 5 years.

My email is benwolf8@gmail.com if you have any questions before or after rounds.

TL;DR version:

I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments. Sure, some debates I may find more interesting than others, but honestly the most interesting rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. I think link and perm analysis is good, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. Everything below is insight into how I view/adjudicate debates, its questionably useful but will probably result in higher speaks.

Public Forum: Be polite and courteous during cross fire. Make sure to utilize your evidence and warrant arguments. I am open to whatever arguments you would like to make (obviously avoid racist, sexist, etc. arguments). I am open to all styles and speeds of delivery, but if your opponent is not speed reading, it would help your speaker points if you can avoid speed reading too. Everything else is more relevant to policy and LD debate, but you may find it useful for PF too.

Evidence Standards:

Share your evidence before you deliver the speech. If you ask to see multiple cards from your opponent after they have given their speech, I will start running your prep time.

Speech Drop is great, please use it. https://speechdrop.net/

You should always follow the NSDA evidence rules: https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf

You should do your best to be honest with your evidence and not misconstrue evidence to say something that it clearly does not say.

Theory interpretations and violations, plan texts, and alternative advocacy statements should all be included in the speech document.

If you are reading a card and need to cut it short, you should clearly state that you are cutting the card and put a mark on your document so that you can easily find where you stopped reading that card. If you are skipping cards in the speech document, make sure to mention that and/or sign post where you are going. This should avoid the need to send a marked copy of your document after your speech if you do these things, unless you read cards that were not included in your original speech document.

Prep Time Standards:

Prep time begins after the preceding speech/cross-examination ends.

If you have not transferred your speech document to your opponent, then you are still taking prep time. Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer. Prep time ends when the document is uploaded onto speech drop. Prep time ends when the email has been sent. Once the team taking prep time says they are done with prep, then both teams need to stop typing, writing, talking, etc. The speech document should then be automatically delivered to the opponents and judge as fast as technologically possible.

Speaker points: average = 27.5, I generally adjust relative to the pool when considering how I rank speakers.

-Things that will earn you speaker points: politeness, being organized, confidence, well-placed humor, well executed strategies/arguments, efficiency.

-Things that will lose you speaker points: arrogance, rudeness, humor at the expense of your opponent, stealing prep, pointless cross examination, running things you don’t understand, mumbling insults about myself or other judges who saw the round differently from you.

-Truth v Tech: I more frequently decide close debates based on questions of truth/solid evidence rather than purely technical skills. Super tech-y teams probably should be paying attention to overviews/nebulous arguments when debating teams who like to use a big overview to answer lots of arguments. I still vote on technical concessions/drops but am lenient to 2AR/2NR extrapolation of an argument made elsewhere on the flow answering a 'drop'. This also bleeds into policy v policy debates, I am much more willing to vote on probability/link analysis than magnitude/timeframe; taking claims of "policy discussions good" seriously also means we need to give probability of impacts/solvency more weight.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I will read evidence if said evidence is contested and/or if compared/contrasted to the oppositions evidence. I will first read it through the lens of the debater’s spin but if it is apparent that the evidence has been mis-characterized spin becomes largely irrelevant. This can be easily rectified by combining good evidence with good spin. I often find this to be the case with politics, internal link, and affirmative permutation evidence for kritiks, pointing this out gets you speaks. That being said, there is always a point in which reading more evidence should take a backseat to detailed analysis, I do not need to listen to you read 10 cards about political capital being low.

-Speed vs Clarity: If I have never judged you or it is an early morning/late evening round you should probably start slower and speed up through the speech so I can get used to you speaking. When in doubt err on the side of clarity over speed. If you think things like theory or topicality will be options in the final rebuttals give me pen time so I am able to flow more than just the 'taglines' of your theory blocks.

-Permutation/Link Analysis: this is an increasingly important issue that I am noticing with kritik debates. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. This does not mean that the 2AC needs an detailed permutation analysis but you should be able to explain your permutations if asked to in cross-x and there definitely should be analysis for whatever permutations make their way into the 1AR. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation throughout the debate leaves the door wide open for the negative to justify strategic cross applications and the grouping of permutations since said grouping will still probably contain more analysis than the 1AR/2AR. That being said, well explained/specific permutations will earn you speaker points and often times the ballot. In the same way it benefits affirmatives to obtain alt/CP texts, it would behoove the negative to ask for permutation texts to prevent affirmatives shifting what the permutation means later in the debate.

The same goes for link/link-turn analysis I expect debaters to be able to explain the arguments that they are making beyond the taglines in their blocks. This ultimately means that on questions of permutations/links the team who is better explaining the warrants behind their argument will usually get more leeway than teams who spew multiple arguments but do not explain them.

Argument-by-argument breakdown:

Topicality/Theory: I tend to lean towards a competing interpretations framework for evaluating T, this does not mean I won't vote on reasonability but I DO think you need to have an interpretation of what is 'reasonable' otherwise it just becomes another competing interp debate. Aff teams should try and have some offense on the T flow, but I don't mean you should go for RVIs. I generally believe that affirmatives should try and be about the topic, this also applies to K affs, I think some of the best education in debate comes from learning to apply your favorite literature to the topic. This also means that I generally think that T is more strategic than FW when debating K affs. I've learned that I have a relatively high threshold for theory and that only goes up with "cheapshot" theory violations, especially in LD. Winning theory debates in front of me means picking a few solid arguments in the last rebuttal and doing some comparative analysis with the other teams arguments; a super tech-y condo 2AR where you go for 15 arguments is going to be a harder sell for me. Other default settings include: Topicality before theory, T before Aff impacts, T is probably not genocidal. These can be changed by a team making arguments, but in an effort for transparency, this is where my predispositions sit.

Kritiks: I have no problems with K's. I've read a decent amount of critical literature, there is also LOTS that I haven't read, it would be wise to not make assumptions and take the time to explain your argument; in general you should always err towards better explanation in front of me. I do not enjoy having to sift through unexplained cards after K v K rounds to find out where the actual tension is (you should be doing this work), as such I am more comfortable with not caring that I may not have understood whatever argument you were trying to go for, that lack of understanding is 9/10 times the debater's fault. Feel free to ask before the round how much I know about whatever author you may be reading, I'm generally pretty honest. I generally think that critical debates are more effective when I feel like things are explained clearly and in an academic way, blippy extensions or lack of warrants/explanation often results in me voting affirmative on permutations, framing, etc.


CP: I have no problems with counterplans, run whatever you want. I think that most counterplans are legitimate however I am pre-dispositioned to think that CP's like steal the funding, delay, and other sketchy counterplans are more suspect to theory debates. I have no preference on the textual/functional competition debate. On CP theory make sure to give me some pen time. If you are reading a multi-plank counterplan you need to either slow down or spend time in the block explaining exactly what the cp does.

DA: I dont have much to say here, disads are fine just give me a clear story on what's going on.

Performance/Other: I'm fine with these debates, I think my best advice is probably for those trying to answer these strats since those reading them already generally know whats up. I am very persuaded by two things 1) affs need to be intersectional with the topic (if we're talking about China your aff better be related to the conversation). 2) affirmatives need to be an affirmation of something, "affirming the negation of the resolution" is not what I mean by that either. These are not hard and fast rules but if you meet both of these things I will be less persuaded by framework/T arguments, if you do not meet these suggestions I will be much more persuaded by framework and topicality arguments. If you make a bunch of case arguments based on misreadings of their authors/theories I'm generally not super persuaded by those arguments.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public Forum: Be polite and courteous during cross fire. Make sure to utilize your evidence and author qualifications. I am open to whatever arguments you would like to make (obviously avoid racist, sexist, etc. arguments). I am open to all styles and speeds of delivery, but if your opponent is not speed reading, it would help your speaker points if you can avoid speed reading too. Everything else above is more relevant to policy and LD debate, but you may find it useful for PF too.

My paradigm

Debate is the test of the truthfulness of a claim, thus truth is important. I don't understand the tech over truth argument, nor do I want to.

Debaters should:

Speak slowly.

State the resolution, as that is what is being debated

Explain everything. Don't assume that I know what a K is. Because I don't. Don't assume I know what anything else is either. I probably don't.

Speak very slowly.

Explain what the big arguments are and why the opposing side is not winning.

Be nice to each other.

Give me a reason to vote for your side. Or more than one.

Speak slowly.

To summarize, in debate judging, I adopt most of the nuance but very little of the substance in this abstract on the qualitative vs. quantitative debate that Kenneth R. Howe espouses in the American Journal of Education Vol. 100, No. 2 (Feb., 1992), pp. 236-256 (21 pages) Published By: The University of Chicago Press. FYI, '92 was a good year for debate about debate in educational philosophy.

Speakers should:

Be entertaining, thoughtful, logical, organized.

Present evidence/sources (not so much in IMP maybe, but definitely in OO, INF, EX,

Don't go too fast, but instead go at the exact right speed.

Be entertaining. Try not to steal minutes from your audience's life (especially mine) by being boring. Try and pretend this stuff is fun.

Interpers should:

Be real, or sometimes in HI or humorous DUO, be so polished and perfect in your blocking, gesturing, and facial expression, that the hyperbole does not need realism.

Real acting is seen in the eyes. Are you believable? Is there anything about your performance that distracts?

I do my best to judge the performer not the script.

My relationship to resolving debates and forming decisions is largely in-line with Adam Lipton's takes. This paradigm comes from his page with small tweaks. While virtually almost all of this paradigm is taken from his in its entirety, there might be some small differences written in.

Nonetheless, you can generally trust that this is how I view things.

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

Virtual Debate Note:

SLOW THE HELL DOWN. STG its so much harder to understand yall over the mic plus my headphones and to be fair no one exploits spreading someone out well enough so just slow down it will benefit the speaks.

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

I typically do not look at the documents other than some cursory glances. I still may ask for a card at the end of the debate to maximize decision time, I appreciate it in advance.

I believe that debate is a communication activity with an emphasis on persuasion. If you are not clear or have not extended all components of an argument (claim/warrant/implication) it will not factor into my decision.

I flow on paper, which means I would appreciate yall slowing down and giving me pen time on counterplan texts and theory arguments. If there is a specific way you would like me to flow give me that instruction and I will do my best to follow it.

The most important thing in debates for me is to establish a framework for how (and why) I should evaluate impacts. I am often left with two distinct impacts/scenarios at the end of the debate without any instruction on how to assess their validity vis-à-vis one another or which one to prioritize. The team that sets this up early in the debate and filtering the rebuttals through it often gets my ballot. I believe that this is not just true of “clash” debates but is (if not even more) an important component of debates where terminal impacts are the same but their scenarios are not.

While I think that debate is best when the affirmative is interacting with the resolution in some way I have no sentiment about how this interaction need to happen nor a dogmatic stance that 1ac’s have a relation to the resolution. I have voted for procedural fairness and have also voted for the impact turns. Despite finding myself voting more and more for procedural fairness I am much more persuaded by fairness as an internal link rather than terminal impact. Affirmative’s often beat around the bush and have trouble deciding if they want to go for the impact turn or the middle ground, I think picking a strategy and going for it will serve you best. A lot of 2NRs squander very good block arguments by not spending enough time (or any) at the terminal impact level please don’t be those people.

Prep time ends when the email has been sent (if you still use flash drives then when the drive leaves the computer). In the past few years so much time is being spent saving documents, gathering flows, setting up a stand etc. that it has become egregious and ultimately feel limits both my decision time and my ability to deliver criticism after the round. Limited prep is a huge part of what makes the activity both enjoyable and competitive. I said in my old philosophy that policing this is difficult and I would not go out of my way to do it, however I will now take the extra time beyond roadmaps/speech time into account when I determine speaker points.

Feel free to email or ask any questions before or after the debate. Above all else enjoy the game you get to play and have fun.

I debated for 4 years at The Woodlands College Park, qualifying to the TOC my senior year. Feel free to message me on Facebook if you have any specific questions.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: jessicajzh@gmail.com

TLDR: Read good arguments or be good at defending bad ones. Speed is fine but clarity is better. Slow down on interps, texts, and short analytics. Don't read something just because you think I'll like it. Have fun and be yourself :)

Framework
- I find this part of debate to be the most interesting but the hardest to resolve.
- Please have some type of framing mechanism. I don't care if it's a value/value criterion, ROB, burden structure, etc.
- If there are competing preclusion claims, explain why your argument precludes those claims not other framework justifications. The same applies for weighing arguments.

LARP
- In these debates, presumption goes to whoever defends the smallest change from the status quo.
- I like it when people actually know the methodologies behind the studies they card.
- In terms of speaks, I'm more lenient here if you're not the best at debating framework but less lenient if you're not the best at weighing at the contention level.

K
- I feel least comfortable evaluating these debates. This doesn't mean you shouldn't read a K, it just means that you should hold yourself to a higher standard of explanation in front of me.
- Ks need framing to make impacts relevant.
- Have topic-specific links.
- Alternatives should be clear in describing what they do. I'm annoyed by vague alts like "reject capitalism in every instance" that aren't followed by a clarification of what that even means.

Theory
- This is the layer I feel most comfortable evaluating.
- If you're going for theory in your second rebuttal there should be some extension of the voter section, even if it's conceded.
- I default competing interps and no RVIs. I won't default for the implication of theory because that's something debaters should set in round.
- If you're going for reasonability, you should include a brightline. My gut check is super weak and most likely not in your favor.
- I will vote on disclosure theory if it is won. That being said, I don't have a strong stance on whether people disclose or not; I am just irritated by people who engage in bad disclosure practices i.e. making their wiki unnavigable, selectively disclosing positions, posting potential positions they have no intention of ever breaking.

Misc.
- Do weighing in the first speech.
- I'm frustrated by negative debaters who concede the entirety of affs and even more frustrated by affirmative debaters who don't know how to leverage their own position.
- I have a really low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments. That threshold is even lower if an entire layer is conceded. Otherwise, extensions need a claim, warrant, and impact.
- Tricks are cool. I'd be really entertained by hearing some new, innovative ones.
- I don't really hold any strong convictions about paradigmatic issues of debate and I could be a fan of any argument that's executed well, but there are some arguments that I really don't know how to evaluate (i.e. "dropped arguments aren't true arguments"- so if your opponent concedes this but I don't think it's a true argument, can I ignore it?). This doesn't mean you should shy away from reading certain arguments, you just need to be clear about their function.
- I'll say clear/slow/louder as many times as I need to. It's in your best interest to listen to me so I can keep up; if I've said one of those I've probably already missed something.

Speaker Points
- Speaker points are based on strategy and efficiency, not literal speaking ability.
- I'll give an extra .1 speaks to both debaters for every minute before the posted start time that a round begins.
- Be respectful of different backgrounds and styles of debate. I am really bothered by condemnations and blanket statements made about entire classes of arguments. If you do this, I will drop your speaks.
- If you read a non-topical aff and have no answers or bad answers to T, I will drop your speaks.
- Post-round discussion is valuable. If you won and insert yourself into a conversation I am having with your opponent, I will drop your speaks.
- I'll probably give a few tenths of a speaker point if you bring me food or drinks that I like.