2018 — Grapevine High School, TX/US
LD Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
firstname.lastname@example.org email with questions or for email chain purposes.
Short version: Speed is fine and go for whatever type of argument you want( i.e. I don't care if you go for traditional policy arguments versus a K... just debate well) I find debaters do well in front of me that collapse, extend warrants, do impact calc, and give judge instruction when appropriate.
"If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."
B.A. University of Texas at Austin 2015
Previously worked at UTNIF (LD), MGC(LD), and coached debaters in out rounds of TFA State in Policy and LD
prior:George Washington University ( where I briefly competed in college CX and went to some local and regional tournaments)
Parish Episcopal (competed in LD and extemp every now and then. Go to my LD section for more about my high school debate career)
I don't judge as much as I used to. Please slow down a bit on theory args, cp texts, etc. I also have dysgraphia, which results in hand cramps if I'm flowing 1 line analytics at top speed.
LD specific update...Arguments I would prefer not to hear include no perms in a method debate, afc, theory args like you should spec status of offs in speech doc, etc. Not a good judge for theory debates with no real abuse story. Speaks will be low if you read these args in front of me.
Some general information
- I am normally somewhat familiar with each topic.
- I am probably not the best judge for hardcore T and theory debates(that doesn't mean I won't evaluate these arguments, but I would prefer the debate be focused elsewhere if possible).
-I am ambivalent about disclosure theory, but will vote on it and have voted on it in the past if won in round.
If you have any questions before the round starts please don't hesitate to ask. I will try my best to articulate my decision at the end of each round and highlight a few things each debater can improve upon.
Paperless stuff- I don’t count time for flashing evidence, but will severely dock speaks if someone is stealing prep time. When someone else is flashing nobody should be taking prep.
LD- When I debated I was in out rounds at TFA state, Churchill, Stanford, Colleyville, and Alta (for LD). I will attempt to keep this as short as possible. Speed is fine and policy arguments are also fine. I mostly ran util and semi critical positions in high school, but I'm fine with whatever type of argument you want to go for( Ie go for the CP/DA if you want to or the K... I'm cool with either strat). Some things I like, but don't often seen in LD include---> debaters conceding to arguments, but still explaining why they win the round, weighing offense( i.e. scope, magnitude, probability etc), and K's with really specific links to the aff. I will increase speaks for debaters who conceded to arguments, weigh well, or run K's with specific and clear links to the aff ( rather than generic backfile link cards)
Policy – If you have questions before the round and want to know anything specific I will do my best to articulate how I view debate and give you any insights into my paradigm. Aff should probably be topical, but its possible to win that T doesn’t matter. I have read some critical literature, but slow down for more obscure authors/ positions. Specific DA’s and counterplans are great. Kritiks that link to the aff are great. Link of omission K’s are not. Word pics, and other random stuff is fine. I'm a big picture kind of guy.
Update Nov 2018- I have noticed more hostility in the debate community and would strongly prefer debaters be civil towards one another. I don't want this statement to discourage individual's from making jokes or having fun in round, but I don't tolerate overly confrontational behavior, hostile behavior, racism, sexism, and discrimination in round. I reserve the right to decrease speaks and in the most extreme cases drop a debater for creating a hostile environment
Background: I competed for the UNT debate team, mostly in NPDA and NFA LD In high school I competed in Lincoln-Douglass debate.
I am fine with anything (Obviously excludes any argument based in rhetoric that disparages any marginalized groups) but in terms of what I weigh with each individual argument here is how I view each of them:
K - If you run a K I want to know the specific role of the ballot and why the alt will solve for the problems manifested within the K. It's a lot harder to get me to vote for the K if the alt is just a way to reshape thinking or the way we talk about things, for me a K needs a tangible way to fight back against the impacts.
T - Standards and voters in terms of the real world are how I vote on topicality.If there is ground loss but you do not talk about why that is a voting issue, I am not going to vote for it. For example if the topic is on climate policy the t shell should tell me why it’s important to debate about in regards to our world and lives.
DA - Big on impact calculus, make sure to weigh the impact of DA’s vs the advantages of the aff. Generic links aren’t as persuasive as links based in specific policies.
CP - I need a flushed out method on why the Net Benefit of the CP should outweigh the case.
Speed - I am fine with speed, if you go to fast or your diction isn't keeping up with your speed I'll say clear
Debate is an educational activity, and part of that education is two people negotiating on the terms of the round. Do what you need to do for both competitors to have the best round possible.
If you're somebody whose case is claiming end-of-world level harms, have very strong links, and the fewer the better. I'm not a fan of scorched-Earth arguments that are tenuous at best.
Spreading is fine, but enunciate, and know your cards. It's more distracting (and detrimental to your overall speech) if you're going fast and stumbling rather than simply slowing down a bit. I am not a judge that will yell clear - the burden of clarity is on the speaker, not the listener.
I don't want to be yelled at all round. Think about that if that's what you depend on "loud" as your method of presenting everything you have to say.
I am a flow judge, but have been known to not take as many notes for 1A if it's a stock case I've already heard 8 rounds of.
Need a timer/Don't know how long speeches are? https://debatetimers.com/ld/ld.html
Do you want to be on the email chain?
No, no I don't. The burden of me following the round, your arguments, and your evidence is on you PRESENTING this information to me - not on my reading your case. If I have to read your case to follow, you are not doing your job.
Secondly, it's MUCH more likely I will pick apart your evidence and quality of your cutting if I'm on the email chain.
Do you have any paradigms/preferences?
Isn't that why I filled this out? If you ask this, I'm going to assume you've not read this paradigm.
No - I want you to have the best round you can with the style of debate you and the other debater want to have. My own personal preferences don't come in - but read above the FAQ if you want the info on what I am more receptive to generally.
Do you disclose/give oral feedback?
No. I typically read my flow and make my decision after the round so that every speech is able to be really considered in the decision.
Oral critiques cause tournaments to run behind, and written critiques can be reviewed over time to improve overall.
For people who see this as a "I want to win the tournament" this is frustrating - but I am giving feedback that is meant to be a more long-term improvement over how to win your next round. There are exceptions for egregious errors in rounds. (Please don't make me do that.)
Do you care where I sit?
Nope! I do my best to position myself in the room so there's a clear presentation area.
Don't tear up the room moving furniture around too much. It's a respect for the teachers who are letting us borrow their space. Whatever you move, put it back. (I won't take off speaker points, but I will be annoyed!)
My judging philosophy is first built on the approach that debaters define the debate. This means I generally do not have any predisposition against anything within the context of the debate. Hence, I do NOT push an agenda. The arguments presented before me are to be engaged by both sides and analysis should be given whereby I should either reject or accept those arguments. This means arguments for or against should be well developed and structured logically. There needs to be a clear framework, but this is only the first level. Impacts and disadvantages need to fit within this framework. They need to be developed and consistent within the framework.
If there is one thing I do not like, blip arguments. These are essentially glorified tag lines that have no analysis behind them, where then a debater claims a drop of this 'argument' becomes a voter for them. For me: no analysis = no argument thus is not a voter. However, if within the context of the debate both debaters do this they lose the right to complain about me intervening. So, take heed, do this and I will allow myself to insert how these blips should be pieced together and the analysis behind them.
There needs to be clash. Far too often debaters do not really analyze. Generally, people view good debates where the flow shows responses to everything. I view this as a fallacy. There should be analysis as to how the arguments interact with each other in regards to the line by line debate and hopefully build a bigger view of the entire debate. Again, it is the debater's job to fine tune how everything pieces together. Specifically, I prefer hearing voters that are in some way intertwined versus a bunch of independent voters. Yet, though, I prefer intertwined voters it does not mean independent voters could not subvert or outweigh a good story.
Things I have voted for AND against
K - I actually like a good K debate. However, I do warn debaters that often I see people run K's they have no reason running because they themselves do not really understand them. Further, as a theme, debaters assume I am as familiar with the authors as they are. Not true. Rather, I feel it imperative that the position of K be well articulated and explained. Many debaters, read a stock shell that lacks analysis and explanation. NEW - Alts need to be clear as to what they will cause and what the world of the alt will look like. Nebulous Revolutions will not sway me, because you will need to have some solvency that the revolution will lead to the actual implementation of the new form of thought.
counter plans - I have no problem with these in the world of LD.
Topicality - I generally stand within the guidelines of reasonability. Muddy the waters and that’s what I will likely default to.
Role of the Ballot - At its heart I think the ROB is a paradigm argument or more simply a criterion argument so that even if one on face wins it does not guarantee a win because the opposite side can in the venue of the debate meet the criterion or ROB. However, the ROB I tend not to like are ones devolve the debate into pre fiat and post fiat debate. I tend towards post fiat worlds in close debates.
RVI - Again this less so, an RVI for seems to be justified within the context of some blatant abuse. As an analogy I have to see the smoking gun in the offenders hand. If it not clear I will side with a standard model. To date I have not voted on an RVI as of 2/11/2022
Understand, I honestly do approach all arguments as being justifiable within the confines of a debate. However, arguments I will on face reject are arguments whose sole objective (as a course or an objective for gain) is to oppress, murder, torture or destroy any class or classes of people. That is to say you know what you are doing and you are doing it on purpose.
I'd say that the realm of debate is for students to engage and craft. As I am no longer a competitor my bias, if it exist, should only intercede when debaters stop looking at human beings as genuine but rather as some abstract rhetoric.
Feel free to ask me some questions. but understand I'm not here to define what will win me. Good well structured argumentation that actually engages the other side are the types of debates I find most interesting. It's your world you push the paradigm you want. My voting for it or against it should not be interpreted as my support of the position beyond the confines of the debate.
Personal Narratives - I am not a fan of these arguments. The main reason, is that there is no way real way to test the validity of the personal narrative as evidence. Thus, if you introduce a personal narrative, I think it completely legit the personal narrative validity be questioned like any other piece of evidence. If you would be offended or bothered about questions about its truth, don't run them.
Communication - I believe in civility of debate. I am seeing an increasingly bad trend of students cursing in debates. I fundamentally, think High School debate is about learning to argue in an open forum with intellectual honesty and civility. The HS debate format is not one like private conversations between academics. I reject any belief that the competitive nature of the debate is like a professional sport. Cursing is lazy language and is a cheap attempt to be provocative or to fain emphasis. Thus, do not curse in front of me as your judge I will automatically drop you a point. Also, most people don’t know how to curse. It has its place just not in HS debate.
So what about cards that use curse words? Choose wisely, is the purpose because it is being descriptive of reporting actual words thrown at persons such as racial slurs. I will not necessarily be bothered by this, however, if it is the words of the actual author, I advise you to choose a different author as it is likely using it to be provocative versus pursing any intellectual honesty.
I do not have a have a problem with spreading. However, I do not prompt debaters for clarity as it is the debaters responsibility to communicate. Further, I think promoting is a form of coaching and gives an advantage that would not exist otherwise. If on the off chance I do prompt you (more likely in a virtual world) You will be deducted 1 speaker point for every time I do it. If the spread causes a technical issue with my speakers - I will prompt once to slow it down without penalty, only once.
My email is email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org for email chains. I am now putting myself part of the email chain due to virtual tournaments and to help overcome technical issues regarding sound. However, please understand I will NOT read along. I have it there for clarification if a audio issue arises during the speech. I still believe debaters should be clear when speaking and that speaking is still part of the debate.
I will automatically down a debater that runs an intentionally oppressive position. IE kill people because the world sucks and it’s bad to give people hope. However, if a person runs a position that MIGHT link to the death of thousands is not something I consider intentional.
NEW - 1/29 7:30PM Central Time
DISCLOSURE - Once parings come out. If you are going to make contact with your opponent requesting disclosure you need to CC me on the email chain: email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org. Unless I am part of the request I will NOT evaluate the validity of the disclosure inside the round. If you do not read my paradigm and you run disclosure and your opponent does read this. They can use this as evidence to kick it directly and I will. This means they do not have to answer any of the shell.
I expect folks to be in the virtual debate room 15 minutes prior to the debate round. I especially expect this is a flip for sides has to be done. We as a community need to be more respectful of peoples time and of course from a practical matter allows an ability to solve technical issues which may arise.
NEW UPADATE 2/11/2022
Evidence - So, folks are inserting graphs and diagrams as part of their cases. I have no issue with this. However, unless there is analysis in the read card portion or analysis done by the debater regarding the information on the graph, diagram, figure, chart etc. I will not evaluate it as offense or defense for the debater introducing these documents. Next, if you do introduce it with analysis, it better match what you are saying. Next, as a scientist I am annoyed with graphs using solid lines - scientist use data points as the point actually represents collected data. A solid line suggest you have collected an infinite amount data points (ugh). The only solid line on graphs deemed acceptable are trend lines, usually accompanied with an equation, which serves as a model for an expected value for areas for which actual data does not exist.
You are welcome to time yourself. However, I am the official time keeper and will not allow more than a 5 second disparity.
When you say you are done prepping I expect you are sending the document and will begin with a couple of seconds once your opponent has confirmed reception of the document. This means you have taken your sip of water and your timer is set.
COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE ROUND - I understand when debating virtually where one is set up is not always going to be an ideal situation. However, one should not be communicating within anyone other than ones own partner. There should be zero communication with someone not in the debate. This means those chat boxes need to be off. I understand there is no way to police this situation, however, please remember it looks poorly and you never want to have doubt cast upon your ethical behavior. Also, its just disrespectful.
Last updated 2/11/2022 6:23 PM - Most of the changes are due to poor grammar.
put me on the email chain: email@example.com
tl;dr: if you think a specific argument is important in the round, tell me why, I'll flow it. I'm cool with theory/performance/K/non-traditional debate.
Whatever argumentation styles/arguments you are comfortable with - I will adapt. Debate is a space for open discussion and expression, I am not a firm believer in restrictive policy/rules. Have fun, be educational (or, if you think debate is a game, tell me why), and help me better my wealth of knowledge.
Framework- V/C debate, ROB, ROJ, are all acceptable. Please weigh well tell me how your arguments fit in the framework and why that framework matters. I feel like most debaters don’t do a great job at arguing frameworks after the first two speeches so even if you read a 5-card dump on your opponent’s framework you still need to extend and say why yours is good.
Policy args- I tend to lean to policy style debates even in LD but only if the topic allows it. If the wording of the resolution doesn’t ask for some sort of policy action don’t try to fit one in.
Topicality/theory- When you read these arguments in front of me give the following: 1. A proper structure Interp, violation, standards, voters 2. A clear abuse story (if one isn’t pointed out it’s hard for me to vote on it even if you when the tech debate) don’t just say it’s bad for education or fairness show me why that matters and how it’s bad for debate 3. I feel like competing interps is a better way to debate theory but sometimes reasonability is a good strategy (I don’t like reasonability as much because it calls for me to create some type of Brightline and requires a bit of intervention) 4. I feel like the 1AR is one of the hardest speeches in debate and will vote on RVIs for theory or topicality if the RVI is properly warranted.
K- I'm pretty much solid with most Kritiks, but if you're going hard, I want you to explain it to me otherwise it'll go over my head. I will adapt to you however, and if you think an argument is important - tell me why and I'll vote on it.
I debated for Lindale High School from 2014-2018. I was a state champion in LD, Congressional Debate, and Informative Extemp (x2).
I competed at the national level in extemp and was heavily competitive in TOC circuit touneys.
Updated for 2020
Top of mind:
· I default to a comparative worlds paradigm. I would like the affirmative to do something; the negative’s job is to prove why that action is bad/undesirable.
· I need a weighing mechanism and offense that links in to that weighing mechanism. Unless given another method, I will default to v/c structure as the mechanism to evaluate & prioritize the round impacts, otherwise. I acknowledge and endorse the advent of multiple, valid methods of argumentation, but I prefer a topic-centered evidence debate comparing pragmatic solutions using CBA, but you do you. Whatever you do, please make an effort to do it well (your arguments must have warrants). Most importantly, I need you to outline how both debaters can expect to access my ballot - particularly if you are employing a non-traditional method of debate
About me: I competed on various circuits, first in policy debate for 2 years, LD for another 2 at Colleyville Heritage in TX under Dave Huston from 2005-2009. I've worked at Greenhill School as an assistant LD coach under Aaron Timmons from 2010-2018. I haven't been actively involved in debate at all since 2018, but below is still true - I'm just "old."
I'm helping Trinity High School in Texas for the 2020 Debate season.
I feel very strongly about evidence ethics in academia.
IF YOU DO NOT SHARE YOUR EVIDENCE IN SOME WAY WITH YOUR OPPONENT (EITHER THROUGH FLASHING, VIEWING LAPTOPS, SHARING COMPUTERS, E-MAIL CHAINS OR PAPER COPIES) I WILL NOT CALL FOR IT AFTER THE ROUND. Exceptions will be dependent on previous disclosure of the citations and extenuating circumstance.
DO NOT CLIP CARDS - Every time you clip a card, a kitten gets kicked. Don't kick kittens; don't clip cards. You will lose the round if you have clipped. I will not be lenient on this issue. I may spare speaker points if you attempt to follow the norms outlined or demonstrate a norm that prevents the harms of clipping, etc. *e.g. "saying "cut the card there" and then IMMEDIATELY marking where it is cut instead of saying "cut the card at (last word spoken)."
Check out this article if you don't understand "card clipping."
I expect cites to be able to be provided for all evidence used. I reserve the right to call for them if I so choose - I may do so randomly or if I suspect something is amiss. Evidence ethics is extremely important, and I will let card-clipping, plagiarism, and forged evidence affect my decision as I see fit - in the past, it has just affected speaker points. If it is an egregious, intentional violation (yes, I determine this) I may vote you down/decrease your speaks/refuse to vote on that argument, even if your opponent does not point it out; if your opponent does indicate that I should punish, I will be more comfortable smiting your points.
If you do not know how to cite something,
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/2/11/ is a great resource.
I am happy to talk to you about this. Seriously, y'all, people get kicked out university/have their careers ruined for improper, albeit unintentional, citation. I'm not opposed to an entirely analytical case if you don't want to take the time to give credit where credit is due.
One great way to combat this in the community is to disclose your positions on
You can e-mail speech docs to firstname.lastname@example.org
If I'm sent a speech doc, I will only open it during CX to follow along with questions about the evidence. Pointed indictments about evidence will increase speaker points.
Generally, I don’t call for evidence, unless the debaters haven’t gone in depth enough with a contestation or I want to give you tips, but I do feel comfortable calling for evidence when I I want to see it.
What is on my flow is what counts. You will be able to tell if I am lost or confused.
I consider myself alright at flowing, but I am not afraid to admit I am not perfect or even close to the best. That said, I will not vote on something that I:
a) do not not understand
b) don't have on the flow
o If you want to win an argument you need to start by extending, at minimum, the basic parts of the argument (e.g. You need to extend T/theory violations; ROB/standards/weighing mechanisms if you want me to vote on them)
· IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU EXPLAIN THE LAYERS OF THE DEBATE FOR ME. IF YOU DO NOT WEIGH THINGS FOR ME, I WILL DO SO BASED ON WHAT I THINK (something on which we may not agree) .
What I don't want: having to wade through the arguments and establish my own opinion
· I'm fine with speed, but I'd prefer you to make a couple of really solid arguments than many blippy ones. I will say clear twice per speech before I stop flowing that speech. After a 3rd "clear" in a speech/round speaks will be noticeably affected. Speed is a strategy - I will be annoyed if you go super fast just to make 4 underdeveloped arguments and sit down with lots of time left. Also, now that I'm old (and during e-Debate), please default to going slowly, esp on card tags and theory args.
· Best way to make sure we are on the same page? Be clear. SLOW DOWN WHEN YOU ARTICULATE A WARRANT AND ITS IMPLICATION IN ROUND. I have a terrible poker face. Use that to your advantage. It is obvious when I am not getting something. Loudness and/or clarity is usually more of the issue for me than speed and if I am having a “bad disability day” with my hearing, I will let you know at the beginning of the round so we can all start at a higher volume.
· IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU EXPLAIN THE LAYERS OF THE DEBATE FOR ME. IF YOU DO NOT WEIGH THINGS FOR ME, I WILL DO SO BASED ON WHAT I THINK (something on which we may not agree).
o Pro tip: Give me prioritized voters. This helps me establish that YOU have a strategy and are not just grasping at straws. AND it will increase your speaker points
· Speaker Points, in general-
o I try to average a 28.5
o A good debater who does everything necessary to win with a smart strategy and clear extensions, evidence comparison, and weighing between arguments will receive a 29-29.8. If it is a local, Texas tournament and I think you should break, I will give you a 29+ ; @ TOC circuit tournaments, anything above a 29 means I think you are the bees knees.
o I only give 30sin certain circumstances, usually for a perfect speech, and I will tell you why you got one. In a given season, I usually give 2-3 30s.
o I assume everyone starts with a 27.5 you go up or down by tenths of a point based on strategy, extensions, speaking style, etc --- if tenths aren't available, I will round to the nearest .5. If I round up, I will indicate that on the ballot or in the RFD. Yes, I know this is subjective: welcome to any evaluation of public speaking.
o Protip: If you give me a phrase I write on my ballot, I start you at a 29 automatically instead of 27.5.
-If you are neg and don't flow the 2ar, I will dock .5 speaker point
Argument Specific Questions:
o I don't like frivolous theory arguments - I tend to find them underdeveloped and not enjoyable to judge. BUT, I love topicality debate, especially if the 2n goes all in on it.
o I default to drop the arg over drop the debater
o The in round abuse story needs to be strong if I am going to drop the debater on theory
o I default to viewing Topicality/Theory as gateway issues, UNLESS other justifications/arguments are given
o If there is not a voter or a violation extended, I will not vote on theory/T.
o I default to reasonability on T if the interp is inclusive not exclusive. I prefer Competing interps because it leaves me less to wade through
o "Reasonability" vs "Competing Interps": Forget the buzzwords: everything collapses to reasonability if the debaters aren't doing comparative work. I would prefer you to have C/I's and substantial clash/weighing against each other's standards OR establish a metric of "reasonablity"
· RVI's –
o I don’t think you should win by being topical or fair; those are obligations and should not be rewarded --- It is unlikely that I will vote on RVI from an I/M on Topicality unless there is demonstrated abuse in the round (you can prove this by running something where the link depends on the interp --- or you can establish it in CX).
o I am more open to independently justified voters against T/Theory than I am RVIs (e.g., T Is racist)
o I am open to listening to RVIs as long as there is clear, obvious weighing between the standards of a competing interpretation!
· I hate skep triggers and presumption. You can run them, but I will be annoyed. It’s a pretty common strategy... mostly because it's easy. I have voted on them when the lack of clash leaves me no other option and speaks have suffered. Risk of offense means I will unlikely resort to this. Prove to me why you don't need them and speaks will certainly reflect that.
· I just need a reason why those arguments are true, just like any other argument AND how they function as offense/terminal defense. Those arguments have strategic value; I just fear the trend that many debaters employ: blippy spikes as a crutch to avoid substance. If you want to discuss this, please let me know.
Narratives/Micro political arguments –
· I am alright with these. I do believe that the debate space can allow the oppressed to speak.
· I am a firm advocate of the consensual nature of all dialogue. The speech act is half talking and half listening: it is undesirable to force people to participate in discourse that would wound them in some way.
· If the narrative is graphic, I expect you to disclose the nature of the discussion before the round starts to warn me, your opponent, and anyone in the room. Feel free to talk to me about this.
"Policy" Args versus "Traditonal" versus whatever:
Debate is debate. An argument is an argument. As long as it has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I'll listen.
o A CP need a net benefit. Solvency deficits on their own do not make a CP competitive – e.g. If the CP solves the aff and the aff solves with a risk of advantage and no unique advantage on the CP, I will affirm.
Perms are a test of competition (Affs should have clearly stated perm texts to minimize confusion and/or potential severance)
Misc. Laundry List of Paradigmatic questions:
· You gotta have uniqueness to win a turn.
· If there is inherent harm in the squo and there is a risk that action would solve for that harm, I will take that action. (meaning I'm extremely partial to "risk of solvency" args). Defense doesn't win debate rounds.
I am okay with "Flex Prep" if that means you can ask questions during prep. If your "flex prep" is the practice in which you can apply cx time for extra prep, that's not cool. (ex: "I have 1:42 sec of CX left, I'll add that as prep."
Be kind to each other. We are all here because debate is awesome - though our reasons may vary. Be courteous and polite. Say what you need to say and stay appropriate.
If you want to do a rebuttal redo, ask how to clarify an argument/response you made, or ask me anything post-round, that is definitely alright. I will do my best to help with the time I am allotted.
Feel free to ask me anything I may not have covered adequately/did not address at all.
You can always reach me through e-mail at email@example.com
If I don't respond to the follow-up email within 72 hours, please email again.
Tl; dr: You do you, but watch my face - if I am annoyed or look confused, proceed at your own risk.
I debated on the TFA and TOC circuits for 4 years in high school (2012-2016) and was LD consultant at Westlake High School subsequently for another 4 years. I have also taught at TDC's (Texas Debate Collective) LD institute for 6 years running. I'm familiar with most of the arguments that have come up on the circuit over the years, but am returning to debate after a 2 year hiatus so am not completely up to date with the "meta." I have judged at multiple circuit tournament this year though. If there's anything else you need to know, just ask!
I have been in debate long enough to see it change over the years - I try to be open-minded about the activity and not impose artificial constraints on students based on my own experiences or preferences. That means debate the way you would like to debate!
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 towards any specific style or type of position. I do, however, have strong feelings about warranted arguments. I will not evaluate arguments that don't have warrants, even if they are conceded. Bad warrants are OK - I will vote on "bad" arguments. They just have to be warranted and impacted to a ballot story. Good arguments are even better, and significantly more likely to lead to my ballot.
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, though, 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 how traditional or radical that paradigm may be. I am open to diverse arguments that apply to debate in creative ways and will evaluate offense accordingly.
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. That also means that clarity, sign-posting, and spacing matter in rebuttals since I have to hear short analytics to flow them. Although it isn't commonly discussed in the community, flowing speeches well is hard. If your speeches (especially rebuttals) are clear and well-organized I will flow them significantly better, which will inevitably give you an advantage at the end of the round.
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.
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.
I give oral disclosures and feedback unless explicitly instructed not to. I try to give a robust ballot story and view of the round, and will generally 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.
One 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!
This is my third year judging debate. I've judged a variety of debate and speech events. I have advanced degrees and certifications. I can follow most logical conversations and conflict. I have a background in theater and am a key note speaker at business events.
Things to consider: I like truth over tech. Be clear, especially if you spread, and flash your case to firstname.lastname@example.org. Signpost and summarize voters.
I can follow most speeds, but I want to understand the debate. If you speak too fast, I will say "slow." if I can understand you, I will say, "clear."
I'm okay with progressive arguments, but they should have a clear link to the resolution. They also should be clearly structured.
Time yourself. Be kind.
I am the LD coach at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx. I've been involved in debate since the year 2000. I judge a lot. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.
I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, weigh and develop a ballot story.
Theory: I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.
Non-T affs: These are fine just have a clear ballot story.
Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".
Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity.
Prep: 1. I prefer that you don't use cx as prep time. 2. It is ok to ask questions during prep. 3. Compiling a document counts as prep time. 4. Please write down how much time you have left.
Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip.
School Affiliation: Coach at Lovejoy High School
Debate Experience: Coaching and judging LD and CX since 2013, PF since 2016
On CX and LD:
Speed - I don’t mind speed. Please clearly signal that you are transitioning from cards to tags. Slow down for your tags (especially if they are super long) and cites. If you could number or in some way signal me on analytics to help me get my flow to match yours it would be much appreciated. In summation, the more explicit you are with organization the better I will be able to flow. Additionally, I will say “clear” if your words are slurred or say “slow down” if you are simply outpacing my ability to flow accurately.
Theory - I like theory when it is necessary, but dislike the use of blippy theory. If you have any theory (or any other format of arg) that says using specific words is bad, just tell everyone before the round what is preferable. If they bait it after that then I’m all ears, but will have a really high threshold on this otherwise (as in you will have to prove to me why it wasn’t important enough to disclose before the round but is important enough for me to vote on). On other issues, I’m really looking for good internal links to your voting issues. Absent debate, I tend to prefer single actor CP’s to multi-actor and dispositionality to condo.
Topicality - I default to competing interpretations. In round abuse is preferable, but I will listen to potential abuse if well developed and defined. Make sure to clearly link and establish your impact(s) to your standards. I am generally not inclined to vote on T as an RVI.
Kritiks - Being completely honest, I am not the best at evaluating K debate. I prefer strategies going for a mix of DA/CP/T/Case and am much more comfortable evaluating these. I would say you're running the K at your own risk. If you are a K debater, that’s fine, but please take the time to explain your K to me without assuming that I have read your authors and/or have intimate knowledge of their content. To be clear, speak in plain English when explaining everything (even your tags).
Speaks - I generally reward organization, clarity, and efficiency. In essence, the easier you make it for me to flow (without boring me to death) the better your speaks will be. On the other hand, I penalize rudeness and unprofessionalism. I expect a fairly high level of decorum (stand while speaking, don’t use offensive/vulgar language, etc.).
On CX specifically:
To categorize myself neatly in some distinct category isn’t fair for anyone, but the closest approximation that I can make is to place me on the policy maker side of tab with a few caveats (as outlined above).
In cross-examination I have a preference for the speakers traditionally assigned to a certain cross-x to be the people that are active during this time. If your partner is answering a significant portion of the questions asked of you, you will be penalized in speaker points. One or two questions isn’t a big deal to me, but 50+ percent of them would see a small penalty.
On LD specifically:
Keep in mind that I am not necessarily expecting (or even wanting) you to run policy args. A good framework with well established advantages of affirming/negating is a completely acceptable strategy to me.
Speed - a fast conversational seems best suited to PF for me.
Format of Summary Speeches - I would prefer a line by line, but if grouping is necessary for efficiency I am ok with it.
Role of the Final Focus - Weighing and voters
Topicality - Run it if it is necessary, but I am most likely just going to default to reasonability and gut check it before anything else on the flow.
Plans - I think all offense should be linked directly to the resolution, but you can characterize how the resolution would be implemented. In the instance of Con speaking first, I will not allow the Pro to no link all of the Con offense simply because they present a plan.
Kritiks - I'm really bad at them. Probably not a good idea (see above).
Flowing/note-taking - I will judge based on my flow.
Argument vs style - my ballot will be based on the arguments. Style will not weigh in much to my decision (as long as style does not interfere with my ability to understand you).
A few questions you may want answers to:
If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, it should be extended.
Do I vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No
Feel free to ask me questions before the round if you can be reasonably specific.
I have been a coach and consultant for the past 24 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at UTNIF and also at Stanford. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.
If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.
In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.
In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.
I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.
I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!
I have done all debate events, but I have substantially more experience with LD (both traditional and progressive). Four time state qualifier and two time national qualifier, once in Extemp and once in Worlds. While competing in Worlds, my team placed sixth and I placed fourth speaker.
I will judge the round how it should be judged according to Worlds norms and standards. Don’t try to be too limiting with framing, definitions or models. I will not evaluate the round using any other influences (LD, CX, PF). Ideal speed would be about conversational, and spreading will result in a a reduction of speaker points, speaking quickly to cover everything may not. I love POIs when done tastefully. Don’t stand up constantly with the sole purpose of distracting your opponent, but everybody needs to be asking them (not just the same team members). I also think that using POIs as more than just questions is a phenomenal strategy (20% of your overall rank).
I prefer to have a framework to weigh the round with. Some sort of weighing mechanism makes the round more clear. I tend to evaluate different impacts though that weighing mechanism presented and won.
I need warrants and impacts. I will vote on most anything not obviously offensive (racism, sexism, homophobia ect.). While I have some familiarity with K's, it is not anything close to being extensive. If you decide to run one, you will probably have to give me more analysis and slow down more for claims and warrants (adding me to an email chain or flashing it won't hurt). I also require clash.
A framework is preferred, but not necessary. There needs to be clash and the other team's case must be addressed. My least favorite debates are those that heavily center on only one case because that usually results in a purely defense/offense debate.
I would rank myself as about a 7 as far as speed goes. Answers to questions-
I don't care where you sit
I don't care if you time on your phone
I don't need to see if your laptop/phone is on airplane mode
I don't care if you sit or stand for cross ex
Head coach at Plano East Senior High.
I enjoy judging IEs most.
In LD, I’ve gotten much more progressive, but I tend to still favor traditional.
-I do not like Kritiks; they are generic and lazy debating - I will not vote for them. If you can run the same K all year on all the topics, that's a problem.
-On case attacks are important!
-Theory & CPs good.
-Do not read at me while giving voters.
-2AR does not necessarily have to be line-by-line.
-I understand spreading, but if you become unclear I will say "clear" once, and after that, if you do not clear your speaking, I will stop flowing, more than likely hurting your chances. 7/10 speed please. Slow down on tags please.
In PF, I’m traditional. I don’t like spreading in PF and there should definitely not be CPs, Theory, Kritiks, or anything like that.
In Policy, pretty much the same as LD above, except I have more tolerance for Ks in Policy because it is a year long topic and you have more time to read lit. I have a lot less experience in Policy than the other debate events, but I have some competitive UIL CX history and can cross apply progressive LD knowledge.
In all debates: I do not tolerate rudeness - especially in cx/crossfire. I love seeing passion in rounds, but being passionate about your topic does not mean you get to be rude. Excessive rudeness/terrible attitude results in lowest speaks possible.
Include me in on email chains: email@example.com
I look forward to hearing you speak!
1. Be nice and respectful. If you are highly offensive or disrespectful, I reserve the right to vote you down.
2. Speed is fine, but be clear and slow down in rebuttals. If you go top speed in rebuttals, I will miss arguments.
3. I prefer interesting and creative arguments. I will usually prefer truth over tech and decide on the most cohesive weighed argument. If I don't clearly understand, I don't vote. Tell me how to vote please.
4. If you do what makes you comfortable and throw a voter on it, you'll be fine.
Lately, I have not received my flowers from the debate community for my exemplary judging. As a result, I will be starting the All-Pro Panel. All-Pro Panel distinctions will be given to the best judges throughout the debate community. This year, I will be determining the honorees. In the future, we should have more voters in the pool. Now to the good stuff.
It is with great honor I would like to present the 2020 All-Pro Panels.
Rafael Acosta [REDACTED]
Rob Glass (he lives on tabroom.com)
Obinna Dennar [REDACTED]
George Lee (judging while lowkey tiktok famous)
Rafael Acosta (explained above)
Honorable Mentions (in the future this might be Third Panel)
Chris Castillo (voter fatigue)
Eric Emerson (most sits)
Jason Courville (voter bias)
Back in my day, I beat Abby Chapman (one of the best debaters of my generation) three times in a row. I'm serious business, kid.
Hello debate community,
I am sorry for my unbecoming comments posted above. Debaters should never gloat over victories. The truth is Abby Chapman has always been a sore spot for me. Abby Chapman ended my middle school debate career on a 2-1 decision (Jacob Nail's sat) at the Middle School national tournament. Seriously, I cried for two hours. My young heart was broken and my dreams shattered. Abby, I would like to extend a public apology for my rude comments posted above.
Some rounds I am the best judge at the tournament (rarely) sometimes I am the worst (often). hahahha kiddinngg or am I?
I do judge a lot, so I can usually give an rfd that would bring a tear to the eye of Shakespeare's modern reincarnation. This tear would christen their greatest most profound literature bending-binding-changing work, but I am not too special.
I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.
My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech.
I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny, nice, and/or like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often than not I'll decide your way.
I don't believe in speaker points.
If you are oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.
Please keep me entertained I have severe ADHD.
Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.
Please add me to your email chain,
Currently debate at UTD, have always done policy debate.
I am more of a critical debater but I've done straight up policy for several years so im comfortable with any style of argument.
Given that i don't feel any particular way about any type of argument. I think the only way you can cheat is by speaking more than your alotted time, clipping cards, getting outside help during the debate, not followimg tournament rules, etc. I could potentially vote on any theory argument or just argument im general provided that you have proven that it is a good thing/true.
Being disrespectful is a good way to lose yourself some speaker points, you can be firm and assertive without being disrespectful, its prolly not a good idea to respond to disrespect with disrespect.
In most cases, I will be flowing you, not your speech docs. I prefer to look at them after your speech rather than during it. You won't go so fast that I won't be able to keep up but keep in mind that the faster you go the more generic my flows will be. This'll prolly hurt you more in rebuttals than it will in constructives. Again, this isn't me saying go slow.
Always explain the premises of your argument, I will never fill in gaps for you wether i am familiar with your lit or not, and if there are gaps in explanation then its prolly am argument that I can't evaluate.
I don't make facial expressions during debates, it may look like im mad but most likely im not, im listening, dont worry.
Feel free to ask me any specific questions.
I coach Northland Christian.
Please justify a role-of-the-ballot argument (standard, criteria, ROB, ROJ, all fine, just justify it)
Evidence Ethics (and decorum) matter. If there is an evidence-ethics/cheating claim, I will stop the debate immediately. If I believe there is a violation, I will award the accusing debater with a win. I will then immediately contact tab and let them know what I have done. All challenges are then up to the tournament process.
I prefer and believe I am best at evaluating util/policy-style debates. Plans, CP's, Disads, all good.
I like the K debate. I am not well-read in Deleuze or Butler. I am fairly well read in Marx, Wilderson, Curry, and bell hooks. I am very well read in Cone, Augustine, Aquinas, and Wesley. These are not exhaustive lists.
I see theory/Topicality as a matter of competing interps. I am more inclined to buy reasonability arguments on Theory than T.
The K vs Theory debate is interesting. Be clear on in-round implications when impacting out this debate.
I'm probably not your best judge if your strategy is tricks.
Performance arguments are fine. See ROB caveat above.
Speed is fine. Clarity is better. Please make sure I know where a tag starts and a card ends.
I want to be on the email-chain (if the tournament is cool with it). paul DOT gravley AT gmail DOT com
I've seen these issues disproportionately in PF so I feel like I need to include them here:
Please include the links to the evidence in your cards in the citation if you are not including the entire piece of evidence in the card itself. Falsifying the original context of a piece of evidence by cutting the card to support your claim means that the claim is actually unwarranted. I will check evidence for verification of author's intent if an argument is made for discrediting evidence. If the author's intent does not support your claim, you will not gain it as offense.
Please signpost down the flow and extend evidence into every speech; extensions include the impact of a card and not just its claim or simply its author. Impact calculous is extremely important to me; convince me why your impacts outweigh your opponents'. You can even be so specific as to link your impacts to a specific value framework if you believe this will contextualize their importance. If you do so, be sure to also articulate how this framework is preferable to whatever framework your opponents' impacts default to.
Run what you want, just please make sure you understand and can effectively articulate any kritical argumentation you present so I don't feel like I'm just voting for the upper hand of a better case, but instead the overall better debater. I'm fine with theory, but won't vote on the very basic theory arguments like time skew unless, obviously, you present it and it goes uncontested by your opponent. For my non-kritical debaters, you still have an equal shot at the ballot. I like seeing direct clash points in a debate, so go for topicality and/or solvency against those type of arguments.
I am mainly familiar with LD-style progressive argumentation, so you're going to have to be very clear with any kritical argumentation you present. I understand CX stock debate, so you're good there, but basically just keep in mind that I was an LD debater, so present your cases to me as such please.
i know my paradigm is long but good lord please at least read the prefs guide
I am old and don't know anything and my RFDs are bloated and terrible strike me
Current affiliation: head debate coach at LC Anderson in Austin, TX, Director of PF at NSD-Texas
Prior: John B. Connally High School, TDC, UTNIF LD
Email chain firstname.lastname@example.org; please share all speech docs with everyone who wants them
Quick guide to prefs
1-off ap, setcol, latinx, cap/1nc non-friv theory: 1
deleuze/softleft/psycho/non-pess black studies: 1-2
kant without tricks: 2
most k/idpol/: 3
performance/non-Baudrillard pomo: 3-4
Baudrillard/non-kant phil/heavy fw: 4
friv theory/cpess: strike
tricks/abusive strats/physical death good: strike no matter what I will vote you down
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.
Unconventional arguments: fine, must be coherent and developed
Framing/weighing mechanism: love impact framing that makes sense; at the very least do meta-weighing. "Cost-benefit analysis" is not a real framework.
Evidence sharing/disclosure: absolutely necessary but i won't ever vote for a disclosure shell that would out queer debaters
Theory: I am very good at evaluating theory but don't read it if you don't know how
Problematic PF broness: ew
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
TLDR: Share speech docs. I don't default one way or another on most arguments. 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. Don't insult my (admittedly limited) intelligence. I will intervene against bigotry and disregard for others' physical and mental wellness. Tricks and excessive preempts/triggers will make me vote against you; my attention deficit and cognitive impairments make it impossible for me to keep up with all of them, and just know if you're reading them you are being violent toward me (and probably the other debater). 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. 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.
Note on ableism: It is difficult and potentially 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.
Post-rounding: If you or your coach are a person who post-rounds after losses, please assume in advance that I am an extreme lay judge and strike/block me forever. This includes post-rounding in email after rounds. Please, 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. I'm fine with you thinking my decision was incorrect; it probably was.
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
I'm super old, but I like to think I can still handle some or even most high-level debate. PF: I expect ALL evidence read or especially paraphrased to be shared and accessible by both teams and the judge. This means case and rebuttal docs WITH ACTUAL CUT CARDS. Evidence is not a summary of evidence or link to an article, it's cut evidence in the context of an entire passage/paragraph of text that isn't deleted or obscured. If you don't share, don't be surprised if I drop you. I have the lowest threshold you can possibly imagine for well-structured theory argument based on the refusal to share evidence not just with me but with your opponents.
Despite how long my paradigm is, I don't think it's my job to tell debaters what to do; rather, it's the job of the debaters to tell me why to vote a certain way.
Debaters shouldn't lie or act like jerks. While I get that debate is ostensibly a competitive activity and can get very intense, this is supposed to be educational, good-spirited, and fun. Personal abuse, harassment, or competitive dishonesty of any kind is strictly unacceptable. I don't like to intervene, but 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, and there's even a slight question as to whether it might be a trigger, please notify your opponent. Blatant evidence ethics violations such as clipping are an auto-voter. Stop yelling at each other.
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.
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. I am not flexible on this and will absolutely use my ballot to enforce this expectation.
PF: Speed is fine. Framework 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.
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 if the evidence isn't shared before the speech. Given speech times, I think it's harder to win on a rebuttal-paraphrasing shell. Don't be afraid to make something a paragraph shell or independent vote (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 standards in PF are possibly the biggest holding it back from being truly great. Evidence ethics arguments have a very low threshold - if you're shady and there's a shell or implication I am very inclined to vote on it.
If you try to read a policy/critical argument you don't understand, I will flame you in the oral, so be ready for that.
DO NOT PERPETUATE THE TOXIC, PRIVILEGED 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. This generally means I don't buy sticky defense justifications.
Line by line debating is important but don't get yourself spread out for the sake of it. Group or find a short circuit/prereq to their offense and you'll be fine
If I call for evidence and you give me a link to an article, I will auto-dock speaks and flame you in the RFD.
"It's not allowed in PF" is not 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 don't really care if you skip Grand, but I find it distasteful to use that practice as an excuse to frontload your prep use then award yourselves extra prep time
Speaks: You're probably not going to get a 30. I tend to start at 28 and work my way up or down. If you get a 26 or below, you likely did something bigoted/abusive. I usually range between 27.5 and the mid 29s. I'm a little more generous in PF and at locals. I will dock you hard if you make the space unsafe, particularly for women, gender/sexual minorities, disabled or differently abled debaters, religious minorities, and debaters of color. I'm not afraid to give good speaks if you're good, but yeah 29.8 is usually as high as I'll go
Speed: Any rate of delivery is fine, though I love and prioritize clarity. If you are not clear, I will say "clear" once. 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).
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 affs in most topicality 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.
Frameworks: Fine with traditional (stock or V/C), policy-oriented, phil, critical frameworks, performance, narratives 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 hate framing that is abusive for abuse's sake, like "the aff/neg must win every round." Examples of this are a prioris that say "Resolved" means the resolution has already been affirmed or "evaluate the round after the 1AC." I'm the worst person to pref if you are a tricks debater. 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 don't enjoy permissibility triggers, but I understand them and will vote on them.
LARP: Great. Plans, counterplans, PICs, PIKs, disads, solvency dumps, whatever. 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. For UIL/traditional policy debaters - please read the entirety of the aff in the 1AC and please divide labor in the block. To the extent that anyone prefs me, and no one should ever pref me under any circumstances, LARPers ought to consider preffing me really highly, and sometimes don’t on the basis that I've coached good K debaters. I am most comfortable and conversant with policy arguments.
Condo: Fine. 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 advocacy is generally ok to me and I need a clear abuse story.
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. 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. For sharing, I prefer email. 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 have my own debaters stand if they can at in-person competitions because it helps with volume and clarity. But do your thing, it won't affect speaks. Maybe look at me every once in a while, your call. For online debate specifically I fully recognize and accept that most debaters are sitting and whatever.
Flex prep: Fine. More clarity is good.
Performative issues: If you're a white person debating critical race issues, or a man advocating feminism against a woman, 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. "Perf con good" arguments had better make a metric ton of sense.
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 don't vote against a "traditional" value debater because they're "less progressive" or "less cool" or whatever. Every person in our community has value. PUN INTENDED! That said, 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.
New for 2022: I'm getting older and I don't judge policy regularly anymore; I need you to slow down just a tick
I was a 2A-1N in the 90s, and began my judging/coaching career strictly in policy debate. Most of this doc is LD-specific, because that's the pool to which I'll generally be assigned. Policy debaters, don’t worry. I’m not going to expect you to read weird phil or something. Still, 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.
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 did oratory and LD debate in high school and judged while in college.
Grapevine is my first debate in years, but I have been using learned techniques in the real world. I am in risk management and have made arguments for multi-million dollar projects and learned what works based on the situation.
I like logic and reason and speaking fast does nothing for me. If you are speaking to a CEO you have to be able to make your points so they can quickly understand. In other words, you have to know your audience. Don't be rude and practice good manners, we are all here to learn and have fun.
I debated for four years on the national circuit when in high school. Since then, I have coached LD at both the high school and college levels on the national circuit. I am a Ph. D student studying continental philosophy, so I will likely be familiar with your favorite kritik literature. I do not have a strong preference for the style of arguments you choose to make, (I am not a K-hack, for example) but only insist that you try to make them well. While I do not think "tab" judging is possible, I see it as a basically desirable goal (with some exceptions). I am fine with speed, but I think I am a little hard of hearing, so I might say "LOUDER" for you to speak up.
I default to a competing worlds or "offense/defense" paradigm. I also default to viewing theory as an issue of competing interpretations. I generally dislike truth-testing arguments. I am probably more open to kritiks of theory and the like than other judges, but am also perhaps more likely to vote for theory arguments than others. I like that performances are part of debate. I think the best parts of debate are when the debaters are able to use the debate space as a means to get the judge, opponent, and audience to deal with an issue that they really think is worth discussing (of course, this can just as well be a complicated discussion of policy issues as it can be a discussion of personal experiences).
I hedge all of the above claims with "I default to" or "generally..." because I see debate as a space for debaters to express themselves, not for judges to determine what the contents of those speech acts are supposed to be. Of course, this has its limits (I will not vote for arguments I take to be grossly offensive, or arguments which I think tangibly make debate an unsafe space, for example). But I largely think debaters should be allowed to debate in the style that they prefer and that the judge should play as minimal a role as possible.
I generally assign pretty high speaker points. If you got low speaker points, you were probably rude or offensive or very unclear. I see speaker points as a way of rewarding good behaviors (like communicating clearly, answering questions directly, being kind to your opponent) and punishing bad behaviors (like being deliberately unclear, uncharitable, or rude). So if you want good speaker points in front of me, I'd recommend just being kind to your opponent.
Grandview High School Graduate
Debate for me is an educational practice, in which the main goal of the competition is epistemological, social, and political growth for all students. Debate should not only be fun, but should be respectful as well. The opponents should respect each other, while also providing great clash within the round. Unless told otherwise, I will be evaluating the round through a policymaker lens, thus provide warrants for impacts, and flesh out every argument. I will not do the work for you, so extend and flow across arguments.
Before I dive into the specifics, you absolutely need evidence to make arguments, whether it be your opponents or one's own. The only unwarranted arguments I will listen to are the blatant, right in your face arguments.
During a presentation, I do allow Spreading, but I also believe that if we have to read every word, that is not educational thus will dock speaker points. I want to be able to understand and hear clear enunciation of the arguments being presented, so just be comfortable.
Argument Specifics (1-5 Scale)
Disadvantages (5) - The negative should have a solid uniqueness, while clearly showing the link to the AFF. You should flush out the impacts of your DA for them to flow on my ballot.
Counter Plans (5) - Must be competitive with the AFF, show me why the AFF can't or won't solve better than the CP. For the AFF, permutations are amazing, but be sure to isolate the net-benefits.
Kritiks (3) - I am familiar with a lot of K literature, but nothing to crazy. Please just run the fundamentals, and prove the Alternative solvency.
Topicality (4) - Again just run the fundamentals, and you must have standards for me to vote. The aff just needs to prove that it is tangentially connected to the topic, and must be able to go through the rigorous tests needed to prove this.
Framework (4) - If you run a K, this is vital to you even getting a vote on the K. Other than that, just make sure the arguments are competitive and answer them.
Reject the Resolution AFFs are very harmful to debate. They destroy the prep that the Neg was given, and should not be ran in front of me. If need be and its the only AFF prepared that is fine, but try not to read them in front of me.
Feel free to run the arguments anyway that you are good at, I just want to see a solid debate that is competitive and upheld to the respect all deserve.
Ways to get a quick L
1. Anything said that is blatantly racist will receive a loss automatically.
2. Anything said that is homophobic, or an assault against the LGBTQ community.
3. Not having any knowledge on the subject at hand, or being able to answer any questions. I will be able to understand who was given their material, and who worked for it.
Last of all have fun, and remember that debate is not about winning but the education and experience involved with the debate.
Essentially the same from my CX paradigm with a few tweaks throughout.
I believe framework is needed in ever debate round, you need to prove to me why evaluating your Value and Criterion through your framework is the best world for me to live in. I also believe however that you should continue to prove the necessity of your value through out each contention you present to me.
During a presentation, I do allow Spreading, but I also believe that if we have to read every word, that is not educational thus will dock speaker points. I want to be able to understand and hear clear enunciation of the arguments being presented, so just be comfortable.
Argument Specific ( 1-5 Scale)
Disadvantages (5) - Again just provide the link between the the DA and the value debated. Make sure to extend the entire argument across. Also make it very clear when using as a NB, present the warrants needed to prove this.
Counter Plans (5) - Make sure to read the theory necessary present the argument adequately, also prove to me how the CP is a better world than the Affirmatives world.
Kritiks (3) - I am familiar with a lot of K literature, but nothing to crazy. Please just run the fundamentals, and prove the Alternative solvency. You MUST have framework for me to evaluate effectively.
Framework (5) - This is just a mandatory part of LD, very seldom are rounds won in front of me without F/W.
Feel free to run the arguments anyway that you are good at, I just want to see a solid debate that is competitive and upheld to the respect all deserve.
Ways to get a quick L
1. Anything said that is blatantly racist will receive a loss automatically.
2. Anything said that is homophobic, or an assault against the LGBTQ community.
3. Not having any knowledge on the subject at hand, or being able to answer any questions. I will be able to understand who was given their material, and who worked for it.
Last of all have fun, and remember that debate is not about winning but the education and experience involved with the debate.
My name's Emily Jackson but I'd prefer you just called me Emily. I graduated from Plano Senior High School in 2016. I did two years of LD there, PF at Clark High School (Plano) before that, and NFA-LD and parli for the University of North Texas after.
Short, reading on your phone as you're walking to the room version: Speed is fine, my limit is your opponent. Read whatever arguments you're good at, don't pull out something you don't like running just for me. I like well warranted frameworks, engagement on the framing level, and clear voting issues. I dislike rounds that collapse down to theory/T, but I'm more likely to just be annoyed with those than I am to dock anyone points for it unless you do it badly. Don't run racism/sexism/homophobia/etc good. If you have doubts, don't do it. If you have any specific questions, check below or just ask me before the round.
Fileshare and Speechdrop (speechdrop.net) are my preferred evidence sharing platforms. For evidence sharing and any out of round questions, email me at email@example.com
General: Too many debaters under-organize. Number responses to things, be clear where you are on the flow, refer to cards by name where you can. For some reason people keep not signposting which sheet they're on, so I'd really really like if you took the extra second to do that. This makes me more likely to put arguments where you want them, and generally makes it much easier for me to make a decision.
Speed: I like speed, but there are many valid reasons that your opponent might object and I would prefer that you check with them first. Slow down on tags, cites, plan/counterplan texts, interpretations on T/theory, values/criterions, and generally anything you want to make sure I have down. If your opponent asks you not to go fast, don't. I will say "clear" if you're not understandable (but this is normally a clarity issue rather than a speed one.) Make sure you're loud enough when you're going quickly (not sure why some people seem to get quieter the faster they get)
Evidence: Know the evidence rules for whatever tournament you're participating in. Normally this is the NSDA. I take evidence violations seriously, but I don't like acting on them, so just follow them and we'll be fine. If you're sharing speeches (flashing, speechdrop, email chains,) I'd like to be a part of it. It's not that I don't trust you, but I know that debaters have a tendency to blow cards out of proportion/extend warrants that don't exist/powertag, so I'd like to be able to see the cards in round if your opponent can.
Speaks: Generally I give speaks based on strategy and organization, relative to where I feel you probably stand in the tournament. This generally means that I tend to give higher speaks on average at locals than larger tournaments. Low speaks likely mean that you were hard to flow due to organizational issues or you made bad decisions.
Framework: High-school me would best be categorized as a phil debater, so it's safe to say that I love a meaty framework. It's probably my favorite thing about LD. I can follow complex philosophical arguments well, but it's probably best to assume that I don't know the lit for everyone's benefit. Frameworks that stray from the util/generic structural violence FW norms of LD are my favorite, but make sure you actually know how it works before you do that. I've also come to like well-run deontological frameworks, but I tend to not see those as often as I like. I generally see who won the framing debate and then make the decision under that framework, but I can be convinced otherwise. Non-traditional structures are fine. As a side note, this applies to role of the ballot args as well, and I'm not going to accept a lower standard just because you call it a role of the ballot instead of a standard or a criterion. The manifestation is often different, but we still need justifications folks. Framework is not a voter.
I have a low threshold for answers on TJFs- I generally don't like them and I think they're a bit of a cop-out.
Ks: I like Ks when they're done well, but badly done Ks make me sad. Make sure you do the necessary work on the link and alt level. I want to know exactly what the link is and how it applies to the aff (where applicable) and I want to know exactly what the alt does and what it looks like. Like on framework, don't assume I know the lit. I might know it, I might have run it, but I still want you to explain the theory anyway in a way that someone who is less acquainted can understand. When done well, K debates are one of my favorite kind of debates.
On non-T K affs - I do very much like judging K v K debates and K affs. I coach non-T K affs now and I think that they can be incredibly educational if done well. I used to run T FW/the cap K a lot, but I feel like that has mostly led to me feeling like I need T FW/cap run well to vote on it as opposed to run at all.
Theory/T: Not a fan, but mostly because the format of LD normally necessitates a collapse to theory if you engage in it. I'm sympathetic to aff RVIs, and I default to reasonability simply because I don't like debates that collapse to this and would like to discourage it. Keep a good line-by-line and you should be fine.
Plans/Counterplans: Go for it. Make sure counterplans are competitive. Perms are a test of competition. I don't really have much to say here.
Some general theory thoughts: Doesn't mean that I'm not willing to listen alternative arguments, but here's where my sympathies lie.
Fairness is an internal link to education
AFC and TJFs are silly and mostly a way to deflect engaging in phil debate
Disclosure is good
1 condo advocacy fine
Nebel T is also silly
Ks: I think winning framing arguments are critical here, as they tend to determine how impacts should be weighed for the rest of the round. That being said, most rounds I've judged tend to be more vague about what exactly the alternative is than what I'd like. Clear K teams tend to be the best ones, imo. Kritical affs are fine provided they win a framework question. Do not assume that I know your literature.
T/Theory: Mostly included this section to note that my paradigm differs most strongly from LD here- I don't have a problem with procedurals being run and I can follow the debate well. I have never granted an RVI in policy and I don't see myself doing it any time in the near future- I default to competing interps without any argument otherwise.
Misc: If I don't say something here, ask me- I've never quite known what to put in this section. Open CX is fine but if one partner dominates all of the CXs speaks will reflect that. Flex prep is also fine, verbal prompting is acceptable but shouldn't be overused. I have a ridiculously low threshold on answers against white people reading Wilderson.
Misc, or, the "Why Did I Have To Put That In My Paradigm" Section:
- No, seriously, I will vote on evidence violations if I need to. They're not that hard to follow, so just like, do that.
- "Don't be offensive" also means "don't defend eugenics"
I am a parent judge.
1.Don't speak fast/spreading I will vote you down if you spread
2.Tell me what arguments to vote on I won't extend anything if you don't EXTEND it
3. Explain and Flesh out every card CRYSTALIZING is very important
4.Signpost and say "and" between the cards so I know what the tag is and it is easier for me to judge the round
1.Be Topical-I won't vote of non-topical aff and neg cases. I like to see a Clear link
2. NO THEORY-if you see abuse in the round just point it out no need of a theory shell
3.I will not vote on Skep
4.Don't use debate jargon
Hi, I'm Ragya (Ragyajkaul@gmail.com). I debated in college policy for 4 years for UT Dallas, and also for 3 years in high school. Generally speaking, I'm really open to different arguments and love to hear new takes on arguments + the topic. I'm more familiar with different policy strategies, as I went for those a lot more in college, but feel free to read whatever you want. A quick rundown below:
DA's-- fine, I appreciate when the 1nc highlighting is actually coherent! More specific links obvi better.
CP's-- great, also can be persuaded by some 2ac theory args, esp when paired with solvency args or competition/perm args! I think absent a condo debate, I'll judge kick if need be.
T-- love these debates! Impact comparison is important!
K's-- amazing, I appreciate specific link explanation and cohesive explanations of your theory/thesis. Alternatives seem important, but I can also maybe be persuaded to vote for the k without. I feel like root cause/pre-req arguments aren't links.
K affs v fw-- these debates are interesting to me. I'm not super persuaded by fairness impacts (and still am TBD on the intrinsic good of "clash"). Questions about what debate should be or should look like are important!
Theory-- I'm open to a lot of theory args incl condo.
I am a simple judge
1. I will say clear or slow-But please don't make me- slow on tags and evidence
2. If I don't have the doc don't plan on spreading
3. I don't have a preference to what you run K's, LARP etc. as long as you can defend your case clearly. If you are spreading make sure you slow down on tag lines.
4. I love smart CX, and I pay close attention to it.
5. Be Eloquent as I do pay attention to that as well
1.Let Weighing live in LD, I don't want a blitz of back file answers without leveraging the AC- then whats the point besides wasting 6 minuets?
2. I know there is a skew! Please don't waste more time complaining about it, it is an acceptable standard in a counter interp or just argument but shouldn't be the the main point of the 1AR, the more time you spend, the less i'll buy it.
3. Not super familiar w/ performance/Non t affs but please go for it- just break it down and you'll be fine
1. I won't vote you down but i'll kill your speaks if you run more than 5 off that are all condo, it always leads to bad debate- I'm generally good with condo but 5 or more off is just abusive
2. I expect clear articulation of what operates on the highest layer, K or Theory- If they go for one and you don't kick the other i'll assume risk of offense so for your benefit be clear
Please Note: I don't disclose. when you see it you will see critique clearly showing what and why.
email the doc to firstname.lastname@example.org
*If you make any morally reprehensible claims in the round, I reserve the right to drop you. If you are spreading hateful rhetoric, you should be removed from the tournament.*
I've been coaching speech, debate, and interp for seven years and I'm currently the head speech and debate coach at Southlake Carroll in North Texas.
Public Forum: Speed is fine, but don't spread. If you're unclear in PF because of speed, I probably won't tell you because you shouldn't reach that point in PF. Don't be overly aggressive, rude, or shout. Lack of clarity or respect will lead to a serious drop in your speaks.
You should provide me with a clear weighing mechanism and justification for using it. If I have to do this work for you, you don't get to complain about my decisions. Remember that public forum is meant to be understood by anyone off the street so don't expect me to be impressed by sloppy attempts at policy tactics.
Second speaking teams don't have to defend their case in rebuttal, though it doesn't hurt to. Just because something was said in cross doesn't mean that I'm going to flow it, though I will be paying attention to it. Please don't waste cross. This is my biggest pet peeve. Give clear voters in the final focus and do your best to go straight down the flow. If you jump around the flow and I miss something, that's on you.
Debated for 4 years for Colleyville heritage. 2 years Cx, 2 years Ld.
I used to more of a K debater but weaker on phil debate, but I will listen to it, just make sure to explain it thoroughly
Please do not shake my hand after the round.
Email chains: email@example.com
Cal RR Policy Update: I did mostly LD in high school, and attended a few policy tournaments. I went to policy camp going into my junior and senior year. I have yet to judge a round on this year's policy topic, however I coached on last year's military aid topic which has quite the overlap in the topic literature with the arms sales topic. I believe argument explanation, regardless of content, is very important. Any of my defaults can be challenged and I will vote for any argument that is won. I am more than happy to entertain any questions either through my email, facebook, or before the round.
2013-2017: Competed at Peninsula HS (CA)
Yes I want to be on the email chain, add me: firstname.lastname@example.org
I primarily read policy arguments during the regular season. At camp I experimented with everything including high theory, performance, (ethical) framework, theory, and tricks.
I am willing to judge, listen to, and vote for anything. Just explain it well. I am not a fan of strategies which are heavily reliant on blippy arguments and frequently find myself holding the bar for answers to poor uneveloped arguments extremely low.
Speed should not be an issue, but be clear.
Drop the argument
If I shout TAGS it means that the end of your cards and the beginning of your next tags are not distinct enough.
If you want a better chance at winning and higher speaks start rebuttal speech with a real impact overview and not just explaining how debate works.
Explaining dense arguments will make me more likely to vote for them/higher speaks.
CX and prep are both flex prep. You can just use CX to prep if you want to, and you can use prep to ask questions, and both!
Incomplete extensions will be viewed with heavy skepticism when evaluating the argument. 99% of the time this is just shouting an argument or an author name without explaining what they say/warrant.
Aff vs. the K: No Link + Perm (Yes)
K vs. the Aff: Ks without a link (No)
"Read the Cards!" : If your 2NR/2AR puts your faith in me to just read all the evidence in the debate without any prodding as to what I am looking for, odds are you may be disappointed. I will not make arguments for you/come to conclusions about an argument on my own.
Only the negative reads off-case positions, if you call a 1ar shell a "new off" and not a "new sheet", you will lose speaks.
No, I do not disclose speaks.
Role of the Ballot = Roll of the Eyes; It's just impact calc.
CX begins immediately after the 1AC and the 1NC.
Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC
Email Chain: email@example.com
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).
- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.
- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story.
- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot
- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me
- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.
- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.
- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.
- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.
- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.
debate is a game (that means you all are gamers). like any competitive game, the best debates will be one with lots of healthy interaction. this means while reading evidence/pre-written blocks may be important, you should never sacrifice clash by excluding line by line, weighing, spinning args, etc.
The only rules to debate are the speech times. Run whatever you want!
Do not be mean to your competitors or your teammates.
I probably have not done research on the topic so explain topic specific shorthand and jargon.
-For LD, I default to Competing interps, no rvis, comparative worlds, epistemic certainty, drop the argument, permissibility flows aff, presumption flows neg until neg abandons squo.
-For PF- "Tab." I have a PF paradigm below for more details.
FLOWING: Slow down on Tags, Authors, Theory, spikes, things you REALLY want to me to know. I also think that analytics that were pre-written should be sent in the doc especially if you like to read them super fast. I flow cx.
Hi! I'm Jonathan and I did 3 years of LD and dabbled in PFD and Congress every once in awhile.
General rule of thumb: have a strategic game plan going into round and the ability to adjust that game plan accordingly as the debate goes on. while line by line matters, i think that your overall macro strategy to secure the ballot is the most important thing in debate rounds. thus, speaker points will be based on AND ONLY on how optimal, intelligent, creative your strategy is and how well you execute it. The only exception is that if you are extremely mean or rude in round for some reason expect your speaks to drop.
Arguments that been sufficiently explained by one side (i.e good claim, warrant, impact) and are dropped by the opponent are 100% true.
E V I D E N C E: While the debate should be 100% what the debaters say, I will be reading all the evidence read in a round to ensure that there is no misreading of the arguments presented in front of me. Even if you think something says "A", if it undoubtedly says "B and not A" then I will view it as suspect and depending on the situation will give more leeway to negative arguments against the specific misread card or, in egregious cases, disregard it entirely.
non-traditional cases: perfectly valid approaches to the game, although I think that these affs should be grounded in the topic somewhat and have a specific advocacy (does not have to be normal means/state).
Framework: fw interps are the models of debate that determine how to play the game in and out of round. because you are presenting different styles to the game, you should focus on pitching it to me by winning some external impact, weighing, garnering offences from DAs to competing models, etc. negative teams should be careful in explaining why limits is key towards your external impact and explain in detail why that external impact is important in order to play around the impact turn arguments as well as explaining, in context of course, why the affirmative model probably doesn't get any of the benefits provided by limits. Since everyone is probably biased- I'll admit I probably slightly lean towards FW.
Theory: I default competing interps. In-round abuse will always make your theory arguments better, but I understand that's not always possible. In this case a well-written story of potential abuse might be enough for me to vote on the shell. Impact something to Fairness, education, advocacy skills, or something. Having the theory shell be DTD because X W/O an impact makes it hard for me to vote for the shell.
Topicality: Pretty standard here, go for it because it's an aff obligation that must be met. I don't think T should be an RVI generally and here contextual extrapolation on how a particular interpretation of words of the resolution changes models of debate for better or for worse. So in other words, give me impact comparison like you would in regular theory debates in general. If you go for T in the 2NR though be ready to spend a LOT of time on it.
(2) LD Stuff
LD Framework/Value&VC debate: PLEASE don't get into debates that resemble "Justice is a prereq to morality/morality is a prereq to justice." In my opinion, the value/value criterion structure isn't really the best way to understand/present ethical theories and you should just focus on giving me a standard to weigh on rather than extending single word that in 99% of LD rounds will never be important. To clarify you dont HAVE to present a normative ethical theory in front of me (your weighing mechanism can draw from other philosophical/academic disciplines other than ethics), just dont be surprised if you lose the framework debate when you extended a value without it being contextualized by some actual philosophy that youre reading. In other words, focus on your WHOLE FRAMEWORK position and its weighing mechanism instead of extending a word that by itself means nothing to me.
LD "Tricks": Go for them. Triggers should be in the 1AR, dont try to cheat out a new impact in the 2AR. If you want to blow up a blip in the 1AR you better hope i see it (send it in the doc or slow down).
LD Epistemic Modesty/Epistemic certainty (Model Hedging/Moral Confidence): I default to Epistemic certainty/Moral Confidence. This basically means that fw is super important to determine which impacts are largest in the round. FOR EXAMPLE, even if a util case is winning risk of offence of some huge impact, if the opposing debater wins that Kantian ethics is true and is only MARGINALLY losing the case debate, i disregard the util offence and vote for kant. However, db8rs must still win that a course of action or squo is supporting their fw meaning that if an aff wins fw but concedes/loses sufficient case defense, i will vote negative as they lose their impact despite it being the biggest in round. mind you this is just a default, if you want me to prioritize case more- just say epistemic modesty good.
LD Truth-testing: Truth-Testing does NOT mean that implementation of the plan is excluded when weighing the aff. That being said, Truth-testing can and, let's be real here, usually sets up an affirmative burden that excludes fiating a plan (thats why it's strategic lol). When this happens, opposing debaters should read and defend "comparative worlds good" as a framing issue before reading DAs,CPs, or any arg with post-fiat implications. Or they can read truth-testing flows their side/read a kritik/theory. The reason why i'm explaining this here is that i've seen too many debates where people just read typical off case positions against affs that clearly do not defend aff post-fiat. do not make this mistake.
DAs/CPs/Case debate: Case debate is important no matter what kind of strategy you are going for so please do not forget it. Remember you can always generate offence from the aff case or weaken their offence to make your arguments more compelling to vote on. For those going for the more plan oriented approach to their strategy, having arguments that are as specific to the aff is obviously important and you should be able to ready to explain your link chain story and how the argument, assuming you win it (which you should try to), changes the round in your favor.
cp theory defaults
-neg gets PICs
-condo is good
-multiple worlds good
-int fiat, 50 state fiat, some random condition cp, consult, delay cps all without solvency advocates are probably bad.
K: While explaining the theory of power is important via long overviews, always remember that contextual line by line analysis and interaction with the K with the plan or K aff will make your argument stronger. By default, I think that the aff should get to weigh the 1AC vs the K, so negative teams should try and pitch a FW that precludes that if possible but also I think that well executed K teams can win the K despite having the Aff being able to have the aff.
-If you can generate Uniqueness you can kick the alt
-Permutations to K should be detailed in explanation. This means just saying "perm do both net benefit is the aff" is ok but not quite the best way to pitch it to a judge. Permutations should be accompanied by explanations regarding what will happen in the world of the aff if the alternative is incorporated by the permutation. Basically, you should extrapolate how the permutation will work in real time with the plan while simultaneously addressing concerns of potential DA's to the perm by the negative team's K. reminder that permutations are usually defensive arguments even in their best form, and you REALLY NEED to weigh the case and have the AFF in order to win the entire round with the perm.
(5)PF Debate Paradigm
Most rounds dont have FW and, while I don't really have a say in the PF World, I really think debaters should state and defend a weighing mechanism. Otherwise, I just default to which ever world (pro or con) produces the best consequences (so basically utilitarianism) and if thats not applicable, whoever wins their arguments under an offence/defense paradigm.
Run literally whatever, i'll vote on the flow. THAT BEING SAID, don't feel pressured to run policy/LD positions because that's what I am familiar with. Don't overadapt to me if you aren't comfortable running these positions. I honestly do not mind a normal PF debate. If it helps, just treat me like your average lay judge.
Theory: Theory should be done in the same manner it is done in policy/LD and I will evaluate like I do when judging those debate events. Look at my theory defaults for above or email me if you have any questions on how I feel about debate theory. If you can, try to refrain from using theory against people who clearly don't know what it is. Unlike CX or LD theory is not expected and some people will never have to learn it so using it for a cheap win may not be very interesting for you or myself.
I won't auto down plans/CPs: I feel like a lot of times PFers run plans/CPs anyways and just frame them without using debate terminology (ex: voting pro means you dont do an alternative or there is an opportunity cost with a better alternative) so I think running them is perfectly fine. Also I am unsure of how to evaluate arguments along the lines of "vote them down because NSDA rules said so." It's hard for me to evaluate a pure appeal to authority by itself under an offence/defense paradigm so if you want to make this argument just go for a plans bad theory shell. What this means is that you can run plans and counterplans and if you want to say thats cheating, run a theory shell on why plans/counterplans are cheating.
Paraphrasing is almost always silly and bad for any technical debate. Since this is just my opinion, I wont auto-down you or give you lower speaker points solely because you read a case with paraphrased text but I think it would be better if you just cut cards and read them- save the paraphrased cases for lay rounds. if you are reading this like 10 minutes before round and you only have paraphrased evidence don't sweat it, but against judges that do not mind speed, I would prefer if you read evidence in carded format.
No RVIs by default. I will admit I think getting one will be easier in PFD than in other debate formats given time constraints.
LD/CX: Easiest way to get my vote is to tell me how to frame the debate, then win within that framework. I like offense coming off of cases but it isn't necessary to win. I'll weigh basically any argument as long as it makes sense, but I usually don't buy theory shells.
PF: I evaluate Public Forum on two criteria: 1) who won most of the arguments and 2) who communicated their side best. The first point is the most important, but if the winning side is less eloquent than the losing side, I'll give a low-point win.
1 year policy debate experience
2 years LD experience
I was a local debater. I coach middle school policy debate. I like framework and ks and policy arguments. I'm not good at evaluating theory arguments. YES. I will listen to and evaluate them but maybe thats risky of you. So just make argument interactions clear and we'll have a good time! :)
I debated my junior and senior year at Strake Jesuit, where I graduated in 2018. I read nearly exclusively theory and larp positions, qualifying for state and bidding to the TOC as a senior.
Currently, I am currently the captian of Texas A&M 's NFA-LD team.
Read whatever you are good at, just do it well. I will understand 90% of your liturarure and probably have read it myself (the 10% of some ethical philosophy).
Go slow on tags and cites. Big overviews are always a good idea. I will call slow and clear.
Speaker points are given based on how easy you made it for me to tell who is winning / how technically proficient you are, and how well you combine tech with good rhetoric. Break down the round and make my decsison process easy.
Hi I'm Dhruva Mambapoor!
I debated for four years in LD at Westwood HS (2018). I qualified for the TOC my senior year. I am a second-year out.
team email (preferred): firstname.lastname@example.org
non-team email: email@example.com
Important Things Others Have Said About my Judging:
1. I'm bad at flowing --- I tend to miss a lot of arguments, I don't like it, but I'm not afraid to admit it because you deserve to know.
To resolve this go somewhat slower than you would with other judges. You don't have to go super slow or repeat things often, just be clearer and go slower than your regular style.
On my end, I will flow on my laptop, because I can type much much faster than I can hand-write, and it's neater.
Will I say slow or clear? I will try, but if your unclear or too fast, most of my attention will be on figuring out what you're saying, so I will probably forget. If its incomprehensible to me, then I will say slow or clear twice and then just focus on listening.
2. I tend to overthink --- I get lost in the minutiae during and after the debate.
That means probably more judge intervention than most judges. Usually its because I'm trying to find a missing piece of the puzzle in your arguments, because I'm afraid I missed something.
That also means I will take a long time to decide.
That also means I confuse myself of a lot. The messier the debate the more this gets worse.
To resolve this make the debate less messy, focus on a few arguments (i will miss something if you just dump a bunch of arguments on the flow), fill in the gaps you may assume I just know, and send a doc with all pre-written arguments in all speeches. On my end I will do my best to sift through the debate, identify what could or could not be judge intervention, and reduce my decision time to avoid over-complicating the debate.
3. Long RFDs --- This is less from giving my decision and more from me giving feedback. I also am not an efficient speaker, which makes things much worse.
To resolve this feel free to interrupt me (yes I know its rude, but keeping the tournament on time matters), point out that I'm being inefficient or going on a tangent, and ask questions to selectively choose the feedback most important to you.
On my end I will keep decision time and feedback to a max of 15 min. Yes that means the messier the debate, the more decision time, and the less feedback time even though messier debates are when you need it the most. To resolve this, if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. If you're a coach or judge watching and you wanted to give feedback, so I can be a better judge, also feel free to email me.
Overview to How I Evaluate Debates:
I evaluate arguments based on credence. This may be a bad explanation of this or not even close to the actual judging style based on argument's credence values. Basically, I don't start of every argument at 100%. Instead each argument has a certain validity to it, from 0 to infinity and beyond.
How compelling or credible an argument is, I base on two factors:
1. If your justifications are true, how well does the conclusion logically follow.
2. How well does it fit my background knowledge on the subject.
The second usually happens unconsciously, but I've decided to mention it, so you know that I have biases. If I recognize the bias, I will account for it, but recognizing my own bias is a difficult task. You can override the second factor by simply filling in the gaps where I would put my background knowledge. If you say your shirt is green because you rolled around in the grass, that would make sense because I think grass is green and stains clothes. If I didn't, you simply have to say your shirt is green because you rolled around in a green grass field which stains clothes.
If there are no arguments in the debate that are compelling or have decent enough warrants, then I will lower my standards until someone has sufficient offense for me to vote. The more I lower my standards the riskier the debate becomes.
So then what's compelling and fits my background info? see below
The Specifics of the Common Positions:
A debate whose key characteristic is often blitzing through analytics is very risky in front of me because I tend to miss a lot especially when I can't verify with another source of information like a doc or its a common shell I've heard before. You can read theory, just make sure you can really implement the solutions given at the top of this paradigm. That also doesn't mean you can be as abusive as you want. I will give more leeway to common T/Theory (Pics bad, 2+ condo bad, infinite NIBs bad, etc.). That given, reading theory strategically instead of reading it to check abuse (or often both), is ok, but because T/Theory is naturally harder for me to flow and understand, it probably isn't strategic anyways.
Extra note for topicality:
I read basically only plan affs in HS, so I will understand them and the subsequent T/Theory debates more. If you have an untopical K aff, great! I also understand that subsequent T/theory debate more than other T debates as well. As the aff, I just need a stronger defense of why you are untopical and a more easy to understand explanation of the theories behind the K aff. And No, I'm not going to reject the aff just because its untopical. Against K affs, I'm also more interested in an neg strategy that engages with case. That just means I will pay more attention (unconsciously) to neg strategies without T in it or at the least has substantive case answers.
Don't assume I know the lit behind, because I probably don't. In HS I read: Deleuze, Culp (Dark Deleuze), Cap. I have some knowledge on: Deleuze, Culp, Wilderson, Nietzsche, Foucault, Baudrillard, Bataille, Freud and Lacan, Marx, Zizek. I have a little knowledge on: Derrida, Fanon, Queer Pess, Buddhism.
I have high standards for the alt. It should, ideally, resolve the impact, or propose and thoroughly explain some shift in paradigm/lens that is competitive with the aff and is more net beneficial than continuing with the aff paradigm.
Don't assume I know the lit behind it. In HS I read: Util, Generic Structural Violence, and Koorsgard (Kant-ish). I have some knoweldge on: Util, Koorsgaard, Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Levinas. I have a little knowledge on: Scanlon, Jaeggi, Hegel, Grievability.
I love util and SV frameworks. As a good rule of thumb, I will like frameworks that are grounded in materiality more. However, I can like a good phil debate if each argument is developed and fleshed out. I do not like phil debates with a lot of dumps and blippy analytics.
If you run a CP, the burden of proof shifts to you. If the aff and the CP are very similar then I need a strong net benefit to vote neg. The CP alone needs to be better than the perm to win the CP.
Easiest debates for me to understand. I love a good DA debate. If its big-stick (nuclear war, etc.), which it probably is, then I have high standards for evidence. It should at least indicate extinction (or whatever the scope) is possible, or it's paired with a compelling analytic that indicates extinction is possible or you explain why the evidence would imply this well in cross-ex.
I'm not as informed as I would like to be. Given that, I won't be able to verify many analytics so most if not all arguments should have evidence. I will give more leeway to responses because its hard to have applicable evidence to strange politics scenarios or weirdly structured ones.
Disclosing open source is preferred. Disclosing full text is functionally mandatory. If you read a disclosure shell, you must include a screenshot with a timestamp.
You can change any of the above with warranted arguments. No I don't mean just good arguments, I mean make arguments with claims like "Big-stick impacts don't need to indicate extinction", "Frameworks grounded in materiality are oppressive", etc. Be very explicit and clear with the paradigm you want me to adopt, and then warrant it well.
If you have any questions, feel free to email me, or ask before the round.
Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)
Email for email chains:
If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.
-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.
I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.
In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.
That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.
Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.
l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.
I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.
One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.
I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.
I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.
Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.
Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.
I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.
Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.
Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.
You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.
Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.
Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.
Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.
Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.
Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.
Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.
Current assistant coach at Blue Valley North; debated at Oklahoma (2018-19) and Blue Valley North (2014-18).
Email chain/questions: email@example.com
Note for NSDA: I haven't judged PF before but I did compete in it a few times in high school. Everything below is in the context of policy debate.
Online debate: please have your camera on, at least during your speeches/cx. I won't dock points if you can't, but online debate is a little less soul-crushing if we can at least see each other.
Debate should be enjoyable. Be nice to each other and have fun.
Do whatever you do best. I don't have any strong ideological positions on debate and I'll do my best to fairly judge whatever you put out there.
Please don't go top speed through T/theory/other dense analytics. I will not consult the speech doc to fill in gaps if I can't understand you or am unable to write it down fast enough. This is especially important for online debate.
I'll read cards after the round to verify the claims you're making about them, but I will not do the work of warrant explanation for you.
I would MUCH rather see in-depth case debate than a 10-off round. Substantive solvency arguments and indicts of the 1AC evidence are some of the easiest ways to my ballot. Offense is always important but I think I am slightly more willing than most to vote neg on presumption.
I love counterplan debates. The more specific and creative the better.
I’m sympathetic to theory arguments against word PICs, delay/conditions/consult CPs, and CPs that fiat outside the federal government. Outside of those examples, I lean neg on counterplan theory. If the aff wins theory it’s more likely a reason to reject the argument than the team, with the exception of condo.
Don't read a kritik that you cannot clearly articulate in CX. If you are unable to explain your own evidence, I will be very unlikely to vote on it.
The link is the most important part. Winning framework does not reduce the necessity of winning the link.
The neg still needs to beat the aff in order to win the K. What that looks like can vary, but I'm not very persuaded by arguments that I should just ignore the 1AC.
The aff should probably defend something in the direction of the resolution but that doesn't necessarily require a plan text. The farther the aff strays from the topic area the more likely that I'll find framework arguments persuasive, but I won't on-face reject any aff.
In general, I'm less concerned with whether the act of reading the 1AC solves a real-world problem than I am with whether the kind of action/inaction the 1AC advocates is hypothetically a good idea.
As the aff, you need to explain why the ballot matters and why debate specifically is a necessary site for your argument, not just why the thing you're talking about is important to learn about/discuss.
As the neg, framework is not a "they cheated" argument and I probably won't vote for it if that's how it's framed. I increasingly think that fairness is not its own impact but an internal link to education, but I can be persuaded otherwise.
The neg should frame T as "here is why the aff model of debate is bad," not "the aff should lose because they cheated."
I think I'm more pro-reasonability than a lot of judges, but "the aff is reasonably topical" is not a compelling deployment of it. The explanation of reasonability that makes sense to me is "our definition is a reasonable interpretation of the topic." That still needs to be backed up by warrants, though.
I will judge a round based on what is provided by the competitors.
Linking arguments and weighing the impacts is just as important as having the argument itself. This means explain your arguments and anything that needs to be brought up in order for it to be weighed in my decision. Always provide evidence AND analysis to validate your argument(s). I welcome anything the competitors want to bring in a round, as long as it is fair to all.
I value the quality of questions rather than just quantity. Be wise on how long you take answering and asking questions. By all means, if you believe asking a question will bring new relevance to the answer (will help your case), then go ahead.
i debated LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. this is my 5th year coaching @ greenhill, and my first year as a full time debate teacher.
- coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
- team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-now);
- program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22)]
i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: firstname.lastname@example.org. I strongly prefer an email chain to the NSDA Classroom file sharing, and would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __". I find debates without cameras to be a real bummer; particularly at the toc when students' careers will end, and i would thus appreciate if cameras were on for the duration of rounds.
I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.
That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and thoroughly enjoy 6 minutes of topicality or framework 2nrs [like, T-framework against k affs, not kant] if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.
in person + masks:
i do not have a strong preference on masking - as long as both participants are comfortable, i'll be chill - if one of you asks the other to wear a mask while not speaking, i expect the other to comply. it is difficult for me to imagine a situation where i will vote on an argument about masks in a round.
I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts - this is also true for whoever is answering these positions. every time i have voted for an analytic phil arg, it has been because the rebuttal tailored speed to a level where i understood and was able to process the arguments.
i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.
This used to be much longer - I have preserved the older version, but understand it was cumbersome for pref purposes, too long to read immediately pre-round, etc.
2 things on online debate & speed:
slow down slow down slow down slow down slow down. you should be going at 70% or so of the speed you would go in person. if you do not slow down and i miss arguments, i will not be very sympathetic to the post round.
- it is clear no one could flow a debate round as it is delivered. given that, i am cool w debaters tossing out "slow" at their opponents if they can't flow them at top speed. i prefer more experienced debaters to modulate their speed/presentation to be closer to that of their opponents.
10 things to know:
- Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater, there is no room for drop the arg negotiation. do with that what you will.
i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer. this is not negotiable.
please do not split your 2nrs! you will be far likelier to win if you develop one flow for the 2nr, and will be served poorly by the attempt to go for every 1nc arg in the 2nr. In principle, this is also true for your 2ARs. an important caveat: if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it i think that likely means the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.
there is no chance you get me to exclude a speech from the debate - i will evaluate every portion of the debate after the 2ar, with relevant content from the 2ar taken into consideration.
Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round. The 1ac/nc should have evidence of high quality, and the 1ar/2nr/2ar should have explanation of that evidence of a similarly high quality.
I think disclosure is good, and "i think the best debates happen when both teams are able to reasonably predict what arguments will be read (with the exception of new affs + unbroken neg positions). i am unsympathetic to arguments about disclosure that do not contest this point. even if you cannot post broken positions on the wiki for whatever reason, it is my belief that you should be willing to provide them, in good faith, to your opponent upon request in some way." - anna. i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key. - "If there was an accessibility, disclosure, or other request made before the debate that you plan to bring up in the debate please inform me before the debate. I would like to evaluate the debate with this information ahead of time. More personal issues/things that someone did last year are difficult for me to understand as relevant to my ballot." - eli
i rely heavily on framing claims made by both teams in deciding debates, and i much prefer these claims to break early than late - if neither the 1nc/1ac have particularly clear framing claims, my decision is liable to get weird. a lot of k debates i've coached/judged this year have taken for granted that "explanatory power" has some innate value that is sufficient to win debates - i don't understand why this is true, or why explanatory power is intrinsically valuable/something i should view as sufficient to grant a ballot.
- form vs content: over the last few years, i have seen a significant uptick in arguments about form vs content. i find this dichotomy fascinating, but i find myself rarely understanding where debaters want me to draw the form/content line - if you plan for this to be a significant part of your strategy, you need to be very clear about what is different between your form and your opponent's form.
- i think the semantics da to T is often articulated in ways that are paternalistic and verge on racist. if you do not have a defense of your reading of the resolution, i think vaguely gesturing at racial minorities and saying "topicality is racist, why do you exclude minorities?" is gross unless you have an explanation of what dialect, culture, etc., interprets the topic the way you have. otherwise, you are simply making the claim that minorities are insufficiently intelligent to handle... grammar? other languages have internal structures, grammar, and conceptions of semantic correctness, and it is unbelievable to me how many times i've seen debaters assert otherwise in debates this year!
- speaks: if you debate at a level that makes me think you should be in out rounds, you will likely have a 28.8 as your floor - moving above that requires good strategic decisions, well structured rebuttals, and making the debate easy to resolve. 28.8 were the average speaks required to break at a few of the larger octas bids in recent years.
Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:
Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies
IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.
Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)
- infinitely regressive "must disclose _____" shells
Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature
affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is something like util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and more importantly, my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds.
baudrillard & his derivatives
- i am very interested in discussions/theories of translations, and woefully inept at understanding how they would operate in a debate context - read it if you'd like, but i will need a very clear explanation of competition in particular, and how it operates in the round more broadly.
- new affs bad
- Be respectful, but don't waste your time asking your opponents for permission for things like the first question.
- This means treading the fine line of being aggressive and respectful.
- I like to see crystal clear clash on the flow. Please when framing rebuttals go in order down the flow. Do not bounce around.
- Provide clear links between your value and criterion and the rest of your case.
- At the end of the day your value and criterion are most important to me in LD. I want to see clear links and evidence upholding those. I'm looking for logic to support your theory.
ABSOLUTELY NO SPREADING.
Intro: I debated for 3 years at Royse City (it’s okay if you don’t know where that is) I was the only debater at my school my senior year but actively competed on the National circuit. I primarily did LD but I also have experience in Policy I ran just about everything during my years of debate from non-T affs, K affs, and any option on the neg that saying I’m open to any argument you will read.
Short version- I try to be as TAB as possible knowing there are some preferences just read whatever you want I don’t have preferences in that sense (plans, DAs, Ks, theory) just tell me why you ran them and why they matter. Go as fast as you want I’d like to say I’m pretty good at flowing. I’m not the best at really dense phil so please explain exactly what the argument means (even if you win the tech debate it’s hard for me to vote on an argument that wasn’t explained well during round.
1. Policy args (CP, DA, ADV)
2. T & Theory
If you start an email chain put me on it. Pogue2000@gmail.com
Framework- V/C debate, ROB, ROJ, are all acceptable. I didn’t really run dense framework in my years of debate but for certain positions its required so go for it. I’m sad I have to say this but just because you win framework doesn’t mean you win the round. Please weigh well tell me how your arguments fit in the framework and why that framework matters. I feel like most debaters don’t do a great job at arguing frameworks after the first two speeches so even if you read a 5-card dump on your opponent’s framework you still need to extend and say why yours is good.
Policy args- I tend to lean to policy style debates even in LD but only if the topic allows it. If the wording of the resolution doesn’t ask for some sort of policy action don’t try to fit on in.
Topicality/ theory- When you read these arguments in front of me give 1. A proper structure Interp, violation, standards, voters 2. A clear abuse story (if one isn’t pointed out it’s hard for me to vote on it even if you when the tech debate) don’t just say it’s bad for education or fairness show me why that matters and how it’s bad for debate 3. I feel like competing interps is a better way to debate theory but sometimes reasonability is a good strategy (I don’t like reasonability as much because it calls for me to create some type of Brightline and requires a bit of intervention) 4. I feel like the 1AR is one of the hardest speeches in debate and will vote on RVIs for theory or topicality if the RVI is properly warranted.
K- I don’t have a lot of experience in super dense K debate so if you’re going hard please explain it because it’ll go right over my head. I’m good with general Ks Biopower, Cap, ECT. If you can explain the position in an overview in a way that I can understand I will vote on it.
Feel free to email me with any questions about my paradigm
Only send speech docs to email@example.com
ASK FOR POLICY PARADIGM - The paradigm below is designed mostly for LD. Some things change for me when evaluating the different events/styles of debate. Also when you ask please have specific questions. Saying "What's your paradigm?", will most likely result in me laughing at you and/or saying ask me a question.
About Me: I graduated from Crowley High School in 2013, where I debated LD for three years mostly on the TFA/TOC circuit. I ran everything from super stock traditional cases to plans/counterplans to skepticism, so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you want to run.I debated at The University of Texas at Dallas, in college policy debate for 3 years. I currently teach and coach at Greenhill School. Running any sort of Morally repugnant argument can hurt you, if you're not sure if your argument will qualify ask me before we begin and I'll let you know.
Speed: I can flow moderately fast speeds (7-8 on a scale of 10), but obviously I'll catch more and understand more if you're clear while spreading. I'll say "clear"/"slow" twice before I stop attempting to flow. If I stop typing and look up, or I'm looking confused, please slow down!! Also just because I can flow speed does not mean I like hearing plan texts and interpretations at full speed, these things should be at conversational speed.
Cross Examination: While in front of me cx is binding anything you say pertaining to intricacies in your case do matter. I don't care about flex prep but I will say that the same rules of regular cx do apply and if you do so your opponent will have the chance to do so. Also be civil to one another, I don't want to hear about your high school drama during cx if this happens you will lose speaker points.
Prep Time: I would prefer that we don't waste prep time or steal it. If you're using technology (i.e. a laptop, tablet, or anything else) I will expect you to use it almost perfectly. These things are not indicative of my decision on the round rather they are pet peeves of mine that I hate to see happen in the round. I hate to see rounds delayed because debaters don't know how to use the tools they have correctly.UPDATE. You need to flow. The excessive asking for new speech docs to be sent has gotten out of hand. If there are only minor changes or one or two marked cards those are things you should catch while flowing. I can understand if there are major changes (3 or more cards being marked or removed) or new cards being read but outside of this you will get no sympathy from me. If you are smart and actually read this just start exempting things. I don't look at the speech doc I flow. If you opponent doesn't catch it so be it. If this happens in rounds I am judging it will impact your speaker points. If you would like a new doc and the changes are not excessive per my definition you are free to use your own prep time, this will not effect your speaker points.
Theory: I don't mind theory debates - I think theory can be used as part of a strategy rather than just as a mechanism for checking abuse. However, this leniency comes with a caveat; I have a very low threshold for RVI's (i.e. they're easier to justify) and I-meet arguments, so starting theory and then throwing it away will be harder provided your opponent makes the RVI/I-meet arguments (if they don't, no problem). While reading your shell, please slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell!
Also theory debates tend to get very messy very quickly, so I prefer that each interpretation be on a different flow. This is how I will flow them unless told to the otherwise. I am not in the business of doing work for the debaters so if you want to cross apply something say it. I wont just assume that because you answered in one place that the answer will cross applied in all necessary places, THAT IS YOUR JOB.
- Meta-Theory: I think meta-thoery can be very effective in checking back abuses caused by the theory debate. With that being said though the role of the ballot should be very clear and well explained, what that means is just that I will try my hardest not to interject my thoughts into the round so long as you tell me exactly how your arguments function. Although I try not to intervene I will still use my brain in round and think about arguments especially ones like Meta-Theory. I believe there are different styles of theory debates that I may not be aware of or have previously used in the past, this does not mean I will reject them I would just like you to explain to me how these arguments function.
Speaks: I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I very rarely will give a 30 in a round, however receiving a 30 from me is possible but only if 1) your reading, signposting, and roadmaps are perfect 2) if the arguments coming out of your case are fully developed and explained clearly 3) if your rebuttals are perfectly organized and use all of your time wisely 4) you do not run arguments that I believe take away from any of these 3 factors. I normally don't have a problem with "morally questionable" arguments because I think there's a difference between the advocacies debaters have or justify in-round and the ones they actually support. However, this will change if one debater wins that such positions should be rejected (micropol, etc). Lastly, I do not care if you sit or stand while you speak, if your speech is affected by your choice I will not be lenient if you struggle to stand and debate at the same time. UPDATE. If you spend a large chunk of time in your 1AC reading and under-view or spikes just know I do not like this and your speaks may be impacted. This is not a model of debate I want to endorse.
General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of cases (I think it should be done in the 1AR though). NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. My tolerance of just about any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory.
Kritiks and Micropol: Although I do not run these arguments very often, I do know what good K debate looks like. That being said I often see Kritiks butchered in LD so run them with caution. Both should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution). For K's that are using postmodern authors or confusing cards, go more slowly than you normally would if you want me to understand it and vote on it.
Extensions and Signposting: Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably just stare at you with a weird look if I'm lost.
Some of the information above may relate to paper flowing, I've now gone paperless, but many of the same things still apply. If I stop typing for long stretches then I am probably a bit lost as to where you are on the flow.
I would consider myself fairly tab. The debate is what you make of it and I do not think that as a judge I should demand certain arguments from debaters. The most important things for me to see in a round, are clash, and impact comparisons.
This will be my 8th year in debate. I debated at Montgomery High School for four years in policy on the TFA and UIL circuits. I did policy at The University of North Texas for a year and a half. Now I compete in NPDA for UNT.
Speed: It's fine but manage your clarity. Slow down for tags and analytics. This is extremely important because if I can't get the arguments down then I cannot evaluate them at the end of the round.
T: I love T. I think that it is an incredibly strategic argument and that it is an important debate to be had. That being said make sure that if you read T that it has a strategic purpose. I tend to default towards competing interpretations, but that does not mean that I cannot be persuaded by reasonability.
DA: My preferred strat as a debater is cp+ da.
CP: Love it. (see above).
K: I need a good explanation of the thesis of your kritik. In my opinion, the best link argument is one that links to the action of the plan, but if you have a compelling reason why your reps links are important I will evaluate them. Your impact framing should tell me why I should evaluate your impacts over the aff's.
FW:just saying that the aff is abusive bc they aren't part of the res is not enough for me. You should have a reason why your interp is good for education or why it gives us access to some important form of education. FW should not be a way to avoid engaging with the K.
K/performance affs: I think the conversations behind these arguments are incredibly important in debate, but I do not have a lot of experience here. I think a clear explanation of what my vote does is important. Also give me reasons why we should reject the traditional forms of debate.
Theory: It's fine. There should be clear voters and if your argument is that I should drop the team then you should have a good warrant for it.
Overview: I did LD a little bit in high school and some NFA LD in college. Since my background is in policy the way I view arguments will be the same as in the last section. I still like to see clash and impact comparison, etc.
When it comes to specifics:
da- I need the link to be clear cause imo I think that’s the hard part of policy args in ld.
Cp- yes unless there's compelling args why not. Pics are cool but theory is also welcome.
K- great but I need a clear explanation the of thesis and link stories. I think the best links are to the aff action, but if you have reasons why reps links are good I’ll evaluate them.
T- love it it's my bread and butter. But it should be used strategically and not just thrown in at the last minute.
Theory- LD theory is new to me but if there is clash and compelling arguments ill evaluate them.
I debated at Winston Churchill (SATX) from 2014-2018 in LD and policy.
If you and your opponent are both waiting outside of the room between flights or waiting for me to get to the room etc., please have the email chain ready to send out the 1AC ASAP.
Few important things:
Tech over truth: Technical debaters do all of the work for me and understand how to evaluate arguments as opposed to leaving it up to the truth of an argument which largely relies on my own personal bias.
Don’t try to spread too fast. I was pretty fast in high school. But I also heard a lot of double breathing, gasps for air, wiggling around and not standing still. Overall looks funny and doesn’t make you sound persuasive. Your speaks will suffer.
I am ~generally~ open to whatever and want you to actually be into the debate and not sound robotic or just be reading blocks throughout every rebuttal. Do what you know and are good at. With that being said, here is how I view most arguments.
K affs: I read k affs sometimes. I enjoy them sometimes. That being said, if the 1AC is a riddle of buzzwords with no topic cards I’ll probably just stop flowing. I’m not going to vote on an aff I think you explain poorly. For instance, if your answer to every cx question sounds like “we solve by deconstructing subjectivities” (or something like that idk lol) I’m not going to be compelled to buy your solvency. Additionally, your aff should talk about the resolution, AFFIRM it, and have a methodology that is in line with what the resolution is doing. I’m fine with performances just please make sure it’s relevant to the resolution.
T/Theory: I personally default to evaluating competing interps because reasonability seems arbitrary unless you substantially explain to me why I should prefer reasonability and why that is good. I really like T and think teams need to be going for it way more often. As far as theory goes: condo, vague alts bad, floating piks bad, pics bad are all fair game in front of me. Where I will literally stop flowing are theory shells like: any spike ever, that shell that’s like “the solvency advocate of the k or cp must be the same actor as the aff” etc. Not convinced by RVI's.
Phil: I don’t know anything about phil and feel that high school debaters are very bad at explaining it. The frameworks confuse me and I always feel like there’s literally no offense whatsoever so if you want to read it in front of me you need to be explaining it and impacting out in the same way that a policy aff would be explained. Just because you have some framework from like 1822 that your opponent doesn’t understand doesn’t mean you can just extend that and weird anecdotes without ever talking about the advantages/contentions.
CP’s: You really can’t go wrong with a solid counterplan in front of me. Please slow down on the cp text. Do a good job of explaining how it solves the aff. Clearly explain and articulate how it doesn’t link to the DA. I feel like I shouldn’t have to say this but I do: make sure there’s a net benefit to the counterplan.
Disads: Have solid internal links and know how to articulate them clearly so I feel comfortable voting on a risk of the disad. Please get in the habit of doing a substantial amount of impact calc.
K’s: I enjoy them. While I’d rather hear a solid cap debate you can read whatever you’d like in front of me. That being said, there are a few areas where my prior knowledge is pretty limited. I probably don’t know about your new pomo strat. While I get the general theories behind big name authors I won’t be as caught up on the vocabulary of the alternative and stuff like that. So please make sure you are doing a good job of explaining things and NOT RELYING ON BUZZWORDS. Other than that, do whatever.
-Make sure you have good topic links that apply to the aff. I probably won’t vote on your Wilderson 10 card that was cut 4 years ago and is being recycled on every topic. However, if you’re reading older link evidence I will buy it if you know how to extrapolate on how it links to the aff in new creative ways whether it be specific instances of the language in the 1ac or particular moments in the debate.
-You really need to be doing a good job on the framing debate. I think the framing debate is something that is often under covered but it one of the easiest routes to the ballot.
-As far as permutations go, please slow down on the text of them so I am actually able to flow them and keep track of which ones are answered etc. If your opponent “dropped” one of your ten perms I need to have it on my flow before I can vote on it. As for the affirmative, spend your time in the 2ar explaining what the permutation functions as and what the net benefits are. I’m very convinced by policy affs that leverage their access to solving immediate tangible impacts which creates a sequencing question. Use that to your advantage.
-I don’t have any opinion on types of k’s that certain people can read. Just remember to be respectful and as a rule of thumb: read arguments that you actually care about and preferably the ones that you’ve actually read the lit for.
Other: Don’t be condescending to your opponents. I know it gets intense but make sure you maintain a level of civility. Actually answer questions in CX. Don’t just say things like “why not” in response to “why vote aff?” If you’re debating someone that is more traditional or much younger than you be nice and don’t spread at your top speed because that isn’t enjoyable for anyone involved. Other than that have fun!
katy taylor '17
yes, add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
cal rr/tournament 2021 update: I have judged numerous rounds on this topic and I can confidently say that I don't like nebel t as an argument.
current 2020 conflicts: Rutgers-Newark AH and Northern Valley JL
previous conflicts: Evergreen Valley SS, Coppell DR, Houston EP, Alief Kerr EG, Guyer CM, Woodlands MR, Cy-Fair TW, and Katy Taylor.
background: I have been coaching high school CX and LD for the past three years. I was coached by Elijah Smith (Emporia SW) in high school and he taught me everything I know about debate. In the past, I've had my fair share of reading and/or coaching teams going for policy arguments and/or critical arguments. I debated nationally in high school and have coached debaters in both events to deep elims of tournaments, round robins, and accumulate bids to the TOC.
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 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!
-- please record your speeches/debates.
-- please be kind to each other.
-- good quality evidence + in-depth analysis of the evidence is always appreciated.
-- i will not vote on an rvi on topicality.
-- do not intentionally clip cards. it will be an automatic L and 25 speaks if you do.
-- please start out clear, slow, and loud (very crucial for online debate).
-- ld theory tricks are bad and i refuse to vote for it.
-- speaks are determined by a combination of strategy choice, efficiency, weighing, and good cross-x skills.
-- some people who I agree with and/or have been heavily influenced by in debate: Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Daryl Burch, Amber Kelsie, Devane Murphy, Taylor Brough, Ignacio Evans, Chris Randall, Anthony Joseph, and Jon Sharp.
Specifics thoughts I've provided from my previous paradigm (2019-2020):
-- 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, not desirable, or incoherent and why your impacts under the plan come first. Point of the flaws of the kritiks alternative and make solvency deficits. Aff teams need to answer the link arguments, read link defense, make perms, and provide reasons/examples of why the plan is preferable/resolve material conditions. Use cross-x to clarify jargon and get the other team to make concessions about their criticism.
-- CP(s) need to have a clear plan text and have an external net benefit, otherwise, I'm inclined to believe there is no reason why the cp would be better than the affirmative. There needs to be clear textual/function competition with the Aff or else the permutation becomes an easy way for me to vote. Same with most arguments, the more specific the better.
-- The 2NR should generally be the counterplan with a DA/Case argument to supplement the net benefit. The 1AR + 2AR needs to have some offense against the counterplan because a purely defensive strategy makes it very hard to beat the counterplan. I enjoy an advantage counterplan/impact turn strategy when it’s applicable. Generally, I think conditionality is good but I can be persuaded otherwise.
-- Please have good evidence and read specific DAs. If you have a good internal link and turns 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.
-- 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.
-- 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 on for an RVI on T.
-- 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 to 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 fw 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.
-- 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 such as anti-Blackness, capitalism, psychoanalysis, and some critiques of humanism. 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 it 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 explain the alt thoroughly and how it interacts with the aff. This is an important time that the 2NR needs to dedicate time allocation for 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.
I'll judge mainly based on what the debaters tell me (obviously) I have no particular preference to the way that arguments are presented. I don't mind speed and I don't mind talking slowly, I've dealt with both so neither will be a problem.
Even though I don't have a particular preference to the style. I tend to give higher speaker points for those that are clear. I have also noticed that if you can read faster and clear I tend to give those debaters higher speaker points. I'm just stating a general trend of mine. However, if you speak slow and clear I'm not gonna take any points away from you.
Theory has a purpose for calling out abuse in the round. I know how theory works and both debaters should tell me how its gonna break down in the round when compared with on case arguments.
Topicality- I'm down with topicality. I think that there are way more violations of topicality violations that could be called out. I also in general believe that this may be beneficial for some clarity on the topic area.
RVIs are probably good in that they serve a purpose against frivolous theory arguments. But I won't automatically give you one unless you give me a reason (a counter interpretation would be a good reason to have an RVI) If you tell me RVIs are good and there is no response to it then I'll vote on an RVI, same applies if I get told RVIs are bad, but I won't vote on it then obviously
I think framework is useful for debaters to use, but if you don't give me an explicit framework then I'll either default util. But if you tell me another impact is way more important than others without a typical Criterion/Standard form, then that will be ok.
Overall framework is important for making it clear what is more important in a round, but there are other ways to establish what is more important or what is offense/defense. As long as I know what to care about and why then I'm a happy judge- or I'll default util and I'll still be a happy judge
Yeah I'm down read them
Yeah I'm down read them
Yeah, I'm down read them
Stock LD cases -
Yeah, I'm down read them (They may not be as strategic at times but thats your choice)
Yeah I'm down read them- critical literature belongs in LD I encourage it- unless you're bad at K lit or haven't read it
I'm down with with anything. Be sure to debate what you're good at, because its the only way debate will be productive or fun. (just don't be a bad person)
1) What your argument is
2) the arguments impacts
3) Why they are more important than your opponents
Jay Rye - Head Coach - Montgomery Academy
Experience- I have been involved with L/D debate since 1985 as a former L/D debater, judge, and coach. I have been involved with Policy debate since 1998. I have coached Public Forum debate since it began in 2002. While at many tournaments I serve in the role as tournament administrator running tournaments from coast to coast, every year I intentionally put myself into the judge pool to remain up to date on the topics as well as with the direction and evolving styles of debate. I have worked at summer camps since 2003 - I understand debate.
I would identify myself as what is commonly called a traditional L/D judge. Both sides have the burden to present and weigh the values and/or the central arguments as they emerge during the course of the round. I try to never allow my personal views on the topic to enter into my decision, and, because I won't intervene, the arguments that I evaluate are the ones brought into the round - I won't make assumptions as to what I "think" you mean. I am actually open to a lot of arguments - traditional and progressive - a good debater is a good debater and an average debater is just that - average.
While for the most part I am a "tabula rasa" judge, I do have a few things that I dislike and will bias me against you during the course of the round either as it relates to speaker points or an actual decision. Here they are:
1) I believe that proper decorum during the round is a must. Do not be rude or insulting to your opponent or to me and the other judges in the room. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with that approach to debate.
2) Both sides must tell me why to vote "for" them as opposed to simply why I should vote "against" their opponent. In your final speech, tell me why I should vote for you - some call this "crystallization" while others call it "voting issues" and still others just say, "here is why I win" - whatever you call it, I call it letting your judge know why you did the better job in the round.
3) I am not a big fan of speed. You are more than welcome to go as fast as you want, but if it is not on my flow, then it was not stated, so speed at your own risk. Let me say that to the back of the room - SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK! If you have a need for speed, at the very least slow down on the tag lines as well as when you first begin your speech so that my ears can adjust to your vocal quality and tone.
4) I am not a big fan of "debate speak: Don't just say, cross-apply, drop, non-unique, or other phrases without telling me why it is important. This activity is supposed to teach you how to make convincing arguments in the real world and the phrase "cross-apply my card to my opponents dropped argument which is non-unique" - this means nothing. In other words, avoid being busy saying nothing.
5) Realizing that many debaters have decided to rely on the Wiki, an email chain, and other platforms to exchange the written word, in a debate round you use your verbal and non-verbal skills to convince me as your judge why you win the round. I rarely call for evidence and I do not ask to be on any email chain.
(Yes you are reading correctly this is not a gmail account.... you were most likely not born when this account was created in 1998)
Word of advice.... Always see if your judge has a posted paradigm online. Save yourself time and frustration and read for comprehension. Get clarification as needed and then don't just disregard what you find out about that judge.
YOUR MAIN CONCERN SHOULD NEVER BE SPEED. FOCUS ON CLARITY AND EFFICIENCY AND THE JUDGE WILL BE IN YOUR CORNER BY DEFAULT.
In CX please stand and face the judge only never your opponent and dont be "lazy" stand tall and proud. ALWAYS convey confidence.
My mindset going into the round is basic the AFF will prove that the plan or case is a viable/moral/good idea that I should approve of with them gaining the ballot. The NEG will prove that the AFF doesn't uphold or violates the resolution and that negating is the only truth of the resolution after all.
I dont need a trigger warning but I will warn you that any moral repugnance ie RACISM (which has been way too prevalent of late), SEXISM, HOMOPHOBIA you get the jist I have a zero tolerance policy for and I promise I will have no problem setting you straight dont test it.
I strive to be Tabula R. but will always weigh STOCK ISSUES 1st. Don't overcomplicate the story bc presumption is also in play. Keep my flow clean and I am your friend ... if you don't then I make no promises. Remember your primary goal is to communicate a viable policy option so persuade me that you know what you are selling. Signposting is very important ... watch my flipping of pages etc since I still flow on paper. There should be structure not just 1 long stream of thought moving down the flow. Im big picture and open minded to strategy and games playing.
Neg's please don't just waste time throwing up 15 arguments when 3-4 will be more strategic... and please kick out properly. On K Aff's don't overlook simple stock issues burdens being dropped. I see a lot of teams not go for the obvious because they think that they are going to set off a trigger warning. ALWAYS get some case offense and defense unless you're going to truly commit to T.
Also plan out the positions for strategy even if generic.... sometimes things that still work get dropped too soon ... make the Aff work for it. Also cover as many stock issues as possible or at least go on case and really look for weaknesses. Always give us a reason to doubt the 1AC. Even if its a small chance it could be the tie breaker that gains you the ballot by pushing you into no other reason but to negate.
Topicality - rare that I vote on so be prepared to prove the abuse if its just a way to time skew then my advice is to spend another minute on case you have a better tradeoff that works for me.
Kritiks - the link in round is most important... also I need to believe that you know what you are trying to accomplish with the Kritik fyi not many high schoolers are truly prepared here so please do your due diligence... keep it simple.
Counterplans - net benefit and competition... give me a reason that the Plan is not the CP
Perms - slow down to speed up ... make sure that you dont leave any confusion
Framework - How do I evaluate the round ... Tell me what matters most.
https://www.gdsdebate.com/resources/for-students/kicking-bad-habits-in-ld/#!/ (please read it will make life better for you)
In CX please stand and face the judge only never your opponent and dont be "lazy" stand tall and proud. ALWAYS convey confidence.
I prefer a more traditional approach to LD over progressive but I will adapt if you communicate to me what you want to happen.
I will always give you a fair evaluation no matter what you present as long as you are confident and OWN your personal compelling reasons to prefer how you interpret the resolution. Give me conceptual points over trying to fit in 5-7 more cards.
Again I prefer big picture logical storytelling not just more "evidence". That being said most importantly support your premise of the resolution and may the ballot be ever in your favor.
Aff - Take advantage of 1st and last speech. Never forget the importance of definitions and setting up a strong weighing mechanism in the AC. I have a super high threshold on theory so save yourself a lot of time in the 1AR giving me clear reasons that the Neg should have just read a counterdefinition rather than make you spend 2 minutes of your speech to address it properly. That to me is way more reasonable and actually kicks the abuse claims back on the Neg.
You set the tone dont waste it Tell us what the resolution wants us to settle and allow for your framework to work towards that goal. Give solid structure in your case and build great analytics from a wide variety of cards over just 1 author... the power of multiple sources backing up your advocacy is an advantage. I do prefer Value and Criteria.. still not sure how you can affirm without it. Any other "standards" can be easily challenged if a neg opponent calls a warranted BS.
Neg - I will allow policy positions but please understand that in a question of SHOULD/OUGHT/MORALITY that they don't always apply exactly the same. The goal isnt 1 man CX debate. In my humble but accurate opinion you do alot more work to achieve less results. Have fun and think of how u can be more productive by making life more complicated for your opponent rather than yourself. Again on reading Topicality I feel it is super abusive in LD because there are other ways to pressure your opponent into dropping arguments etc. You truly have to prove it ... it just makes more sense to me to just read a counterdefinition or to give a definition and now you get to redefine the round how you see it. Let's make life simple when it is an option.
Ok after seeing too many rounds where this has become an issue I have to mention the following... BE NICE / CORDIAL to your opponents in the round and as a general policy for being a good human to each other. Rudeness and aggression will make me more likely to vote for the team that plays the game fairly and professionally. In CX I am used to the banter that teams have developed with teams that they hit all the time or the level of coyness blended with sass of an LD round but remember overall PF was intended to have the feel of a lay town meeting so I recommend keep it simple and it doesnt hurt to say the topic multiple times. NOTE no matter what popular opinions and trends try to tell you this isnt micro CX so dont overcomplicate your life. You have a very limited amount of time to win me over. Tell the story and AGAIN Keep it simple / Im an avg joe US taxpayer ... logic and confidence are key be captain obvious on my flow as to why you win !!
2019 Update: I only judge 1-2 tournaments a year so please bear that in mind.
I debated for four years for Immaculate Heart High School in Los Angeles, CA from 2010 to 2014. I went to TOC my senior year.
Theory/T: Fine with me. I think theory/T is a great strategic tool but if you run it just to mess with your opponent and the round goes terribly I won't be very happy. I default to competing interps, drop the argument, and no RVI's absent those arguments being made.
Please be super clear on how you want me to evaluate things. Spend time weighing and explicitly stating how I should vote.
Kritiks: Also fine with kritiks. If its really complex, make sure you explain it. If I don't understand it, I won't vote off of it.
Policy Args: Also fine with me. Do a lot of impressive weighing, and get higher speaks.
Skep/Permissibility/Presumption: Not a big fan but if you win the argument, I will vote off of it.
Micropol: Not the greatest fan. Ask me about the specific position before the round.
Speed: I'm fine if you go fast but you're going to need to go a lot slower than your fastest because I haven't flowed since VBI 2016. I will say slower around 3-5 times before I give up.
If you have any questions, you can ask me before the round.
K – 1
LARP – 3
Phil – 1
T/Theory – 2
Trix – 1
Ideally I would like to be 1 for all styles as I am not ideologically against any of them, this ranking reflects my current confidence/ability to deliver a good decision in a particular style.
Background + General
Hey y'all. I'm Nate. I did LD all throughout high school in Texas and judged regularly until the pandemic, last tournament being TFA state 2020. I've been out of the meta a hot minute but I'm looking forward to getting back into it. Yes I want to be on the email chain, bonus points if you start the chain before the round to speed things up - my email is email@example.com
- I'm fine with speed I'll give two verbal clears and then I'll stop flowing until you change.
- Tech over truth 99.99% of the time. (that .01 being clearly discriminatory/exclusionary arguments)
- People who's paradigms I generally agree with - Patrick Fox, Ethan Massa, Rob Glass, Richard Garner.
- Please be civil, why debate if it makes you miserable? If debate makes you miserable but you still want to do it, why take that out on someone else? You and your opponent are both humans and deserve as much kindness as can be mustered. Being competitive and being kind go hand in hand, productively debating good debaters make you better so why not want everyone to succeed ?
Arguments I will not vote for / will vote you down for
Doing any of these things will provoke a reaction from me that ranges not flowing it to immediately giving you an L-25 depending on the severity/intentionality of the offense.
- Arguments that are explicitly racist/sexist/transphobic/ablest/etc
- Arguments that claim nonhuman animals have no ethical value / claim the oppression and/or suffering of nonhuman animals is good in any way shape or form. Maybe this is a hot take but I've learned not to care, feel free to discuss this with me after the round.
- Making the argument that the death of your opponent would be good in any way, shape, or form. I do not care what K this may be tied to, if you do this you get an L 25.
- I refuse to vote on anything that happened before the 1AC or after the 2AR. The only exception to this is disclosure. This includes arguments that link to positions your opponent may have run in other rounds.
- I won't evaluate the debate after the 1AC.
These can all be changed very easily in round but this is how I evaluate until told to do otherwise.
- Truth testing > Comparative worlds.
- C/I > reasonability.
- Epistemic Confidence > Epistemic modesty.
- DTA > DTD.
- Fairness > Education.
- Presumption and permissibility negate.
Disclosing is good and I'm sympathetic to it but have also voted against it. Here are 4 cases where you will not be able to get me to vote on disclosure: 1 - performances which disclose sensitive personal information 2 - novices 3 - People who are not aware of the wiki 4 - cases where the wiki has been down (in this case speech docs/disclosure should be done person to person until it can be disclosed). I am trusting you to not abuse these exceptions, don't make me sad.
I want screenshots of the violation in the speech doc. Don't make me handle your gross laptop to see them.
I won't kick the CP for you. Please for the love of god weigh things for me. The spark DA may be the funniest thing I've ever heard, if you run it in front of me and execute it perfectly, expect good speaks
- 2 condo is maybe ok? 3+ is probably abusive.
- You don't get to kick planks of a condo CP.
Ks: This is my favorite genre of arguments
I am familiar with most critical theory (I ran/have read outside of debate a lot of Baudrillard, anthro/animality, and psychoanalysis) and I'm happy to answer questions about individual Ks before the round BUT you should start the round with the presumption that I have no clue who on hell is Baudrillard because it encourages you to give better explanations. You will not win your K if you don’t explain it. I only have jurisdiction to vote on what your articulation of the K is, not what I've read outside of the round. Aff, please impact turn anything that won’t be morally repugnant. The more specific the links are to the aff the happier I will be.
Words/Phrases that bad K debaters have convinced me are meaningless - Subjectivity, "power relations," ontology, "[X] bodies," co-option, neoliberalism, "rendered," pedagogy.
K affs: Very cool and nice.
I prefer these be interesting, unique, and have a clear topic link. You should be able to explain in round why not only the READING but also the DEBATING of the aff is a good idea. If you answer the question "what is the role of the negative" with "to lose" I will be immediately less convinced about the legitimacy of reading the aff in debate. I think there is some value in debate even if that value is to just have fun so I appreciate thoughtful and intelligent consideration about not just why your scholarship is good but why bringing into a discursive sphere like debate is uniquely good.
If you don't like these affs, read framework and engage with it. 5 frivolous shells will make me hate you.
Phil: Good and true
Phil debates are cool. I think contextualization of why I care about offense is equally important as the offense itself.
Here are some authors/Lit bases/arguments I feel comfortable evaluating.
- Virtue Ethics
- Mackie/error theory/emotivism
General - I'm a fan. I think It's ok to use theory as a strategic tool and I find claims that a certain shell is frivolous totally dependent on whether or not an abuse story is being won or not.
T Framewonk - I think Framework is a good model for debate. I think plans and stable offense are probably good for the event. While this does not mean I hack for framework (my voting record is about 50/50 on this issue) I am unconvinced by lazy arguments that presume I am naturally disposed against framework because of my love for the K. Anyone running a K aff has the burden to provide a justification for why the debating of the aff is good and what the role of the negative should be under their model of debate. K debaters and Framework debaters that have utilized that issue effectively for their side are often the ones that pick up my ballot.
I dig trix debate. There's a line to be drawn for sure but most of the time I think it’s ok. I think Skep is a fun argument and T/T vs comparative worlds is a fun debate when done well! Yes I vote on a prioris.
Things that will make your speaks go up
- Kindness, respect, and general helpfulness
- Unique and well executed strategies
- Good Baudrillard debates
Things that will make your speaks go down.
- Rudeness towards opponents
- Bad Baudrillard debates
My name is Robin Mitchell Stroud and I'm primarily an LD judge for Norman High School in Norman, Oklahoma.
I didn't compete in high school debate, however, have earned four degrees (BA, MHR, MEd, PhD) and am very comfortable with argumentation in a competitive setting across a breadth of subjects. Educational areas of concentration include:
* Bachelor of Arts (psychology)
* Master of Human Relations (international/intercultural relations)
* Master of Education (foundations of education)
* Graduate certificate (women’s and gender studies), and
* Doctor of philosophy (gender studies; religious studies and philosophies of education)
I am newer to judging in circuit/progressive tournaments, however, have experience and very much enjoy judging in traditional ones. See my preferences for each below.
PHILOSOPHY/FRAMEWORK: I enjoy philosophical/theoretical argumentation and value a strong and clear framework. Be explicit in how your contentions support your framing (when presenting your case and throughout the round).
ARGUMENTATION: Arguments shouldn't merely be repeated in rebuttals. Debaters who extend and develop them will do better in front of me as will debaters who clearly articulate and extend their warrants and impacts.
EVIDENCE: Please don't be repetitive with evidence. Repetitive evidence doesn’t equal more weight, and solid analytics can take out that kind of evidence. While evidence is good, please ensure that it's useful and efficient to your argumentation and soundly ties to your framing.
SPEAKER POINTS: Be respectful. Be confident. Engage with questions in CX. Signpost.
NOTE: If both debaters are okay with bringing circuit style argumentation and speed into a traditional round, I'm okay with it.
Aside from these, be sure to have fun!
PHILOSOPHY: I like and am most experienced with philosophical/theoretical argumentation and enjoy it best in a round. I am accustomed to weighing arguments under dense philosophical frameworks and can understand it if you do the same.
FRAMEWORK: I appreciate strong and clearly communicated framing. If I don't understand how the framing and argumentation engage in a round, I won’t vote on them so please make sure they are clear. While I am most familiar with a traditional structure, I am comfortable judging others. If you can explain your framing and properly weigh with it, I'm open to just about anything.
EVIDENCE: Please don't be repetitive with evidence. Repetitive evidence doesn’t equal more weight, and solid analytics can take out that kind of evidence. While evidence is good, please ensure that it is useful and efficient to your argumentation and soundly ties to the framing.
KRITIKS: I like a debate that is grounded in critical argumentation. I’m well versed in certain kinds of critical, feminist, pragmatist and theo/alogical theories, and am pretty comfortable voting on other kinds of critical arguments if they are explained well in the round.
POLICY: I'm okay with policy style arguments.
SPEED: I like to flow rounds and am generally fine with speed. Just be sure to slow down for tag lines so I can capture them correctly. If you’re going to spread at a super-fast speed, you'll need to flash your case to me.
SPEAKER POINTS: Be respectful. Be confident. Engage with questions in cross examination. Signpost. And again, if you spread, make the taglines clear.
T/THEORY: If you're going to run a T argument, you'll need to do a very good job explaining it and its impact on the round.
If you’re sharing documents, please add me to the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Aside from these, be sure to have fun!
Plano West '18 | SMU '22
I debated PF for four years. I did okay. I consider myself a fairly technical judge.
TL;DR: If you want my ballot, give me a clear link story from the resolution all the way to the RFD. I'm lazy so write my RFD for me. I won't be offended if you say "your RFD should be". Impact contextualization is really important for me. Tell me why I should care about what you've just said.
Absent explicit framing I will default to a cost benefit analysis.
If there is no offense I fell comfortable voting for at the end of the round I will presume the first speaking team. This is because I believe that in PF the second speaking team has an inherent advantage because of the way that speeches are structured.
The second rebuttal must frontline turns made in the first. If the first speaking team duh goofs and doesn't extend the turn, I guess you lucked out. The other way out of this hole is cross-applying something you did extend, or weighing.
The second rebuttal should frontline terminal defense. If a piece of terminal defense is unresponded to out of the second rebuttal and the first summary extends it, I will have a high threshold to grant the second summary new answers. Conceding defense will also increase my threshold for risk of offense claims in later speeches.
Unextended turns in the summary can be extended in the final focus as terminal defense.
I don't need complete parallelism, but I won't vote on something that isn't in both the summary and final focus.
Unresponded defensive sticks, although I would advise the second summary to extend defense against arguments extended in the first summary.
I probably won't listen to cross, so if something important happens bring it up in speech.
Extensions must include a warrant and an impact.
I like big picture and narrative stuff because I'm too lazy to go through and evaluate the line by line unless your arguments spark my interest.
I won't vote you down if I think you were unstrategic, but I might lower your speaks.
Collapsing and weighing is a must. The sooner the better.
If you go for too much I will be sad.
I will give high speaker points for good implication, spin, and evidence comparison.
I didn't do CX or LD, but I understand how Plans, CP, DA's, and K's work.
I don't mind voting for these kinds of arguments, but I won't vote on novelty.
I will evaluate them as normal PF arguments, and they should be restructured in such a fashion.
If I think you are just reading down a backfile I won't vote on it (don't be lazy, do your own prep).
If you label DA's as turns I'll be sad, then you'll be sad when you see your speaks.
I love a good theory debate. I think that there are some pretty bad norms in PF and I think theory might help fix them.
Defaults: Theory comes before case (this includes k's), reasonability, no RVI's.
Condo - If you drop an advocacy a turn is still a turn. I will vote on Condo arguments about reading de-link to the case to get out of turns.
Paraphrasing - I think this is a great one, especially because it's PF specific.
Disclosure - ehhh, I'd vote on it if it's debated well.
NIB's - NIB's bad theory is something I am inclined to buy. I think in PF it is truly abuse, especially in the second rebuttal.
I view T very similar to the way I view theory. Don't run a non-topic case if you don't believe in it.
I don't like waiting, so if you take too long to find evidence I'll dock speaks.
If you don't read dates I'll be sad ðŸ˜ž.
I'll call for evidence when:
1) I feel that it is being misrepresented.
2) I am told to call for it or it is heavily contested.
3) Competing evidence on important offense and I am not presented with a way to prefer one piece of evidence over the other.
4) I'm interested ðŸ˜
I don’t auto drop debaters on evidence abuse. Small faults, such as minor late speech powertagging, that preserve the integrity of the card can result in no to minor consequences. More severe abuses can lead to me just dropping the argument.
Paraphrasing is ok AS LONG AS you're not misrepresenting evidence
I'm generally nice with speaks 30-28.
I prefer faster debates as long as you signpost well and speak clearly. Slow down on tags and authors.
If I miss something that's on you buddy.
*For Plano West Tournament*
Speaks will be given on the Jerry Scale.
I never did LD, but since you might have me as you're judge here is so information about me.
I have read parts of Wilderson, and some of the Cap stuff, but I have a very basic knowledge of how K debate works. Anything overly technical or based on LD norms will have to be explained to me.
People have told me that PF is like the case debate in policy, so I think I should be fine dealing with Policy Affs, DA's, and CP. I understand how stock issues work, but again anything super technical or based on LD norms will have to be explained.
Defaults: Theory comes before case (this includes k's), reasonability, no RVI's.
You will probably have to do a lot of analysis on the theory debate for me to vote on it. I don't really have an idea of what is abusive in LD since I'm unfamiliar with the speech times, and unaware of norms.
I have a better understanding of T debate in LD than theory. T arguments that seem compelling to me are good a case list, and TVA solves.
I am not trained to follow spreading, but I will try my best. I will say clear if you're going to fast. If you are going to spread please email the speech doc to email@example.com. If you're clear on analytics and tags I'm okay if you spread the card so long as you email me the evidence.
I've competed in Public Forum Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and done a small group of one-time speech events.
Most of my experience by far is in LD.
Speed is fine insofar as it is agreed between competitors. If someone would prefer a slower-speaking round I expect that to be conveyed to their opponent and I before the round.
Any case structure is fine, but I have a high threshold on theory.
I have more experience with Kritiks, Traditional/Criterion-based cases, and Disads than Plans/CPs and Theory, but I'm reasonably familiar with each.
If you have any specific questions that aren't answered here, feel free to ask before round, while your opponent is present.
Director of Debate – Greenhill School
Coach USA Debate Team
Owner Global Debate Symposium - https://www.gdsdebate.com/
Updated – April 2022
Please put me on the email chain – firstname.lastname@example.org
Contact me with questions.
Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is a critic of argument (if I had to pigeonhole myself with a paradigmatic label as a judge). I will evaluate your performance in as objective a method as possible. Unlike many adjudicators claim to be, I am not a blank slate. If I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round, I will intervene. I WILL do my best to be an objective evaluator of your arguments but the idea that my social location is not a relevant consideration of how I view/decode (even hear) arguments is just not true (nor do it is true for anyone).
I have coached National and/or State Champions in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and World Schools Debate (in addition to interpretation/speech events). I still actively coach and am involved in the strategy and argument creation of my students who compete for my school. Given demands on my time, I do not cut as many cards as I once did for Policy and Lincoln Douglas. That said, I am more than aware of the arguments and positions being run in both of these format’s week in and week out.
General thoughts on how I decide debates:
1 – Debate is a communication activity – I will flow what you say in speeches as opposed to flowing off of the speech documents (for the events that share documents). If I need to read cards to resolve an issue, I will do so but until ethos and pathos (re)gain status as equal partners with logos in the persuasion triangle, we will continue to have debates decided only on what is “in the speech doc.” Speech > speech doc.
2 – Be mindful of your “maximum rate of efficiency” – aka, you may be trying to go faster than you are capable of speaking in a comprehensible way. The rate of speed Is not a problem in many contemporary debates, the lack of clarity is an increasing concern. Unstructured paragraphs that are slurred together do not allow the pen time necessary to write things down in the detail you think they might. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable. This does NOT mean you have to be slow; it does mean you need to be clear.
3 – Evidence is important - In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues and warrants (particularly empirical ones), are important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, but I am also likely to prefer your argument if the comparisons are done well.
4 – Online Debating – We have had two years to figure this out. My camera will be on. I expect that your camera is on as well unless there is a technical issue that cannot/has not been resolved in our time online. If there is an equity/home issue that necessitates that your camera is off, I understand that and will defer to your desire to it be off if that is the case. A simple, “I would prefer for my camera to be off” will suffice to inform me of your request.
5 – Disclosure is good (on balance) – I feel that debaters/teams should disclose on the wiki. I have been an advocate of disclosure for decades. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate. While I do think things like full source and/or round reports are good educational practices, I am not interested in hearing debates about those issues. ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.
6 – Zero risk is a possibility – There is a possibility of zero risks of an advantage or a disadvantage.
7 – My role as a judge - I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence post the debate that was not done by the students.
8 – Debate the case – It is a forgotten art. Your points will increase, and it expands the options for you to win the debate in the final negative rebuttal.
9 – Good “judge instructions” will make my job easier – While I am happy to make my judgments and comparison between competing claims, I feel that students making those comparisons, laying out the order of operations, articulating “even/if” considerations, telling me how to weigh and then CHOOSING in the final rebuttals, will serve debaters well (and reduce frustrations on both our parts0.
10 – Cross-examination matters – Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.
I enjoy policy debate and given my time in the activity I have judged, coached, and seen some amazing students over the years.
A few thoughts on how I view judging policy debate:
Topicality vs Conventional Affs:
Traditional concepts of competing interpretations can be mundane and sometimes result in silly debates. Limiting out one affirmative will not save/protect limits or negative ground. Likewise, reasonability in a vacuum without there being a metric on what that means and how it informs my interpretation vis a vis the resolution lacks nuance as well. Topicality debaters that can frame what the topic should look like based on the topic, and preferably evidence to support that why interpretation makes sense will be rewarded. The next step is saying why a more limiting (juxtaposed to most limiting) topic makes sense helps to frame the way I would think about that version of the topic. A case list of what would be topical under your interpretation would help as would a list of core negative arguments that are excluded if we accept the affirmative interpretation or model of debate.
Topicality/FW vs critical affirmatives:
First – The affirmative needs to do something (and be willing to defend what that is). The negative needs to win that performance is net bad/worse than an alternative (be it the status quo, a counterplan, or a K alternative).
Second – The negative should have access to ground, but they do not get to predetermine what that is. Just because your generic da or counterplan does not apply to the affirmative does not mean the affirmative cannot be tested. The deference for going for topicality/FW versus “k affs’ can be strategic and the best option. Many times, the reality is that many teams not researching to contest the foundational premises of the other side.
Conditionality is good but only in a limited sense. I do not think the negative gets unlimited options (even against a new affirmative). While the negative can have multiple counter plans, the affirmative will get leeway to creatively (re)explain permutations if the negative kicks (or attempts to add) planks to the counterplan(s), the 1ar will get some flexibility to respond to this negative move.
Counterplans and Disads:
Counterplans are your friend. Counterplans need a net benefit (reasons the affirmative is a bad/less than desirable idea. Knowing the difference between an advantage to the counterplan and a real net benefit seems to be a low bar. Process counterplans are harder to defend as competitive and I am sympathetic to affirmative permutations. I have a higher standard for many on permutations as I believe that in the 2AC “perm do the counterplan” and/or “perm do the alternative” do nothing to explain what that world looks like. If the affirmative takes another few moments to explain these arguments, that increases the pressure on the 2nr to be more precise to respond to these arguments.
Disadvantages that are specific to the advocacy of the affirmative will get you high points.
I have had students succeed at the highest levels of Lincoln Douglas Debate including multiple champions of NSDA, NDCA, the Tournament of Champions, as well as the Texas Forensic Association State Championships.
Theory is debated far too much in Lincoln – Douglas and is debated poorly. I am strongly opposed to that practice. My preference is NOT to hear a bad theory debate. I believe the negative does get some “flex;” it cannot be unlimited. The negative does not need to run more than four off case arguments
Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will not be tolerated.
I am not a fan of random; multiple sentence fragments that claim to “spike” out of all of the other team’s arguments. At its foundation, the debate should be about argument ENGAGEMENT, not evasion.
I do not like skepticism as an argument. It would be in your best interest to not run it in front of me. While interesting in a philosophy class in college, training young advocates to feel that “morality doesn’t exist” etc. is educationally irresponsible.
I do not disclose speaker points. That seems silly to me.
Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seem silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card does not mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clashes are a necessary component of the debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of the clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. Any argument that says the other side cannot answer your position is fast-tracking to an L (with burnt cheese and marinara on top).
It takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments.
Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.
Cross apply much of the policy section as well as the general musings on debate.
Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)
Yes. Countless times.
What does chairing a round involve? (required)
How would you describe World Schools Debate to someone else?
World Schools is modeled after parliament having argumentation presented in a way that is conversational, yet argumentatively rigorous. Debates are balanced between motions that are prepared, while some are impromptu. Points of Information (POI’s) are a unique component of the format as speakers can be interrupted by their opponent by them asking a question or making a statement.
What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate? (required)
I keep a rigorous flow throughout the debate.
When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.
These should be prioritized and compared by the students in the round. I do not have an ideological preference between principled or practical arguments.
The World Schools Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)
Strategy (simply put) is how they utilize the content that has been introduced in the debate.
World Schools Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker were going too fast?
World Schools Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?
Students are required to use analysis, examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side then make comparative claims about the superiority of their position.
How do you resolve model quibbles?
Model quibbles are not fully developed arguments if they are only questions that are not fully developed or have an articulated impact.
How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?
I utilize the approach of comparative worlds to evaluate competing methods for resolving mutual problems/harms. The proposition must defend its model as being comparatively advantageous over a given alternative posed by the opposition. While many feel in World Schools a countermodel must be mutually exclusive. While that certainly is one method of assessing if a countermodel truly ‘forces a choice,” a feel a better stand is that of net benefits. The question should be if it is desirable to do both the propositions model and the opposition countermodel at the same time. If it is possible to do both without any undesirable outcomes, the negative has failed to prove the desirability of their countermodel. The opposition should explain why doing both would be a bad idea. The proposition should advance an argument why doing both is better than adopting the countermodel alone.
HOWDY!! so yall are in a hurry or doing early scouting...Early scouting...good on ya...in a hurry...great shame...ANYWAYS, I'll just keep it simple and let y'all know how I feel about each argument one by one and how I give speaks, and oh and if y'all are really really in a hurry I'm fine with speed just keep it clear and let that shit rip as fast as y'all want, but if y'all are doing a bad job at spreading I'm gonna say clear two times after that it's not my fault if I don't flow. Debate is still a communication activity and I know thats lame, but thems the breaks. I'm a tab judge (or so I like to think) , but we all have our biases and I did a lot of K's during my debate career. I try to do my best to not let that affect my opinions or how I judge rounds but alas, I am only human.
Tech over truth
Be clear before being fast
Open CX and Flex prep is cool as long as everyone is cool with it.
I flow on my computer unless it is dead
I will vote on anything
Please use Speech Drop
flashing and email chain is fine just put me on the email chain or toss me the flash (email@example.com)
Prep is over when the flash drive leaves the computer
Keep y'all's own prep
Please disclose unless y'all don't know what that is and have never seen the wiki... this is for both aff and neg.
Y'all get to break new once after that y'all gotta disclose this is for both aff and neg
TOPICALITY- I defer competing interpretations at the beginning of the topic, and If its the end of the topic I defer to reasonability...Yes i can be swayed in the debate just make the argument and I'll vote on it. I'm not a big fan of annoying T like T Subs, but all arguments are arguments as I said I'll vote on anything. This also applies to theory arguments so just make it happen and I'm ready to go. The only judge intervention I have on T is based on forum of the debate. If y'all in CX T is never a reverse voting issue, but if it's LD I understand the time skew and will vote on an RVI on both theory and T but can be convinced otherwise for any particular round.
DISADS- I love a good disad and am willing to vote on any da no matter how crazy the scenario is. Yes I will vote on dedev or wipeout so it doesn't matter what y'all run in front of me, but just make sure y'all extend and explain y'all's links, internal link chain, do impact work, and the debate will be y'all's. Sorry Aff teams I don't feel sorry if y'all don't have the ability to answer ridiculous arguments thats on y'all not me. Not every card in the DA needs a carded answer. I watch the news and can use logic so...figure it out. This is not to say that y'all can answer things by saying "well thats just not true" y'all do need to to do analysis and have a claim, warrant, and impact. However the more wonky the card the more likely I am to discard if y'all have just a true argument.
COUNTERPLANS AND PICS- I mean listen I wrote some shady counterplans and legit counterplans in my day, and I'll never question pulling the trigger on one, but I got some rules before I'm shooting my win gun. Y'ALL'S COUNTERPLAN OR PIC NEEDS A NET BENEFIT THAT IS NOT THE NEG SOLVES BETTER...THATS LAZY AND Y'ALL ARE BETTER THAN THAT...Seriously though it's important because I need the cp and the plan or advocacy or non statement or whatever type of aff y'all running a cp on to be mutually exclusive. If they aren't that a big problem. Any variation of pic or cp is fine with me. Furthermore, I'm willing to vote on the theory of like pics or counterplans bad or whatever just run the theory in a legitimate manner and it's all good.
Kritiks- I love me a good ole K and it don't matter if it's run as a standard K, on the aff , on the neg, in a poem, in a personal narrative with no cards, but that being said I hold a very high standard on the K. Please know what y'all are talking about. Don't forget the link. Don't forget the impact. Don't forget to do proper extensions. Don't forget to do proper framing. Don't forget to answer all the offense. Remember I didn't read all the lit and won't assume things for y'all, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY DON'T FORGET TO HAVE FUN!!! Framework is an acceptable answer to the K but I prefer that isn't the only answer have some actual link turns and no Link arguments, and the same is true if they run a K aff. Framework is cool, but it would be nice if y'all have actual turns, a counter K, or some cede the political da or whatever. All around just some offense that isn't based on Framework or T ya feel. I like a spicy debate please don't put me to me to sleep we all gotta do this for at least an hour and a half and K vs framework or T only is kinda boring to me. I'm okay with floating piks, but they need to be hinted at in the 2nc/1nr. I will also vote on floating piks bad just like all theory make sure y'all do a good job running it.
Performance- I don't have an large amount of experience with them besides the ones that I hit highschool or saw in rounds I watched online when I was super invested in the activity. I just want y'all to be clear with how the performance functions in regard to my roles as a judge/teacher. I believe the debate space belongs to the debaters so I have no issue with them being run, but I like to know what I'm voting for and how that impacts the debate space or real world in both a fiat and pre fiat sense.
K AFFs- I ran mostly K affs in my career so I'm okay with them in the debate space, but it's better if they are related to the topic in some capacity. They don't have to be it's just preferred. I'm not gonna vote for y'all just because y'all have one, and I'm not gonna vote against y'all because y'all don't have one just do whatever y'all think is best and don't get lost in the jargon and lit. I haven't read every K lit book and won't so I need a good explanation on what the advocacy does or what the aff does if there is no advocacy.
Framework (policy)- Framework is always a good argument weather its framework in how I evaluate things or framework in terms of USFG Plan based debate good versus a K aff. How I vote ends up depending on how I see the round breaking down. If the debate becomes a question of fairness versus education then the person reading framework T usfg is probably in the driver seat. If the debate is whats the best forum to create change the person reading the K is most likely ahead. It's all about make me highlight the most important part of the debate for y'all's argument. I'm honestly split pretty close 50/50 on this question so just convince me y'all are right for an hour and a half and Y'all can win. I do understand that it's easier said than done, but someone is doing it so why not y'all.
Framework LD- Tbh I'm probably not the guy for classical framework but will do my best to evaluate it just make sure y'all explain it very clearly and have a good debate that I explain back to y'all if y'all want to win, and if I can't I'm probably just voting on whatever i think the offense is.
CASE- Uhhhh it's case have some offense have some defense don't forget about it otherwise I gotta grant the aff total solvency or whatever even if they do bad extending. I mean it would also be cool if y'all like put the case stuff in order based on the contentions, but I'm not too picky so its connivence not mandatory...For the aff, I want y'all to actually extend the aff and answer the case offense and defense. I know I sound ridiculous for saying that, but like it would be nice if a soul would ever do it just once. I really like the case debate and it can be a huge part of the debate or a useless part just depends on what y'all make of it.
Speaks and speaking-
Speaks are given out 25 to thirty if y'all get lower than that y'all did something awful as a human like impact turning racism or sexism or said something awful in round that just offensive. I will call y'all out on it after round too just to let Y'all know. I am okay with speed obviously I'm not debating anymore so slow down on tags and dates.
25- Y'all did bad and the speaking was bad (rare)
25.5- Y'all did bad from a strategic stand point and the speaking was bad but it wasn't the worst or maybe there was some highlight in the round. (rare)
26- Y'all did bad from a strategic stand point and speaking was subpar but there was a few highlights (rare)
26.5- Y'all did bad from a strategic standpoint and the speaking was mostly par with some errors but some good probably happened (less rare)
27- Y'all did subpar from a strategic stand point and the speaking was okay to less than okay with with a decent amount of good (less rare)
27.5- Y'all did slightly subpar from a strategic standpoint but mostly on par and the speaking was largely on par with some goods (less rare)
28- Y'all were at par with the strat and had some highlights and the speaking was par with some highlights think of this a true medium (likely)
28.5- slightly above average strat with on par or mildly above average speaking. I liked the debating y'all did, but it was more slightly above average than it was good or great. (likely)
29- Y'all had a good strat with some great things thrown in, and y'all had good speaking with some great emotion. Y'all honestly did really good and were just on the threshold of being great! If I'm giving y'all a 29 I think y'all belong in out rounds and I most likely upped y'all unless it was supper close and good debate! (less rare)
29.5- Good strat with a lot of great things and the speaking was also good with a lot of mostly great things happening here. Y'all did amazing and It's almost a guarantee I upped y'all if I gave y'all this! (rare)
30- Why are y'all even questioning anything right here? Y'all did great strat wise and the speaking was fire it had passion, clarity, and i flowed with ease. Y'all were like music, and had memes and analysis that sounded like the secret cord David played that pleased the lord. Y'all are a deity and I upped y'all no question. I will ask y'all to speak so I can sleep at night thank y'all for being in my presence... (SUPER RARE)
HAVE FUN AND HAVE A GREAT DEBATE IT'S Y'ALLS ROUND MAKE THE MOST OF IT. FEEL FREE TO ASK ME ANY QUESTIONS Y'ALL MAY STILL HAVE MY EMAIL IS firstname.lastname@example.org
I debated LD at Oakwood School in Los Angeles for four years and graduated in 2017. I am now a second-year student at UC Berkeley.
I am not very good at understanding spreading anymore, so please slow down a bit and enunciate clearly. I don't have a problem calling "Clear" but if I have to do it a lot and you don't fix your clarity I might be a little annoyed.
I like kritiks! But if you are just recycling old policy cards you don't understand, I would prefer you did not read one.
I attempt to be objective, however, like every judge, I have certain biases. It might benefit you to align your arguments with my biases, but I'll still be happy if you persuasively convince me to depart from them. Here is a short list of some things I believe:
-terminal defense is rarely a thing
-the negative should prove the proactive desirability of a competitive option to the aff
-jurisdiction isn't a real theory standard
-disclosure is good
-fairness is a voting issue
Things I will probably raise your speaker points for:
-talking at a fast conversational pace instead of spreading (!!!!)
-clear knowledge and passion for a specific issue
-really good tech
-tasteful film references
Things I will probably lower your speaker points for:
-being unnecessarily rude (although occasional sarcasm is appreciated)
-strategies designed to minimize clash (tricks, spikes, blips)
Debate can be really fun and I hope you are having fun doing it! It will make me happy if it seems like you are enjoying yourself.
Background/experience: I debated for 3 years at Montgomery High school competing two years in policy and my senior year in ld. As far as other events go, I competed in extemp, congress, and even World Schools on occasion. I qualified to TFA state every year in policy and ld respectively. I also qualified to the TOC my senior year in ld.
General Paradigm: I really think debate has become an activity involving strategy over anything else in policy and ld especially. Therefore, I will tend to be more perceptive to strategy over grandstanding on your critiques. Additionally, I felt like during my career that judges tended to put their own personal beliefs about debate and the issues being debated on a pedastool making them biased toward certain arguments like Ks over theory or theory over Ks. My goal is to be a complete blank slate as far as that goes. I believe things like frivolous theory can be a strategy even though some judges are biased against it. That's not to say I'm a theory hack because I'm probably the opposite, but I am receptive to it just as I am to a DA or K. Also don't say racist stuff or I probably won't like you.
K: I read Ks throughout most of high school and am well read in most of the literature. That being said, I am not a K hack. I am probably going to know if you don't understand what you're reading or talking about. Most of the critiques I read were high theory involving authors such as baudrillard, deleuze, bataille, Heidegger, etc. I'm not going to grandstand about how you have to explain Ks thoroughly. They should have some explanation in the 2nr but some of this stuff can't be simplified down to a third grade level so I don't expect that to occur. I feel like the debate community has allowed some kids to get away with little explanation and say they are a great debater while other times judges use it as a cop out to not give an RFD. Just know what you're talking about and I'm cool with it. Also k affs are great and strategic.
LARP: I read policy affs and DAs throughout my policy career and somewhat as an LDer. I really like these arguments because they allow debaters to be strategic with turns and usually allow me to learn some cool stuff too. Have fun! I love DAs, CPs, plans, etc.
Theory: I never really read theory unless I was forced to. That's not because I didn't like it but I thought some judges would hesitate to vote on frivilous theory. I am happy to say that I am not one of those judges. Read frivilous theory all you want. Just remember that usually there are simple intuitive responses that are effective. Also I default competing interns but I don't have a specific leaning toward reasonability or competing interps one way or another. And yes! Reasonability is something I will vote on if you are winning that I should use it. I also don't have any presuppositions as far as rvis and drop the debater vs drop the argument. Tell me which I should use and if you don't I'll probably default to drop the argument if applicable and no rvis. Lastly, definitely weigh standards and impacts or you won't like my decision.
Phil: I didn't read Phil whatsoever until my senior year. I still am not read on the literature. That being said, I think Phil arguments are great and I will do my best to evaluate them just as I would a k. Just be prepared to explain it to me and how it interacts with offense in the round. If you like reading Phil, go for it.
I will say clear twice, then deduct speaks. If you are clear, then the main thing that I use to evaluate them is strategy. I will also adjust my speaks depending on the caliber of tournament. I will give a regular debater around a 28.8, a poor debater 28.5 and a good debater 29+
My goal is to be the most tab judge you have ever had, so read anything you want, be strategic, and have fun.
I am a high school debate coach. I have been judging debate for ten years, and am experienced in judging both Lincoln-Douglas and Policy Debate.
The distinction between the approaches to Lincoln-Douglas debate and Policy debate is important to me. Spreading, voluminous evidence, and complexity as competitive tactics make sense to me in Policy debate and are inherent to the nature and style of the activity. In contrast to that, Lincoln Douglas in both style and content should in my opinion emphasis values driven debate, logic, and articulate delivery that emphasizes eloquence and effective speaking. I do not think that spreading makes sense in Lincoln Douglas - it is not consonant with the nature of the activity in my opinion.
I am a tabula rasa judge in the sense that I do not enter a round with a predisposition to emphasize one side's burdens over another's. I flow the constructive arguments and rebuttal looking for which side most effectively addresses the resolution, creates the most coherent and relevant case, and effectively clashes most thoroughly and effectively with the elements of the case presented by their opponent. Speaking and poise help to convey the logic and clash that are the substance of debate, but it is the rhetoric itself that matters most to me.
I am Dyspolity@gmail on email chains.
Who I am:
Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.
I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools and currently I coach at Guyer in Denton. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments.
I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.
Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.
Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is not one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.
Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.
Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.
Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?
Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.
Circuit level speed.
I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.
Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you ae functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.
One More Concern:
There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.
I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.
Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.
I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.
I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.
1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. Your language choices should reflect scholarship.
I view myself as an offense/defense judge, meaning I weigh offense more highly than defense in the round. In doing so, please make sure your arguments do not contradict each other. I put a great value on impacts, and want to see a clear internal link scenario of how you get to said impact. I would be labeled a Policymaker.
I have a high threshold for Topicality, but please impact out your voters in the debate space (how this impacts education/fairness as a whole). Theory and Kritiks are fine with me, but make sure they are formatted correctly. I am not well versed in k literature, so take some time to explain your argument and the world of the alternative. I prefer traditional policy arguments. Moderate spreading is fine, just be clear. I will put down my pen if there is a clarity/speed issue.
The Majority of my debate experience tends to revolve around traditional policy arguments. If you want to run those I am fine with them, but I expect some structure. I vote by what debaters put on the flow, don't expect me to vote on dropped arguments simply because they were dropped. I need you to do the work. I tend to vote for the debater that extends the most offense in the round. I prefer real world arguments over philosophy, but if you feel the need to run philosophical arguments then clearly explain those warrants. Although I was a policy debater, I am continuing to learn about LD so I ask that you slow down on the tags and warrants in your cards so I can flow them and properly evaluate the round.
My email for the chain is email@example.com.
update: april 8, 2021
while i am not opposed to speed, I have not judged a round in a year so my flowing is not quite up to speed. I'd appreciate a little slower speed than usual. if i have to call speed or clear more than 2x i will be a little annoyed.
I competed in ld for 3 yrs at woodlands. I read mostly theory and util my senior year, so that's what I'm most comfortable evaluating. I'm prob not the best for evaluating complex framework debates or tricks. I'm somewhat familiar with most k lit but am not deeply versed by any means so if k debate is your thing I'd appreciate a bit more explanation on my end.
I'm a big fan of clear coherent overviews on the meta level. I also appreciate good weighing
I try to be as tab as possible but defer to a few defaults listed below. these are not strict in any sense and are merely defaults-- i can be persuaded otherwise
theory> K, def to competing interps, fairness and edu as voters, and drop the debater
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: firstname.lastname@example.org
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 :)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 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.
Last updated 8-27-22
I am currently a Fulbright Debate Coach and Trainer in Taiwan and an LD coach at Apple Valley. I was formerly a grad assistant at the University of Wyoming, head coach of Team Wyoming, an assistant LD coach with Harker, and the Director of LD Debate at Victory Briefs. My background is mostly in LD, though I have PF and policy experience.
Email for the chain: lwzhou10 at gmail.com
Taiwan Public Forum
I am in the process of developing more robust thoughts about how I adjudicate Public Forum Debate rounds. I am not convinced that PF ought to mirror the norms of other debate formats, e.g., LD or policy. Ultimately, I think that debaters who advance strong arguments well-supported by the literature will do the best in front of me.
I've judged over 1000 LD and policy rounds from novice locals to TOC elims. I am not particularly partial to a style in which you debate the topic, e.g. philosophical, kritikal, traditional, etc., but I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the question of the debate start a few steps behind for me.
Ideological stances that might influence prefs:
1. Fairness and logic are good—args to the contrary are self-defeating.
2. The aff should defend the topic; the neg should disprove the aff—I've voted against framework/for Ks a decent amount too but it's just a tougher route to take in front of me.
3. Some tricks are fine, most stretch the definition of what counts as an argument—anything that relies almost entirely on your opponent dropping it probably isn't even worth making in front of me.
4. I think Nebel T is true, but tech > truth. I have grown tired of adjudicating Nebel T rounds. I will give you extra speaks if you either (A) don't read Nebel T against a plan or (B) read 1 off Nebel T against a plan. If you think Nebel T is true, defend it. Short 1NC T shells are near impossible to judge because so much of the debate is late-breaking. I'd rather you went all in or just didn't read it in the first place.
5. Conditionality is probably bad in LD, but it's not that hard to defend condo good; most other counterplan issues are best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
6. I'm inclined to think that everything other than conditionality and T should be a reason to reject the arg. Most other theoretical objections aren't particularly persuasive to me.
7. I'm generally against sandbagging both in the 1NC and 1AR. I would rather the 1NC read 1 less off case position in favor of more developed case analysis, impact calc, or fully complete arguments. I would rather the 1AR make 1 less theory argument in favor of actually explaining what the words "perm do both" mean. How much "new-ness" is allowed in the 2NR or 2AR is obviously contextual but the default is that it's determined by how new your opponent was.
8. Ev ethics are important—I'll default to the NSDA Evidence Guide.
9. I'd prefer not to read your cards—I'd rather you explain them to me.
None of these biases are locked in—in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy. I'm not sure I have strong opinions about much else. Like most other judges, I like evidence quality, impact calculus, and strategic choices. Like most other judges, I dislike cheating, unclarity, and impropriety.
I will NOT hesitate drop anyone who spreads or engages in debate practices that would not be persuasive or understandable to a reasonable person—this is not negotiable. Please do not see my policy background or circuit LD experience as an invitation to make this round uninteresting for everyone involved.
1. Please time yourselves. Using a phone is fine.
2. Yes, off-time roadmaps are good.
3. Offense (why you win) is superior to defense (why you don't lose). I'm much more interested in the former; don't spend so much time on the latter.
4. The criterion/framework is not a voting issue. If you say it is, I'll make a big sad face :(.
5. I prefer more principled and philosophical arguments in debate. If the debate does become a question about the consequences of adopting some policy, I prefer empirical studies and examples over random predictions without evidence.
6. I prefer voting issues to be given as they arise on the flow, not in a discrete section at the end of rebuttal speeches.
7. You do not need to ask me to use your prep time (although I will keep track of time myself).
8. You can read my longer LD paradigm at the bottom for a more detailed view at my decision-making process.
9. You MUST follow the NSDA Evidence Rules (High School Manual here, shorter version here). I care deeply about evidentiary ethics in an academic event and I will not hesitate to punish to the full extent allowed by the rules up to, and including, voting against you.
10. I hate evasion. Direct clash with your opponent's central points is preferred.
11. I will keep a rigorous flow, time all speeches, and not hesitate to enforce those time limits.
NSDA22: Big Questions
I will keep a rigorous flow, time all speeches, and not hesitate to enforce those time limits. I prefer if you keep your own time however. Off time roadmaps are preferred.
The more you focus on core, literature based arguments, the happier I will be. Please do not turn this event into one-on-one policy. I will heavily penalize anyone who attempts to spread or rely on excessive debate jargon up to and including a loss. I want to reward debaters who demonstrate that they have engaged with the serious academic literature on this topic (of which there is much) as opposed to those who sprinted towards surface-level takes or the most implausible "big stick" impact they can find.
I coach on this topic and have done research on it; feel free to assume a decent level of engagement with the relevant literature but err on the side of thoroughly warranting arguments as this is still a persuasive speaking activity and you ought to be assuming that a layperson is adjudicating the round. I will do my best to minimize intervention based on such prior knowledge.
I do not believe that the NEG has any obligation to "frontline" in second rebuttal, but my preferences on this are malleable.
Not that it should ultimately matter, but I do not hold strong religious beliefs; however, I strongly dislike arguments that imply anything offensive about a group or person because of their (lack of) religious beliefs.
Stolen from Matt Liu: "Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas."
I debated for OU back in the day but you shouldn't read too much into that—I wasn't ever particularly good or invested when I was competing. I lean more towards the policy side than the K side and I'm probably going to be unfamiliar with a lot of the ins-and-outs of most kritiks, although I will do my best to fairly evaluate the debate as it happens.
1. I tend to think the role of the aff is to demonstrate that the benefits of a topical plan outweigh its costs and that the role of the neg is to demonstrate that the costs and/or opportunity costs of the aff's plan outweigh its benefits.
2. I find variations of "fairness bad" or "logic/reasoning bad," to be incredibly difficult to win given that I think those are fundamental presuppositions of debate itself. Similarly, I find procedural fairness impacts to be the best 2NRs on T/Framework.
3. Conditionality seems obviously good but I'm not opposed to a 2AR on condo. Most other theory arguments seem reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I lean towards reasonability. Most counterplan issues seem best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
4. Warrant depth is good. Argument comparison is good. Both together—even better.
None of these biases are locked in—in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.
1. Give judge instruction. Tell me how to evaluate the debate.
2. Do argument comparison.
3. Email chains are good.
4. Fast debate is good debate.
I know almost nothing about the water topic.
Online Procedural Concerns
1. Follow tournament procedure regarding online competition best practices.
2. Record your speeches locally. If you cut out and don't have a local backup, that's a you problem.
3. Keep your camera on when you speak, I don't care if it's on otherwise. Only exception is if there are tech or internet issues---keeping the camera off for the entirety of the debate otherwise is a good way to lose speaker points.
4. I'll keep my camera off for prep time, but I'll verbally indicate I'm ready before each speech and turn on the camera for your speeches. If you don't hear me say I'm ready and see my camera on, don't start.
5. Yes, I'll say clear and stuff for online rounds.