Tabroom.com

Strake Jesuit Tournament

2018 — Houston, TX/US

VLD Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Clement Agho-Otoghile Hire 8 rounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

Jugal Amodwala Westwood HS

Last changed on Mon November 22, 2021 at 11:27 AM CDT

Hi I debated LD throughout high school at Westwood (2018), earned two career bids and qualified to the TOC. pls flash jugal1999@gmail.com

~ last edited 11/21 ~

2021 Longhorn classic stuff

1. I am probably going to be late to the room, PLEASE have an email doc ready to go before I get there

2. I have not done anything debate related in the past 7 months BUT I still follow politics and current events very closely and watch lectures on 4x speed so the only issues I will have are topic specific items (jargon, common link chains) and clarity

3. UT's campus can be very confusing, please feel free to ask me for directions or food recs. It has also not been particularly safe recently so I will strongly encourage you to not stray past Guadalupe street.

4. once the round is over i'll finish typing feedback on my ballot and then give an rfd. it really disrupts my thought process if you interrupt me until I'm done with my rfd, please hold off on questions until then (write them down if you have to). I promise I will provide some feedback on speeches but if u have specific questions (after I am done) fire away!

5. I think my paradigm is still mostly true but I am less patient/less willing to gloss over things that annoy me. Yes, my paradigm is too long but I think I've conveyed my thought process well enough that you will hopefully know what you're getting when you debate in front of me.

general

I coached Westwood from 2018-2021, I have not been very involved with debate in the 2021 fall season.

I was coached by Rodrigo Paramo and I think I share similar views with Bennett Eckert, Travis Fife, and Aaron Timmons.

If you're lazy some pref shortcuts:

LARP - 1

Theory/T - 1-3 (depending on the frivolity of the position)

Kritiks - 2

Phil - 2-4

Tricks - strike

My general disposition towards debate is that it's a competitive arena that has educational potential, because of that I really believe in providing feedback on the debate so please feel free to ask questions!

--- a byproduct of this is that if I believe you are doing something that excludes your opponent from learning anything i will be very annoyed. Things like reading kritiks/theory or spreading against traditional or novice opponents just to cheese a ballot irritate me deeply, please treat your opponent with respect. i would hate to judge a round where a debater did not learn a single thing.

I am NOT tabula rasa and I don't think anyone actually is.

I will ONLY say slow/clear TWICE and after that I'll stop flowing.

My favorite kind of debate was a simple plan/disad/cp debate because I think those brought about the most clash and in-depth evidence comparison at the high school level. That said, I don't want to hear you failing to go for a disad when you've never read one before.

I will not vote for anything I don't understand - I think I have a good grasp of the "generic K's" and Kant but beyond that some explanation might be necessary given I haven't read all of the literature. I think this is especially true for links and alternatives.

I am a very expressive person - I will constantly be making faces in round, think of them as you would like, but I would recommend just ignoring them.

I have become increasingly cynical with k debate in LD the longer I've been judging. It is not fun to judge debates with no clash since no one knows what their position says including the ones reading it. I urge you not to read it unless you're CONFIDENT in your ability to explain it.

I love a good case debate - challenge the aff's home turf.

I STRONGLY believe in disclosure - The only exception is if you are unaware of what the wiki is. Screenshots MUST be provided including TIME STAMPS.

I have a HIGH threshold for good evidence - I think it should be about your scenario and as specific as possible. If it's a politics disad or a time sensitive argument newer evidence from reliable sources prevails.

In the case of cheating (evidence ethics, clipping, etc) I'll vote against the debater in question but will continue the debate. Speaks will be awarded based on the round and I'll subtract 2 points for the cheating. See Rodrigo's paradigm for more specific details for things I agree with.

I largely agree with Rodrigo regarding trigger warnings.

I treat theory/T as a kind of disad/cp debate with the standards being disads to the aff's interp. Please WEIGH! I need impact calc on the net benefits or I will probably throw out the shell.

If you intend to read 5+ cards on case, tell me to get another page for them. I haven't quite learned how to copy paste while flowing on paper.

I will wait until AFTER postrounding to give speaks - if you and/or your coach is rude then your speaks will suffer.

_________________________________________

Speed

I don't recall anyone being too fast for me to understand (I watch school lectures on 4.5x speed) on evidence but for short analytics like theory standards you HAVE to go slower bc I can't write at light speed.

Clarity is a MUST, and debaters almost always think they're clearer than they actually are so maybe go slower.

Speaks

I will award speaks based on what I think your propensity to win the tournament is, based on the round I judged. If I'm confident you can win, you get a thirty, and it'll go down from there. My perception for this might be skewed and I will usually end up giving you lower than what your final record will end up being.

Efficiency and good strategy will bump u up.

Try not to 100% BS facts. If you say xyz is polling at 80% when they're actually polling at 40 you will lose speaks.

I WILL dock speaks for being rude and award speaks for being kind.

I appreciate numbering arguments (1. no link, 2. link turn, 3. perm) and labeling offs (next off - econ disad).

Reading interesting and good arguments will also bump up your speaks. I love unique and specific plans or disads but if the evidence is trash I'm not gonna like it.

Theory

I think potential abuse exists and can be an effective argument even if you have aff specific offense.

I think most theory shells that are based on CX are frivolous (ex. must list perms, must spec k over T, etc)

Counter interps and interps must be flashed before read.

I'm persuaded by disclosure, open source, and brackets - but they still need a warrant - I won't hack. Round reports is silly tho, i've never been convinced there's any real abuse

If the 2n is literally 6 mins of theory/T I think the aff implicitly gets an rvi, since the 2n has conceded substance. I see no benefit to forcing the aff extend the 1ac for ten seconds.

I really LOVE specific and in-depth interps but try and make sure it still makes sense as a universal rule and as a sentence.

Topicality

Dislike semantics first (nebel) and generally think it's a floor not a ceiling but will still vote on it. That said, I still don't know what grammar is and the argument must be coherently explained. If I don't get your violation or understand the warrant for the definition, I can't vote on it.

Developed standards and voters are important and weigh between them if you want to have a good debate

I don't think a dictionary definition is mandatory but in T debates it will go a long ways - the more specific the definition the better. However, I am compelled by arguments saying that a counter interp is incomplete without them.

Interps and counter interps need to be complete statements. I treat them like plan texts since they are an attempt at defining a norm, so things like "Counter interp: let this aff in" are not real counter interps. I think paragraph theory like "conditionality is a voter" is fine.

Plans

I strongly believe they should have solvency advocates

frameworks are a must

I'm not a fan of underviews filled with analytics but if you're going to read that 1ar theory paradigm PLEASE SLOW DOWN.

CPs

For whatever reason I'm more lenient on the existence of a solvency advocate here, that said having one could be relevant to theory debates

One condo is chill

Not a fan of judge kick and will only evaluate the arg if it's made in the 1NC

PICs

I think these are some of the most strategic arguments in debate but I am persuaded by well crafted theory shells saying they're cheating.

Phil

The way I've always thought about philosophical frameworks is the same as Kritiks. There should be a way of explaining the world, a link to the topic, and some sort of impact.

I love util but in my senior year I branched out to deontologists like Kant and Hobbes.

Miss me with your justice v morality args - I don't care

Kritiks

Not a fan of Floating PIKs - I think they're cheating but if your opponent doesn't ask it's fair game if your evidence justifies it

I was a big fan of the security, anthro, and cap K's but specific links make a world of difference.

Unwarranted evidence is far too common in kritik debates. I find it frustrating when the NC is basically just 5 minutes of glorified impact cards.

I have a high threshold for afropessimism based arguments. I think they're often read poorly in LD and commodified, therefore I'm persuaded by the argument that white people shouldn't be advocating for it.

NOT a fan of generic links like the state is anti-black - the more specific the better

Kritik's must have SOME form of framing and I believe that the ROTB might precede case but this must be clearly justified. No, a card listing all the reasons why capitalism is bad and therefore should be stopped is not a ROTB, it needs to talk about education or activism or something related to debate.

Big fan of framework against kritiks done similarly to how Policy does it.

Performance

go for it as long as it isn't something that could potentially endanger someone

I do think all of your actions must be justified

I'm strongly compelled by T-Framework, and think plans are good for debate

Skep/permissability/tricks

no. A burden will result in an almost instant loss. I'm more than happy to discuss this with you outside of round but I think practices that focus on winning from blippy analytics are bad for debate.

I define a "trick" as a preempt that prohibits an action, like the neg can't read counter plans. Things like aff gets rvis or allow 1ar theory are ok, but annoying.

Blake Andrews Prosper Independent

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 6:53 AM CDT

Come to University of Houston for LD camp this summer! UH has a great staff, is reasonably priced, and has an excellent staff to student ratio. If you have questions feel free to email me.

Berkeley update not good for strategies that involve upwards of 7+ off case positions.

blakeandrews55@gmail.com email with questions or for email chain purposes.

Head Coach at McNeil.

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."

About Me:
B.A. University of Texas at Austin 2015

Head Coach at McNeil High School

Worked at some smaller camps in the past like MGC for LD and UTNIF for LD.

I did LD in HS for a small program in Texas. I cleared at a handful of bid tournaments / TFA State but dropped in early elim rounds. I've coached ld debaters with success at tfa state, some toc success, UIl, and nsda. I've coached a cx team in out rounds of tfa state, qualified to nationals, and elims of uil state. I've been involved in debate for a while and I judge a lot of debates each year. Some local, some nat circuit, some just practice rounds for my team.

Top Level 1. Slow down on tags. I have dysgraphia. I can flow speed but slowing down for tags, plan texts, theory interps etc benefits everyone.

2. Do what you do best. I am probably better for kritiks in general, but if you love going for the politics disad don't let me stop you. My favorite debaters have included k debaters/ teams, but I also generally like how greenhill debates( policy and ld).I strongly prefer line by line debate on the K not long K overviews( blah).

3. Judge instruction is critical, please weigh( probability, time frame, magnitude).

4. Please flesh out solvency deficits when answering counterplans. Aff's should feel less afraid to call out abusive counterplans (no problem voting on process cps, etc, but aff's should be less afraid to go for theory the more abusive the cp gets).Like every other judge I like when debaters read less generic positions and engage in the aff

5. Fine with voting on theory, but the more frivolous the shell the less work goes into answering the argument. Reasonability specifically in LD is under rated.

6. K affs are good with me. Explain why your model of debate is good.

7. I am a horrible judge for tricks in LD. Please strike me

Defaults condo good, drop the arg on theory ( except if you win condo bad, which is drop the team, but hopefully teams go for substance), drop the debater on T. Default to competing interps( reasonability in LD is under rated given the significance of bad theory in LD)

PF specific please no paraphrasing in pf. Speaks will go down. You will get good speaks for reading fully cut cards. Evidence comparison, fleshing out warrants, and impact calc helps me vote for you.

Darren Boarnet UT High School

Adam Brown James Bowie High School

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

Updated 11/30/18 for Strake 2018.
Please start an email chain before the round - my email is brown.k.adam@gmail.com

Overview About Me - I debated for Episcopal HS in Houston and graduated in 2016. I was coached by Jacob Koshak. I qualified to the TFA State, Nationals, and the TOC. I'm currently a junior at Kenyon College studying Sociology with a focus on African Diaspora Studies. I've taught at TDC, NSD Flagship, NSD Texas, NSD Phili and Apex. I've coached students from Earl Warren, North Crowley, Montgomery, Klein Oak, Kamiak, and some other schools.

TL;DR - I care a lot about debate as an educational space for exploration and learning.Do whatever you're passionate about and have fun. I feel confident in my ability to properly evaluate most any flow, but i'm most comfortable with the K flow, followed by phil, then T and theory, then tricks, then LARP. This isn't an indicator of what I like or want to vote on, but a clarification of what i think my strengths are in terms of understanding type-specific arguments and their interactions. I'm willing to vote on anything as well as it's clearly explained and sufficiently warranted. Weighing and clear ballot stories attached to framing are really important. I will not evaluate an argument that I cannot explain in the RFD. Pre-round questions should be more specific than "what's your paradigm" or "speed?".

Fundamentals

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

Specific Feelings About Debate Argumentative Preferences and Defaults

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

Speaker Points

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

Post-Round

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

If you have any other question, please don't hesitate to contact me in person, on Facebook, or over email (brown.k.adam@gmail.com).

Here are a list of people (in addition to my coaches) who i strongly admire/strive to be like/generally agree with in terms of debate:

Ben Koh
Jenn Melin
Tim Alderete
Kris Wright
Arun Sharma

joseph cantu Strake Jesuit College Preparatory

Chris Castillo Hire 8 rounds

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

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

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

Theory:

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

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

Isaac Chao Heights HS

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2024 at 6:37 PM CDT

Coach at Heights High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, Woodlands SP
Judging at TOC for: Heights EP, Heritage WT

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me. The 1AC should be sent before the scheduled start time, and the 1AC should be ready to start their speech by the start time.

If I'm judging you in Policy: heightsdocs.policy@gmail.com
If I'm judging you in LD: heightsdocs.ld@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, am currently a teacher at Heights, and predominately coach policy and LD: my program competes through the Houston Urban Debate League and the Texas Forensic Association.

Pref Shortcuts

Policy: 1
T/Theory: 1-2
Phil: 2
Kritik (identity): 2
Kritik (pomo): 3
Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
Tech > Truth
I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

Given that I predominately coach policy debate, I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

I default to competing interpretations.
I default to no RVIs.
You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters does not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or someone who is genuinely unaware of the wiki.
"If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
I don't judge a terribly large number of k-aff v fw debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
I default to epistemic confidence.
Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
I don't disclose speaks.
I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:

I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.

If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

Matthew Chen Scarsdale HS

Last changed on Sun April 28, 2024 at 7:05 PM EDT

email chain: matt.mc2018@gmail.com

strake '18, uchicago '22 - no conflicts besides strake

TL:DR - i do not care what arguments you read or how you present them, with the following exceptions

A) repugnant / offensive ones (isms good basically - don't be racist / sexist / otherwise problematic)

B) ad homs - any argument about the debater as a person or what they did out of the round, I will not evaluate (disclosure with screenshots is the exception)

C) anything asking me to evaluate the debate before any speech that isn't the 2ar - I don't consider speech time / structure up for debate and as a corollary of that, i won't evaluate arguments that suggest certain speeches don't matter.

D) anything with a warrant that isn't fully developed - "competing interps bc reasonability is arbitrary" isn't a full argument. I know what that means but you have to explain it beyond the buzzwords

Also, don't be rude or condescending. I'll drop speaks for it

Speaks: won't disclose, don't ask. I'll try to average a 28.5 though with above a 29 being for someone I think should clear.

things you can do to get higher speaks:

1. start slow and build up to your top speed. Actually on second thought, go maybe 85 percent of your top speed at peak. I haven't flowed in a long time

2. i'll say clear as often as needed, and as long as I can tell you're trying to meet my accomodations I won't deduct speaks. however, if you just ignore me, that'll be annoying

3. the more clearly you understand how a judge evaluates a round, the better your speaks will be. your final speeches should very clearly have a vision of what issues the judge needs to decide in the round, and an explanation for how these issues are resolved in your favor. in other words, round awareness will get you a long way

4. quality > quantity of arguments - don't treat every card you see as an arg gen drill in rebuttals, pick your best arguments, then explain and impact them to the best of your ability

5. warrant comparison in the earliest speech possible - if you read a solvency deficit in the 1N, compare it to 1AC evidence then and there. i dislike sandbagging

6. Being tech matters but i value well-structured speeches more than perfect tech (not to say you should neglect technical execution).

7. i like it when people contest the warrants in cards / DA link chains with well explained analytic arguments. zero risk is probably not a thing but if you win smart arguments that there's significant reason to doubt case or DA card claims that does significantly increase the chance of your own offense outweighing and ill give better speaks for debaters who do this

Ideology: not that my beliefs matter at this point, and they're very weak beliefs anyways and will go away the second an arg is made, but if you want ideological stuff?

1. plan focus isn't actively preferable to other models of debate, but it still has value and the fact that you're not in Congress isn't a reason researching and debating usfg policy is fallacious / bad, nor is it preclusive of grassroots activism or the like

2. rejoinder / role of the negative is important. whether that requires a topic focus is less clear. procedural fairness probably has an impact but that should be explained like anything and its by no means preclusive. ssd / tva are useful but not a requirement. restrictions on content are probably not exclusion or violence. planless affs should defend a model of debate that mitigates neg offense and do impact calc against neg fw args by weighing case / impact turning neg offense

3. your representations are less important than your advocacy and criticisms should be leveraged as reasons the advocacy is undesirable - reps can still be a reason, but the closer you can argue those reps are to the thesis of the aff, the more convincing they are. that said, i enjoy k debates when the kritik fundamentally engages the aff. usually tend to think the best 2ars vs most ks are 3 minutes throwing down on the perm

4. dont really think most skills/education arguments are compelling voting issues in a vaccum, though as turns case arguments in a clash debate i find them more compelling, and largely believe any style of debate has educational value as a byproduct as long as it encourages argument contestation. someone even convinced me once that tricks affs provide skills useful in law school. that said, argue your model of debate pedogagy as you see fit

5. generally a believer in 'lit determines legitimacy" of most things in debate, especially CP theory and topic T args (by this I mean definitions grounded in the context of the literature with intent to define, not "if ppl write about my aff it's predictable and thus within the bounds of the topic so you can prep for it")

6. most tricks aren't unfair, they're just bad arguments with low opportunity cost to make that lose to making 1 true objection and moving on. i appreciate innovative tricks though like well-thought out framework hijacks, contingent standards (this isn't just skep triggers btw!), or well justified burden structures. emphasis on innovative

7. theory arguments have an opportunity cost (by that i mean the uplayering itself is somewhat unfair) and the abuse story should probably outweigh that opportunity cost if the shell is DTD. yeah specifying the status of the CP is marginally better than not, but is that unfairness worse than the dtd implication mooting 7 mins of 1nc offense and ending the debate?

8. i find that a lot of theory arguments (specifically combo shells) unfortunately boil down to "they said something that's hard to answer and that's bad" and most of the "good" theory arguments are probably reasons the objectionable argument in question is either bad / not competitive / non responsive. that said, i understand the strategic value of making those args as full shells so go off. also, i despise side bias arguments and genuinely think they have no place in debate (probably my strongest actual bias) - id prefer you just make actual arguments.

9. good case debate is always appreciated and should definitely be incorporated into a good k or framework debate

10. i like framework (LD) debate best but think its often not done well due to incentive to misrepresent authors / lean on generic blocks / make dishonest preclusion arguments as a crutch instead of in-depth explanation. good philosophy args can be analytic or continental and i'm reasonably versed in both, but its been a long time since i thought about most of these arguments so explain well. If I don’t have a clear understanding of your warrants, I have no qualms voting against you and starting my rfd with “yeah I didn’t understand your explanation”

11. i think disclosure is a good practice. i think full text is probably the bare minimum (imo paywalls are a significant enough DA to only first 3 last 3 for it to not be frivolous) - past that the disclosure args get more nitpicky but ill still vote on them if won.

Richard Cook Hire 8 rounds

William Davidson Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed December 13, 2023 at 3:22 AM CDT

I debated for Strake Jesuit from 2013-2017 in LD and was briefly a part of the Kansas University Debate team. I judge periodically and I enjoy watching past debate recordings on Youtube. Here's my favorite :) Scottsdale CD v Interlake AL

Add me to the email chain: will@sorrelslaw.com

My Paradigm

- In round (and outside of round for that matter) show your opponents the respect you ought to have for yourself.

- I'm okay with speed (6/10-8/10 with 10/10 being Ram Prasad in TOC Quarters and 1/10 being NSDA Finals in 2019). At the bare minimum just slow down on taglines, author names, and in rebuttals. Also, be clear. If you are going to go fast, it should at least be clear, otherwise just slow down, you probably don't need that last D&G card... I will let you know if you are going too fast or being unclear.

- I am a believer in truth over tech. However, at the end of the day, do what you are comfortable with and have fun.

To expand on the above point; frivolous theory, confusing kritiques, and floating PICs are not my cup of tea.. but if you like them, don't let me stand in your way of running them, just explain them thoroughly.
Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, and framework debates are my cup of tea. I enjoy clashing ideas about the topic assigned by our glorious NSDA overlords. Education is important after all :)

- Jokes are welcome, as long as they don't come at the expense of the person you are debating

- Speaker points are determined by your strategy, speaking skill, CX, and decorum with your opponent.

- I will vote on anything as long as it is justified as a ballot-winning position.

Give me voters.
Weigh your arguments.
Be clear on how you are winning compared to your opponent and why I should vote for you.

The rest of my paradigm is stolen from my former teammate Joey Georges who stole it from Neville Tom

-Weigh:Do it as much as you possibly can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate. Weighing + meta weighing + meta-meta weighing and so on is music to my ears. Also, doing risk analysis is excellent and very persuasive for weighing.

-Crystallize + Judge Instruction:You really don't need to go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take the time to provide me with a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as I'm winning this/these argument(s), you vote aff/neg."

-Warrant your Arguments:When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me andmake sure to extend themfor the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you. Also, pointing out the concession of warrants is just generally good for strength of link weighing, which I absolutely love. Please don't claim that stuff that isn't conceded is conceded, though; that is annoying to myself and your opponent.

-Signpost:Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any ambiguities that might affect my decision.

-Creatively Interpret/Implicate Your Arguments:Feel free (in fact, I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit at first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. Truth claims are truth claims, so I don't care if you go for extinction outweighs theory, the kritik link turns fairness, or anything of the like, as long as you warrant the argument and win it.

Cara Day Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 6, 2020 at 6:55 AM CDT

*Updated for January 2020*

St. Agnes Academy '17 | UT Austin '21

Email: cara.day@utexas.edu

Or FB message me with questions

I am the nat circuit coach of tha bois™ of Strake Jesuit, and this is my third year coaching there. RJ Shah also continuously asks me to coach him. In high school, I did both PF and LD. I’m a junior at UT Austin.

General/TLDR

-Debate's a game. I'm a tech> truth judge; if an argument is conceded, it becomes 100% true in the round.

*Note: The only time I will ever intervene is if you are blatantly homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, etc.

-Vroom Vroom: Go as fast as you want. Spreading is great if you so desire. If I don't know what you're saying, I'll say "clear" 3 times before I stop flowing, tank your speaks, and throw my computer at you. Slow down on author names, CP texts, and interps.

-I judge debates without intervening, and I keep a pretty clean flow. If you want me to vote on something, you have to extend it. ** Your extension should include author last name and content or I won't give it to you. Extend the UQ, link, internal link, and impact, or you don't get access to the argument.

-You can literally do anything you want -- don't care at all if it's sus (other than miscut evidence or planning a hostile takeover) -- and if the other team has a problem, they can read theory. Just know that I won't intervene if I think that you are being abusive unless you get called out on it. Ex: If they read a link turn, you can read an impact turn in the next speech and extend both lol

-If you really want me to listen, make it interesting (Roman Candles are highly encouraged). Sass is appreciated. I'm fine with flex prep and tag team cross in PF because it usually makes things a little more bearable to watch.

-Please do comparative weighing and meta-weighing if necessary (i.e. why scope is more important than timeframe). Rounds are so hard to adjudicate if no weighing is done because I am left to decide which impacts are more important. Absent weighing, I default to to the most terminalized impact in the round aka lives (hint: i fw extinction scenarios heavy).

- CX is binding

- Warrant your arguments -- I'll prefer an analytical claim with a warrant over some random stat with none.

- Contextualize in the back half of the round, or you're gonna beg some type of intervention from me which you probably won't like.

- If you know me, you know I think judge grilling is good for the activity. Judges should be able to justify their decisions, or they shouldn't be making them. Feel free to ask me questions after the round. It's educational!:)

-Please tell me what flow and where on the flow to start on. Signposting is astronomically important and should be done throughout the speech. If you call it an off-time roadmap, I won't be flowing you speech because I'll be too busy cleaning tears off of my keyboard due to my loss of hope for this activity.

-I'm a super easy judge to read. If I am nodding, I like your argument. If I look confused, I probably am.

- If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). The round stops as soon as you call it. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you a L20. (TKOs are 1/1 in front of me rn)

Speaks

I average around a 28. Ways to get good speaks in front of me: go for the right things in later speeches and don't be bad. Getting a 30 is not impossible in front of me but very difficult (I've only ever given out three). I give speaks more on strategy and whether I think you deserve to break than on actual speaking skills.

Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I want an email chain too, preferably with cut cards if I am judging you.

If I catch you stealing prep, I start stealing ur speaks:/

If you can work a BROCKHAMPTON quote into your speeches (except from iridescence), I will give you a .5 speaks boost.

For PF:

General

Please go line by line and not big picture in every speech.

Rebuttal

2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- dont try to respond in a later speech (trust me, i'll notice).

Summary

My thoughts on defense: Since you now have a three minute summary, any defense -- regardless of whether you're first or second -- needs to be in every speech. If you're collapsing properly, this shouldn't be an issue.

Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend what you want me to vote on.

Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.

Mirroring is super crucial to me: If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and FF. Man ... it better be ...

If you're gonna concede a delink so that turns go away, you have to say which delink because some delinks don't necessarily take out turns.

Final

I'm fine with new weighing in final, as long as it's comparative because I think this is what final is for -- contextualization and weighing to win the round, otherwise the round could just stop after summary.

First final can make new responses to backline defense, since the second speaking team's frontlines won't come out until second summary.

Ks/Theory/T/CPs/etc.

I'm fine with progressive PF- I think that policy action resolutions give fiat, and I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. Theory, Kritiks, Tricks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my LD paradigm below. PLEASE extend and weigh these just like you would with a normal substantive argument. Every part of them should be extended.

Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.

If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct a speak each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.

For LD:

My Level of Comfort with these arguments is as follows (1, highest, 5, lowest)

Policy Arguments (DAs, CPs, Plans): 1

Oppression-based affs, util, and non-ideal FWs: 1

Ideal FWs: 1

Theory/T: 2

Tricks: 2

K: 3

Non-T Affs: 5

Policy Args: I ran these primarily when I debated. I love hearing these debates because I think they tend to produce the most clash. I default that conditionality is fine unless you abuse it by reading like 6 condo CPs.Extinction is one of my favorite impacts if linked well. I default to comparative worlds.

FW: I'm a philosophy major, so anything you wanna read is fine. I read authors like Young, Butler, Winter and Leighton, and Levinas in high school- I like hearing these and don't think FW debate is done enough. I will gladly listen to any other author. My specialty in my major is in ethics - Mill, Kant, Ross, Dancy, etc

Theory/T: I default competing interps (especially with T) because I think that it is a more objective way to evaluate theory. I default giving the RVI unless it's on 1AR theory. Obviously, If you make arguments otherwise for any of these, I'll still evaluate them.

If you want me to vote on your shell, extend every part of it.

Presumption: In PF, I presume neg because it is squo unless you give arguments otherwise. In LD, I presume aff because of the time skew- I will vote neg on presumption if you warrant it.

Ks: I'm probably not a great K judge. I never read Ks, and I'm generally unfamiliar with the lit that isn't super common. I will obviously still evaluate it, but if I mess up, don't blame me lol. I am REALLY not a fan of non-T affs. I hated debating against these and think they put both the judge and the opponent in an uncomfortable position because often, it seems as though voting against these or responding to them is undermining the identity of an individual. Please don't commodify an oppressed group to get a ballot in front of me.

DISCLOSE! If I am judging you at a circuit tournament, I sincerely hope you will have disclosed. I will listen to answers to disclosure theory, but know that my predisposition is that the shell is just true.

Pretty much, do anything you want, and I will listen. You are the ones debating, not me!

If at any point you feel uncomfortable because of something your opponent has said, you can stop the round to talk to me, and we can decide how to go forward from there.

The most important thing to me is that debaters read positions they like. I will do my best to judge everyone and every argument fairly.

Cara Day Strake Jesuit College Preparatory

Last changed on Fri March 6, 2020 at 6:55 AM CDT

*Updated for January 2020*

St. Agnes Academy '17 | UT Austin '21

Email: cara.day@utexas.edu

Or FB message me with questions

General/TLDR

-Debate's a game. I'm a tech> truth judge; if an argument is conceded, it becomes 100% true in the round.

*Note: The only time I will ever intervene is if you are blatantly homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, etc.

- CX is binding

- Warrant your arguments -- I'll prefer an analytical claim with a warrant over some random stat with none.

- Contextualize in the back half of the round, or you're gonna beg some type of intervention from me which you probably won't like.

-I'm a super easy judge to read. If I am nodding, I like your argument. If I look confused, I probably am.

Speaks

If I catch you stealing prep, I start stealing ur speaks:/

If you can work a BROCKHAMPTON quote into your speeches (except from iridescence), I will give you a .5 speaks boost.

For PF:

General

Please go line by line and not big picture in every speech.

Rebuttal

2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- dont try to respond in a later speech (trust me, i'll notice).

Summary

Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend what you want me to vote on.

Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.

Mirroring is super crucial to me: If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and FF. Man ... it better be ...

If you're gonna concede a delink so that turns go away, you have to say which delink because some delinks don't necessarily take out turns.

Final

First final can make new responses to backline defense, since the second speaking team's frontlines won't come out until second summary.

Ks/Theory/T/CPs/etc.

For LD:

My Level of Comfort with these arguments is as follows (1, highest, 5, lowest)

Policy Arguments (DAs, CPs, Plans): 1

Oppression-based affs, util, and non-ideal FWs: 1

Ideal FWs: 1

Theory/T: 2

Tricks: 2

K: 3

Non-T Affs: 5

If you want me to vote on your shell, extend every part of it.

Presumption: In PF, I presume neg because it is squo unless you give arguments otherwise. In LD, I presume aff because of the time skew- I will vote neg on presumption if you warrant it.

Pretty much, do anything you want, and I will listen. You are the ones debating, not me!

If at any point you feel uncomfortable because of something your opponent has said, you can stop the round to talk to me, and we can decide how to go forward from there.

The most important thing to me is that debaters read positions they like. I will do my best to judge everyone and every argument fairly.

Ruihua Ding Cinco Ranch High School

Last changed on Fri February 11, 2022 at 2:12 PM EDT

Speaks: I really, really don't like speed. I'm not even talking about spreading. If you go fast, i'll flow it and i'll evaluate the arg, but i won't want to, so if you dont want to take the risk on your speaks and/or the ballot, go slow.

Evidence: I will always call for evidence. Especially for args that are critical to the round. Don't misrepresent, or you're pretty much screwed. Also, I don’t flow card names in constructive/rebuttal, so if you want me to notice a specific piece of evidence, tell me what it says on top of its name.

Extensions: Offense needs to be extended in all speeches except for maybe the 1st rebuttal (if its offense in case). Some judges ask for 2nd rebuttal to be interactive with the first rebuttal, and while i agree its definitely helpful if you don't have to respond to everything in summary, it isn't necessary to secure my ballot. Impact extensions can be really short, since i would prefer to see more clash in the links.

Args: Don't run progressive arguments. Also, i'm tech over truth, but i will really not want to give you the ballot if you run bad args like extinction (unless you really convince me it will happen!). If one of yall is throwing on purpose, lmk beforehand so i dont have to flow.

General Speaking:

1) If you don't signpost, you're gna see me not flowing, so if you want what you say to be on my flow, please tell me where you’re at.

2) WEIGH WHAT YOU SAY IN ALL SPEECHES. The worst thing as a judge is to intervene because each side had an argument get extended. In that case, i will just vote with my gut feeling, and you probably won't like it. Also, weighing doesn't just mean throw out buzzwords like "we out weigh in scope" and then say something completely unrelated.

3) Give me a roadmap, and if you tell me you're starting with an overview, please tell me where to flow it.

4) I was hella abusive in crossfire when i debated, so i won't straight up down in you speaks for being a bit rude. However, if you're not letting your opponent talk at all, i'm probably not gna like you, and if i don't like you, you won't like your speaks.

5) I’m not a big fan of funny tag lines. It doesn’t matter too much but I personally think your tagline should get right to the crux of the argument so i know what im looking for.

6) In a bubble round, if you ask me how to get 30 speaks, ill tell you, and if you don't screw it up completely, you will probably get at least a 29.

Other Stuff:

1) I'm generally gonna disclose and give the exact rfd as to how i made the decision from the perspective of the flow. However, if you have any questions about speaking, feel free to ask me.

2) I probably won't be giving all my attention to crossfire, and i probably wont be flowing it either. If you wan't something to be evaluated that came from cross, bring it up in your speech.

Katya Ehresman Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 8, 2020 at 2:10 PM CDT

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long Version:

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

Ks:

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

Subsequently I can be persuaded by PIKs bad, again just warrant it and do top level weighing

K affs:

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

Performance:

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

DAs:

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

CPs/PICs:

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

Theory:

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

T/framework:

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

Phil:

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

Speed/speaks:

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

Tom Evnen Lake Highland Preparatory

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

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

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

Email for docs: tomevnen@gmail.com

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

Longer explanation of rankings:

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellaneous

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

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

Katherine Fennell Interlake

Last changed on Mon December 9, 2019 at 12:17 PM EDT

Stuyvesant High School ‘17
UC Berkeley '21
Summer Camps: Instructor at NSD Flagship (2017, 2018, 2019), NSD Philadelphia (2017, 2018, 2019), and Texas Debate Collective (2017, 2018, 2019). I am the co-director at NSD Philadelphia (2020) with Zoe Ewing.

Updated for Strake: 12/9/19

Hi! My name is Katherine, and I debated LD for Stuyvesant in NYC for four years, and qualled to TOC my senior year. I now coach.

New:

(a) If you read disclosure against someone who is obviously a novice or traditional debater who doesn’t know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps.

(b) I will not vote on a theory interpretation or violation that involves policing the appearance or clothing of an opponent. I also will intervene against (i.e. not evaluate) extremely frivolous shells.

Defaults – these only matter if no one makes any arguments to the contrary.

If you read theory (paragraph or shell) in the 1NC/1AR/2NR, you need to justify voters (fairness/education/drop the debater) in order for it to be a complete argument that I will evaluate. This means, if the 1AR says "condo kills aff strategy because it creates a moving target and allows the negative to go whichever flow the 1ar undercovered, which kills fairness," I will not evaluate it because there is no voter or implication.
- If you read theory in the 1AC and don't justify voters, the 2NR gets to contest new 1AR voters.
- I will default competing interpretations and no RVIs
Epistemic Confidence
T > theory > substance
Theory > K
Fairness > education
Pragmatics > semantics
Truth testing

General Notes

I’ll say ‘slow’ or ‘clear’ if necessary. I don't flow off of the speech doc, so if I keep saying 'clear' and you aren't adapting there is a solid chance I'm missing arguments.
I very much think you need an impact filtering mechanism (a standard text, a ROB, etc) -- otherwise, I will be left to evaluate impacts as I see fit which probably won't make you happy.
Extensions need warrants and impacts, even if you are extending a conceded argument. If you are extending a case that is conceded, it isn't sufficient to say "extend my whole case."
If you are debating a novice or someone who lacks a lot of circuit experience, please make the round educational and inclusive. This does not necessarily mean go full on traditional (although that's definitely fine), but it does mean don't go full speed and a bunch of offs. Your speaks will go way down if you are rude/exclusive/inaccessible.

Flashing –

Flashing isn't included in prep time. Compiling the doc is.

Theory –

I am fine with disclosure theory and other shells that require out of round violations if you have a verifiable violation (screenshots, for example). I really don't want to hear a debate over who said what in some pre-round encounter.
If you go for reasonability, please provide a brightline. If you don't provide a brightline, or provide a brightline of gut check, I will probably gut check to competing interps.

Kritiks –

I am familiar with a good amount of literature and I am open to whatever. That being said, you should err on over explanations and don't assume I know the lit you are talking about. I will only vote on arguments made in the round, not on my understanding of the literature.
K ‘tricks’ are great and I am totally fine voting for them if they are won– VTL, alt solves case, floating PIKs, etc. They probably need to be at least hinted at in the 1NC. (See this article).
I think the conceptual divide between Ks and phil is pretty arbitrary. Ks should have a ROB/framework to evaluate impacts - People often read Ks with an unjustified consequentialist framework which makes it really easy to answer with a phil aff. Just because you say the word "role of the ballot" doesn't mean it comes above the framework debate.
Link analysis is key – make it specific, quote aff evidence in the 1NC, have an external impact to the links (ie not just the aff does X and that’s a link, but the aff does X and that is bad because Y and leads to this bad impacts

LARP –

Impact turns on DAs are good – I’m fine with cap good/bad, extinction good/bad, econ collapse good/bad, warming, etc. Death good/bad is also fine.
Empirical warrants should have statistical methodologies, sample sizes, etc – good evidence and study comparison necessitates methodology comparison and will be rewarded with higher speaks.
Please weigh impacts and internal links (IE compare the way you access X impact versus how they do).

Phil –

Go for it! I probably will not be the best for super dense analytic framework v. framework debates, but I will do my best.

Tricks –

I am going to be annoyed if your A-strat is an argument that boils down to, "I defined this word as this, thus vote aff." Arguments need warrants or I will not vote on them, even if conceded. I would prefer if you had a clever trick, like a thoughtful contingent standard, rather than arguments that would justify voting one side every single round.
A prioris and other sketchy things need to be clear in the first speech or else I’ll probably be convinced by reasons why your opponent should get new responses.
If you go for a trick, you actually have to go for it – I will probably not vote off an argument that was extended for 10 sec in the 1AR or 2AR

Performance/non T affs –

Fine with whatever you want to do. Preferably your aff is in the direction of the topic and provides a coherent method and role of the ballot to evaluate the debate, but I’ll listen to and evaluate whatever.
Make sure that if you don’t defend the resolution, it’s clear that you don’t defend the resolution or you defend some method affirmation of the resolution
Be nice to kids who don’t know how to engage your aff

K affs v. T –

I don’t have a leaning on this debate and won’t decide ideologically. You should both be making arguments specifically in the context of the 1AC, not just “K always comes above T” or “T always comes above the aff”
I tend to think that affs answering T-FW need to defend some model of debate instead of just impact turning theory. Whether that's articulated as a counter interp or just an explanation of "here is my model of debate" doesn't matter. This debate should be a debate between competing models of debate, weighing the DAs and net benefits to each model instead of just floating impacts that are never interacted.
Extended the TVA without any analysis/implications done is not persuasive to me. You have to explain what the implication of winning the TVA is (ie which arguments does it exclude?).

Speaks –

I’ll give speaks based on strategy, technical proficiency, in round persona, how interesting you make the debate, good collapses in the 2NR/2AR
Things to get higher speaks:
- Start off slowly at first and get faster gradually
- Say "And" or "also" in a different tone of voice and speed when you are transitioning to a new argument in your case (IE after cards)
- Collapsing in the 2NR/2AR and giving a ballot story
- Not wasting time flashing
- Line by lining the aff / not just reading a card dump
- Having the speech doc sent by the time you enter the room if you are flight B (+ .1)
Things that will hurt your speaks

Being mean or obnoxious
Going for the "Resolved" a priori, or any other a priori that relies on a definition that would justify voting one side every round
Not answering the aff at all
Reading 1AR theory when substance is easily winnable
Only reading off of a speech doc for any speech that is not the 1AC.

Dali Fu DULLES HIGH SCHOOL

Nate Galang Independent Seven Lakes

Last changed on Mon February 25, 2019 at 11:41 AM CDT

Short version

Put me on the email chain: j.galang.0819@gmail.com

Conflicts: Klein HS, Seven Lakes HS, McMillen NG, Jack C. Hays HB, Village AI

Pref shortcut

K (high theory): 1

LARP: 1 or 2

Phil: 2

Theory: 3

K (identity politics): 3

Tricks: 4

5 minutes before the round

I will evaluate any argument that:

a. Has a warrant

b. Does not render debate unsafe

It would be helpful if you do these things:

1. Pop tags, author names, and pause at the end of cards or when switching between sheets. It makes speeches so much easier to follow.

2. Slow down on interps, standard/role of the ballot texts, and advocacy texts. I don't think anyone will but if you do I'll appreciate it a lot and might bump speaks a tiny bit.

3. Give me a ballot story at the end of the round.

Long version

Background

I debated for Klein from 2014 to 2018, starting with PF in freshman year and switching to LD halfway through sophomore year. I qualified to the TOC my senior year and octofinaled at TFA.

I went for a few different styles of arguments, primarily high-theory kritiks, social contract theory, and soft-left policy affirmatives.

General

Explain and over-explain your arguments. If you give me contextual, comparative analysis and weighing, it'll make it easier for me to understand your arguments (and it will probably help your speaks).

If something doesn't make it onto my flow, I won't evaluate it. I don't look at speech docs during the round. This doesn't mean every word has to be crystal-clear or that you can't make fast arguments, it just means that if you are going to make blippy arguments, delineate between them well enough that I can catch a warrant in the few seconds you spend making each argument.

Tech > truth unless you say something that's outright false.

LARP/Policy arguments Plan + Advantage(s)

This was my a-strat most of senior year. I mostly read soft-left affs, but if you want to go for three extinction scenarios then do your thing.

Develop a ballot story for the plan. Explain how the plan resolves the specific harms raised in the advantage(s) and collapse to/expand upon specific warrants in later speeches.

Good solvency wins ballots. If you have good empirical solvency with well-explained reasons why your evidence is contextual to the topic and solves the advantage(s), you'll have a good time.

DA/CP

I'm good with this. Please don't go for everything in the 2NR. Give a good explanation of the overall DA story and how it turns/outweighs/interacts with the case. Similarly, give a good 2NR explanation of how the CP solves the case especially if the advocacy is some obscure policy.

Since my background is in LD, I will evaluate CP theory to a far greater degree than a lot of people with policy backgrounds. I'll evaluate things like one condo CP bad, one dispo CP bad, etc.

Kritiks

This is what I did most often in high school. I read mostly high-theory kritiks and also some stock kritiks like cap. The authors I'm most familiar with are Deleuze and Guattari, Baudrillard, Weheliye, and Bataille (a little bit). I'm not as fond of identity politics and it was never what I read during high school, but I think there can be excellent rounds on identity politics.

I like any and all K debate done well. By extension, bad K debate will make me really sad. Don't read a K just because it's what I like. I would much rather see you read something you like and read it well than read the K poorly.

If the 2NR has a really long overview with a ton of embedded clash, don't be surprised if you're not happy with how I resolve the debate. Do the work on the line-by-line and implicate arguments on specific sheets to resolve clash instead of reading a 4-minute overview that your coach wrote for you.

Explain what your author says. Don't rely on my prior knowledge of your author to substitute for your explanation. Don't expect me to examine speech docs to try and piece together what your argument was saying after the round. I need to understand your version of the argument.

Phil

I did a decent amount of this my senior year. Some phil debate, especially all-analytic frameworks, is really hard to flow. Try to delineate between arguments clearly and give me time to catch up when you're blazing through analytics.

Similar to what I wrote on K debate, don't assume I know what your author says and give your own explanation of the argument.

Theory

Theory is fine. I don't care whether you use theory to check abuse or if you just use it as a strategic tool.

Give a clear abuse story. Unified analysis in terms of how you approach answering the counter-interp and developing offense on the interp will make evaluating the round way easier.

I don't think I should ever have to have "defaults" on theory because you should be implicating everything in the shell. But I'll default to competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the debater.

Delineate between arguments to make them easier to follow. Theory debates are really fast so please try to minimize how blippy you are.

If you're extemping theory, you should pre-write your interp.

Weigh early with theory, especially since you often have fewer speeches on theory (i.e. if it gets introduced in the 1AR). Make them count and make sure that I know how different standards interact as quickly as possible.

Disclosure

I think that disclosure is probably good in general. If you're from a big school or you have bids, you basically have no excuse for not disclosing.

I'm sympathetic to small schools not disclosing. I was the only LDer from my school and I disclosed, but I get why not everyone would want to.

Tricks

Be honest about your arguments. I don't like the sketchy kind of tricks debate that happens where people are super evasive in CX. If you want to go for presumption/permissibility triggers that's fine, but don't intentionally make arguments unclear in order to gain an advantage. If you do, you will probably be unhappy with how I render my decision.

Misc

If you make me laugh I'll probably bump your speaks. Don't be mean pls

Tyler Gamble The Kinkaid School

Akhil Gandra Round Rock HS

Sunil Gedela William G. Enloe HS

Rebecca Gelfer Hire 8 rounds

Alan George Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 7, 2022 at 9:15 AM CDT

I want to be on the email chain: algeor99@gmail.com

Conflicts: Klein Oak, Montgomery Blair, McMillen NG, Garland KP, Lovejoy CM, Hayes PF, Cambridge AG, Memorial

Background:

I did LD for four years (2014-2018) in Houston, and qualled to TOC my senior year. If you need something before/after (pls not during) the round, I’m most active on Facebook. I was fairly flexible as a debater—I mostly LARPed, but also read some Kant, Levinas, Marx, Mestiza Consciousness, Deleuze, and Weheliye.

Five min before round:

HOW you go about articulating your arguments is way more important than WHAT you chose to read. I could care less what you go for (as long as it's not overtly repugnant), as long as it's explained and implicated well.

· WARRANT TO WARRANT COMPARISON WINS ROUNDS. If their DA says X and your link turn says Y, explain to me why I should prefer your link turn. Make clash explicit and do the work on the flow for yourself. Otherwise, be prepared to receive a decision with which you’re unhappy

· I’m willing to vote on anything, as long as it has a claim, warrant, and an impact. Just explain the argument to me and why it should be in my RFD. This means you need to be doing clear layering and weighing

· Tech > Truth

· Please pop tags and author names

LARP:

· Your extensions need to have warrants—even in the 1AR/2AR. That being said, all it needs to be is an overview of the advantage—just tell me what the aff does, what it solves, and how it does so. The more a warrant in your aff is contested, the more thorough your extension of that part of the aff should be.

· I’d prefer not to have to call for cards as that forces intervention. However, if you think your opponent’s ev is sketch and you point it out, I’ll look at the card.

· This should go without saying, but….you need to win uniqueness for a link turn to be offense

Theory:

· Good theory debates are fun. Bad theory debates are sad.

· Defaults (theory): drop the arg, competing interps, no RVIs. DTD on T is the default. These are all very soft defaults—PLEASE present actual paradigm issues

· If you read brackets theory and the bracketing is not egregious, the highest you can expect your speaks to be is 28.

· Slow down for interps. Having them prewritten would be very nice.

· If you blitz through blips I won’t catch everything, so slow down where it counts.

· The more you number/label, the easier it is to flow you

· PLEASE do weighing between theory standards. Tell me why ground outweighs limits or whatever other arguments are in play

Phil:

· Please do clear framework weighing. Tell me why one framework justification matters more than another and so forth...if both sides have “my framework precludes”-type claims, tell me why yours matters more than your opponent’s!

· Phil can be very hard to flow—make it easy for me. Flashing analytic dumps would be cool, but if you don't want to do that, then please make sure you're being clear and are delineating one arg from the next

· Make sure I understand the framework—my facial expression should be indicative enough

Kritiks:

· I’ll probably have a basic understanding of whatever K you read, but I will not vote for you unless YOU explain your theory to me.

· Your 2NR better be easy to flow. I don’t want to sit through a ridiculously long overview that then requires me to sift through my flow after the round to determine what responds to what. Your speaks WILL not be amazing

· Shorter tags are easier to flow

· The most important thing for you to do is to explain the interaction between the K and the aff. Explain why it outweighs/turns the case/why the perm fails/why the K is a prior question

Sanjay Gera Independent

Mark Gorthey Hire 8 rounds

Morgan Grosch Westwood HS None

Michael Harris Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 26, 2024 at 10:26 AM EDT

I debated mostly LD at Marcus High School in Texas where I competed locally and nationally on the UIL, TFA, TOC, and NSDA circuits. I'm now the coach at San Marcos High School (TX).

TLDR

I've gotten much worse at flowing so please slow down for tags and implications.

I don't have any conscious biases towards a particular style of debate but I'm less familiar with K lit so please explain.

Judging is hard so make my life easier and tell me exactly how I should be evaluating the round.

GLHF

Defaults

ROB - I'm open to any role of the ballot/judge/etc. Open to any theory voter/standard/net benefits/impact/interp including disclosure, afc, offensive counter-interps, meta, etc. I assume I have some role as an educator, that debate is an educational activity, that education requires inclusion (and inclusion is good in itself), and that debate requires some level of fairness unless told otherwise. I'll also assume that my vote and discourse after the round can have an impact on the community. For the sake of coherency, please still address these, but if you're short on time a few words will suffice.

Spikes - If you are vague in your spikes I will lean on the side of caution so please explain what you mean by "prefer aff interps" or "err aff on theory" so I know what to do. Well developed spikes are fine.

Miscut Cards - If it's a severe case of miscutting, especially if the evidence is being used on T or as an empirical link, I will default to drop the arg. If the opponent points it out, I'm open to other impacts/args like drop debater, lower speaks, etc.

Offensive/Rude arguments – I default to drop speaks. I am open to args why I should drop debater. If you are creating an unsafe environment, I will stop the debate, drop you, and report it as appropriate.

Mislabeled turns – If I can see a possible way that this could be considered a turn, I will count it as a turn. If I can’t conceive of any possible way that this could function as a turn (and I am creative), I won’t vote on it.

Lack of understanding – Similarly to mislabeled turns, if I don't understand the argument, I won’t vote on it. To clarify, this would only happen in extreme cases like “Vote aff cause skies are blue”. I have a pretty good breadth on a lot of k lit and random phil so things like that shouldn’t be a problem. If you are running a k that isn't popular or that relies on a lot of jargon and you are worried about it, you may want to work on explaining it. I also pay attention in CX so if you're explaining it to your opponent, you're also explaining it to me.

Dropped arguments – You can only claim what you originally claimed. In other words, the probability of your event doesn't suddenly increase. If you extend a dropped argument and create a new implication with it, such as cross-applying to the opponent's case, your opponent can still attack the new implication. I default to not accepting new arguments but I'm completely open to arguments that say you should be allowed to make new arguments against blippy spikes in your second speech (also open to arguments saying the opposite).

Extensions – Just a single sentence will do. IE: “Extend the fw that we must respect autonomy for morality to guide action” or “Extend Gray that terrorism causes extinction”. Focus on the function of the arg in relation to the round. Your goal here is just to let me know what strategy you're going for and what my ballot should say. If you don't extend I will be very confused and think it doesn't matter anymore.

Disclosing cases before/during/after the round - It's common practice to share your case with your opponent during the round (if not before). Unless you object to this practice (which is also okay, though you may be inviting theory), please be prepared to do so in a timely manner. If you would like to share your case with me during the round as well, that would be much appreciated as it also saves me time after the round.

Speaks - Evaluated on the basis of where I think you are in relation to the rest of the pool at the tournament with an average of 28. I say clear or slow if I'm completely lost but I try not to. I will give bonus points to you if you challenge my view of something or teach me something new, or if you show respect and kindness to your opponent. Some debaters feel that if they are paired with an opponent who is new to the activity, they will have less of a chance to show how good they are and their speaks will suffer. However, if you use the opportunity to show a mastery of the fundamentals, as well as kindness and inclusivity, your speaks will reflect it.

Accessibility - If there is something making debate inaccessible to you that I can help with please let me know! This is especially true if it can be resolved (or mostly resolved) within the round such as having debaters slow down if you are learning English.

If you have any questions, please feel free to talk to me!

Enjoy yourselves and have fun!

Miguel Harvey Anderson High School

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 4:31 AM CDT

grossly overqualified parent judge

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

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

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

Quick guide to prefs

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

PF:

Tech > truth unless it's bigoted or something

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

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

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

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

Speed: Fine. Share speech docs

Problematic PF bro/clout culture: ew no

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

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

Flow: yes, i flow

Sticky defense: no

LD/Policy:

LARP/topicality/MEXICAN STUFF: 1+

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

kant without tricks: 1-2

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

most other k/nt aff: 3

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

Baudrillard/performance: 4-5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long version:

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

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

(cw: self-harm)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD/Policy Specifics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sitting/Standing: Whatever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy:

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

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

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

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

Liping He Millburn High School

Lyndie Ho Hire 8 rounds

Pierce Hollier Strake Jesuit College Preparatory

Last changed on Wed January 9, 2019 at 4:46 PM CDT

Strake Jesuit '18

Conflicts: Strake Jesuit

Contact: Facebook message me or email me with any questions about my paradigm/the round.

Email: pierce.hollier@duke.edu

Important update/note: I am putting this up here because I don't want to go through I find all the places that I've talked about it in the text below. I am not going to enforce disclosure/speech docs in any win/loss way. It will only serve to increase your speaks

Feel free to ask me if there is any uncertainty about what parts apply and don't. If you read a turn in first rebuttal and the second rebuttal drops it, the first summary still needs to extend it. I don't require the first summary to extend defense that isnt frontlined but I do require all offense in the summary. If the first summary drops a nonfrontlined turn and then they bring it up in first final focus the most I give is terminal defense on the argument, you no longer get offense since you dropped it summary.

PF Paradigm (a lot of this is copied from my partner's (Daniel Wang) paradigm):

-I debated PF for Strake Jesuit for 4 years, qualified to TFA state 3 years and finished in semis senior year. I qualified to the TOC twice and cleared senior year.

-Please be pre-flowed prior to the round.

-If you have 5 minutes before a round and failed to read my entire paradigm, here is the short version (even though you should have read the whole thing since I'm not including many specifics in here that are important):

A. I am tab, meaning that I will buy any warranted argument excluding "offensive" ones like racism or sexism good. Tech > Truth. Making truth over tech arguments is a great way to show me or make me think that you're not good at debate. Yes, truth is good but I believe that debate is a game and thus functions on a technical level. However, having both tech and truth will typically win you the round. However, I am truth > tech on the disclosure level and evidence ethics level. (Read Below)

On disclosure theory: Winning AT: Ask Me or AT: I'll Email it is incredibly easy in front of me. There's probably a norm-setting argument that you can win incredibly easily if they refuse to disclose on wiki but say they'll email you, etc. If they email you, you can still probably read disclosure theory in front of me and I'll still be receptive to args on norm-setting. There's lots of arguments that you can make against those types of conditional planks on the counter-interp.

B. Conceded arguments are 100% true. There is a threshold for what counts as an argument though (see below). Also, the implication needs to be there at some point or else I will make it up for you.

C. Evidence ethics are extremely important. I would prefer you send (or disclose) cases, and all evidence in later speeches to me via an e-mail chain. Learn how to use verbatim/paperless debate and make a speech doc. Speaker points are also affected by this. Read below for more details. You always should disclosed. Read below. Disclosure will get you better speaks.

D. Summary needs to have all offense that you're going for. The 2nd rebuttal must respond to all offense on the flow i.e. turns or else it's considered conceded if the 1st summary extends it. Defense does not need to be in 1st summary if dropped, but the implication does need to be there (by the final focus) at some point or else I will make it up for you.

Also, please refrain from going full big picture. Line-by-line in all speeches is definitely preferred. You can start doing more big picture in Final Focus but make sure you're still winning on the technical level because I don't care about persuasion.

E. Plans, CPs, DAs, other progressive styles are fine. Just make sure you know what you're doing and not trying to execute a progressive strategy for the first time in front of me. Theory/T is fine as well. You can run theory for strategy even if there is minimal abuse. You should be aware that my threshold for responses to really friv theory probably gets lower as the theory gets more friv.

F. Arguments need a claim and warrant at the minimum. You probably should have an impact and implication somewhere, but arguments without warrants are not arguments.

G. There are a lot of different ways to extend evidence. You can say concession of x or you've conceded x. You don't have to say extend each time. That gets way too repetitive but if you want, I don't care.

H. Line-by-line in every single speech and weigh along the way after each argument (I prefer that). Give implications to each argument. Turns case analysis is the best so if you're winning offense from the case, it turns x on their case. Doing that well will most likely win you the round assuming you're winning offense from case.

I. 2nd Final Focus DOES NOT GET NEW WEIGHING!!!!!!! Weighing is an argument and the 2nd FF does not get to make new arguments. The only exception is if it came up in first FF for the first time. If it came up in summary, GG.

J. If you call "clear" against your opponent and I think they're clear, you're losing a full speaker point because calling "clear" really messes with your opponent's train of thought and interrupts them. It's also really obvious that some teams do it to mess with their opponents.

K. Please don't steal prep time i.e. prep when you stand up or while waiting for evidence exchanges. Doing so will make me sad and you will be sad when you see your speaks. [Exception for TOC due to rules]. Abusing the rule though will make you sad when you see your speaks.

L. You cannot read contradictory arguments in the later half of the round. For example, if someone goes for 4 minutes of impact turns on your case, you cannot de-link yourself or non-unique it unless they also have read a de-link in which case they are stupid. Also, the same thing goes for conceding a link turn and then reading impact turns to your own case. No, just no. Don't do it. This is a time when I would be ok with what most people would call intervention.

However, you should probably read the whole paradigm because most of it is important. Also, I understand this paradigm is probably really long. Also, as a debater I liked very long and detailed paradigms so I decided to do this.

General Stuff:

-I don't care what you wear (within reason of course) and judges that do are messed up. If you want to take off your coat and tie, I don't care. I did that a bunch when I debated.

-All concessions of opposing arguments i.e. de-links must occur in the immediate speech after where they were introduced. For example, if someone reads 5 impact turns and then a de-link in the first rebuttal, you must explicitly concede that de-link in the second rebuttal. If you don't and then they extend the impact turns, you cannot come up in 2nd summary and then concede the de-link. If you do, I just won't flow it since that's incredibly abusive to force them to extend offense and then for you to kick it after they already extended offense on the argument.

However, there are a few hard rules that are part of debate.

1. Speech times are set.

2. Prep Time is set (2 minutes typically, even though that's an absurdly short amount of time)

3. I vote for one team and one team only.

4. Evidence needs author last name/year.

Anything else is alright. I'm not going to hurt you for not reading quals. However, if someone challenges the quals or cred of the author (which I think is usually a really bad argument) then have them on hand.

IMPORTANT!!!!! READ BELOW:

I believe that defense does not need to be extended if it is conceded following my paradigm of conceded arguments being true. However, if they frontline it, then you need to contest it. If they never address defense, there's no need to extend it. However, the implication needs to be there at some point i.e. terminal defense, alt-cause, etc. It can be brought up as late as you want as long as the defense isn't contested. However, this does not mean I want teams reading 50 crappy blocks/"arguments" against the other team. All arguments need to have a warrant and implication. If there isn't one, I probably won't evaluate it.

-If I am on a panel, obviously adapt to the other judges and I will gladly follow what you do because I understand that my paradigm differs from the "community norm."

HOWEVER, read the below section because it is pretty important:

Disclosure (Very Important):

Pre-Round Disclosure:

-The coin flip should happen about 15 minutes before the round (25-30 minutes for flight 2). I'm not really going to be able to enforce this, I just don't want you delaying the round because of it. I put this in because I just think it's good for the education and helps disclosure. I understand that it could be hard to find your opponents amongst the huge crowd of debaters. That being said, refusing to flip for no good reason will make me sad. This is a sad trend that we are seeing in which teams don't flip until literally 30 seconds before the round starts. That kills all pre-round prep advantage and time. The affirmative should tell the negative what the aff is before the debate, unless it is a new aff. If it is a new aff, the affirmative does not have to tell the negative what the aff is/what the advantages are/what the advocacy text is/anything. All they need to say is "new aff." If it is a new plan but the same advantages, the aff should disclose the advantages being read, but does not have to disclose the plan. Same is true of new advantages. If you swap out a few cards but it's the same advantage, the AFF should say same advantage with new cards. Changing a few cards does not mean it's a new AFF. Since this is PF, you should also tell your opponents what the neg is before the debate, the same rules still apply.

-If you lie about what will be read to your opponents and they can prove it, I will really lower your speaks and maybe down you depending on what happened. Please don't make me evaluate this kind of thing.

-If the other team can prove to me that they asked to flip and you refused to do so, I will dock your speaker points for the round. If they can prove that they asked for what AFF/NEG and you didn't tell them, I'll also be sad. Also anyone can make theory arguments out of these scenarios.

-If you are at a circuit tournament and they pointed out that you haven't disclosed and tell me why that's a bad thing, I'm sorry but there's not much you can do after that. I lean truth>tech on the disclosure debate. You need to win tech > truth first in you want to go that route on disclosure theory. However, you should meet your interpretation.

-One exception: If you read disclosure against a team that are clearly novices, I will still vote you up, but don't be excited about your speaker points.

NDCA Wiki Disclosure:

-Teams SHOULD disclose all broken positions on the NDCA PF Wiki. I think most arguments against disclosure are pretty silly, and don't worry too much about whether or not the violation can be verified. I will check their wiki for you. To encourage disclosure I will make it so that your speaker points can be altered by you disclosing.

-I start everyone around a 27.0. Basically, the highest speaks you're getting by not disclosing is a 28.9-29.4 (assuming you are absolutely perfect). However, if you do disclose, I will give you a 1 point bonus.

-Also, if your case is paraphrased, you don't have cards to disclose. Therefore, paraphrased stuff does not count as disclosure and don't try disclosing paraphrased cases cause I don't know how you can do it. Copying and pasting your case without citations is absurd/awful. There's no way for other people to check your evidence and see the validity of it since most of it is probably power-tagged. If you read paraphrased cases, you have to disclose the cut cards properly as if you're reading a case with cut cards in it and make the paraphrasing the tag of the card or somewhat similar.

Evidence Ethics:

-I am strong believer in cut cards. I believe that paraphrasing is ok... (not really) but since it is a norm so deeply rooted in PF, it probably won't change. However, I believe strongly in arguments against paraphrasing. I am fine with paraphrasing bad theory and am willing to vote on it. MAKE SURE YOU DEFINE PARAPHRASING IN A FINE WAY THAT EXCLUDES CUT CARDS. READ A DEFINITION. Otherwise, you are probably not going to win this theory debate despite me wanting to vote on it. Don't make me sad!! Also, please frontline the common but not true responses to paraphrasing good.

-Also, if you see below, if you paraphrase evidence, you will lose out on a speaker point bonus. Bottom line: Cut Cards. It's not that hard to cut cards. Also, you need cut cards to be able to disclose on the wiki. As I say somewhere else in my paradigm, it is absurd to be able to read 25 pieces of evidence in the case.

-I am extremely pissed off at teams who misconstrue evidence and then proceed to win because of that evidence. Thus, I am going to take a hardline stance against that. If I see that you misconstrued evidence beyond what I JUDGE TO BE a honest mistake or lack of knowledge of statistics, I will give you no higher than a 25 and possibly a big L and report you to tab if it is bad enough or it happens too many times. One big thing is that one standard deviation is not 1%.

-Also, I would prefer teams to start an email chain with your case w/ the cut cards or at least hyperlinks and send it to: pierce.hollier@duke.edu. Make the subject: "Round -- Tournament Round Number -- Aff Code vs Neg Code"

-This means send every speech doc for the round to me so I can make sure you aren't miscutting or clipping cards. Prep time stops when you are done editing the doc. Emailing doesn't count. However, if you are taking a long time, I will start your prep time again, If I am suspecting that you are stealing prep, your speaks will get hurt. Emailing should take around 30-40 seconds at max. If you can't go to your email, drag the speech doc and hit send, you're doing something else and that means that you are stealing prep.

-If you don't know how to make a speech doc, learn how to make one. Verbatim is a great tool for debate and it's 2018. Teams should be able to go paperless by now (in terms of evidence). If you have a student email you can get Microsoft Word for free by just creating an Office 365 account with that email.

-All evidence should be sent to me since this event's evidence ethics are awful.

-If you misrepresent cards, miscut, or clip, I am willing to give you a L<20. I will intervene in this situation. If you read cut cards for your rebuttal instead of paraphrasing, I will give you and your partner a speak reward for good norms.

-If you can't find the evidence within a couple minutes, your speaks are getting a little bump down and that evidence is getting dropped. You should always cut cards before you paraphrase so they should be available but if you read cut cards you won’t have this problem.

Speaker Points:

-I give speaker points based on strategy. Clarity also matters, but is an extremely marginal factor in deciding what speaker points I give you. I do not care about persuasion. It's about what you say in round. You can speak pretty but be extremely bad on the flow and I will not hesitate to give a 27.7 out.

-I'll call clear/slow 3 times before I start deducting points. Strategy > Clarity. First, I start everyone around a 27. If you do disclose, I will reward you with a bonus by starting at a 28.0 and move up and down from there on increments of 0.1 based on strategy/argumentation. If you read cut cards in your case and disclose, I will generally like you more. Basically, read cut cards if you want higher speaks. It's absurd how people can hint at 40 authors in one case because you can somehow paraphrase the article in one sentence.

-If you're in the bubble round, I will probably be more generous with speaker points since I know how much it sucks to be 4-2 or 5-2 and not break. Humor and roasting your opponents to a certain extent will boost your speaks.

-If you say "I'm sorry [insert name of opponents], but you're going to lose. I'm going to finals" -[TFA State 2017 LD Semifinals] before your final speech and then you win, I will probably reward you. If you lose, no punishment. You'll just be embarrassed for saying that and your opponents can laugh at you.

I will boost your speaks if you do any of the following well:

A) Utilizing a daring strategy i.e. kicking case and going for turns, etc. Going for 2/4 minutes on the RVI against theory or T. Going for one link turn and weighing the crap out of it.

B) Turning the case for 4 minutes in the 2nd constructive and 4 more minutes in the rebuttal and actually doing it well.

C) Weighing in rebuttal/case and telling me the implication of each argument or doing stuff that falls under the "util" section of my paradigm.

Speed:

-If you know me, you probably know I preferred faster debate. This means that I am fine with speed. HOWEVER, DO NOT SPEED UP/SPREAD IF YOU CAN'T!!! I will deduct speaks for doing so. Slow down on tags and author names!! If you don't slow for those things you're gonna have a bad time.

-Also if you spread, you must be reading cut cards in the tag, cite, card format. If you're paraphrasing and you spread A. I'll miss your author name and B. Usually there's no distinction between cards since you won't be reading tags and I’ll miss a bunch of random stuff. So maybe you shouldn't paraphrase.

-I will say "clear" or "slow" 3 times before I start deducting speaks.

-Also please slow down on analytics or else I might not catch everything you say. If you blaze through a theory dump and get 5 points out in 10 seconds, I'm definitely going to miss stuff.

-Delineate between tags and the card. As you move on from a card to an analytic, just be clear. When you move from a card to a new tag, say "aannnd" The only oral citation that you need is the author last name/year. So like Smith 17. Institution and author credentials aren't necessary, but can help you with evidence comparison.

-If you spread, please give your opponent's your speech doc either by email, flashdrive, pass pages, or a viewing computer.

-Please signpost!!!! If you don't, I will be very very sad and probably miss a lot of your arguments/be delayed by 3-5 seconds, so don't be mad if you were blazing through your arguments at 400WPM and didn't signpost.

Generics:

-I am tab which means I will buy almost any argument (yes this includes nuclear war (Danny and I won pretty much all of our Septober 17 rounds on this)) if it is warranted correctly. I also will not intervene. You need to make all of the analysis. However, if a link turn is straight-up conceded your extensions of the impacts can be blippy (but if you don't weigh them after extension your opponent could still win). Don't double turn yourself. In addition, my threshold for extensions is pretty low if it's actually conceded. If they concede a contention for example, take 10 seconds to extend the whole contention.

-Also, I will not vote on offensive arguments. Death good is fine, but racism good is probably not. However, you do the weighing and meta-weighing for all other arguments.

-TLDR: Tech > Truth (except disclosure). Conceded arguments are 100% true. Make arguments for why some weighing mechanism should come first. However, I am willing to assign 0-risk to something meaning that magnitude doesn't matter. Also, 0-risk means no risk of offense. Strength of link weighing is probably the best way to get my ballot. If something is conceded, I give it 100% strength of link and conceded arguments are true.

-My philosophy is pretty simple: I will take the least interventionist approach to judging debates. However, I will intervene if what you say is blatantly wrong i.e. the United States is in Europe, etc. Please make some jokes. Keep them somewhat appropriate. I am willing to reward humor.

-I also will not intervene to clear up a muddled argument if nobody does any of the stuff I want that falls under the "util" section in my paradigm. In the case where the round is way too muddled, presumption flows neg if neg defends squo. Otherwise, if neg reads a CP or defends some alternate world, presumption flows aff. I can be persuaded otherwise, just justify your arguments for why. The above is just a default in the event that nobody makes a single argument about presumption.

RFDs:

-If the tournament allows it, I will disclose and provide an oral RFD with speaker points included. If you want to grill me, that's fine, but wait until after I am done giving my RFD. However, if your coach wants to grill me, I will be willing to answer questions ONLY if they watched and flowed the round. Other than that, don't attempt to get your coach to bully me into changing my decision and voting for you. If I am on a panel and at the bottom of a decision, please wait until the other judges are finished before asking questions. If the tournament doesn’t allow for disclosure, then either FB message me or find me somewhere after the round and I’ll disclose/give you a RFD.

-I'm not big on disclosing speaks but I'll do it if everybody wants me to.

Flex Prep:

-Flex prep is fine. If you want a concession for a violation before the NC, go for it. If your opponent is being dodgy in prep, just give up and just know that I dislike people who do that in an attempt to waste prep time.

Overviews:

-Overviews are great. However, overviews are not places where you read evidence/read contention add-ons, etc. Overviews are just telling me whats important and how the round breaks down. If you decide to read basically a new contention as an overview, I will be extremely angry at you and be inclined to drop your speaks. I will still evaluate it ONLY IF YOU READ IT IN FIRST REBUTTAL, NOT THE SECOND. Even then, I'll be unhappy with you. You have a 4 minute case for a reason.

Specific Arguments and Preferences:

Fiat:

-If the topic is a policy implementation topic, the policy is enacted the second you begin reading the first words of the 1AC. This means you can't spec out of Elections DAs or Politics DAs. I believe in massive fiat power i.e. the affirmative can literally spec what the USFG should do with the money or anything. Probability doesn't matter, but you should read a solvency advocate. However, theory arguments can also be read against this strategy so just be aware. "PF doesn't have fiat" is the dumbest argument I have ever heard.

-I also default durable fiat meaning that rollback arguments don't apply to the AFF. This is just a default. If you can justify why I should give the AFF durable fiat or vice versa, I am willing to listen to your arguments and make a decision or evaluate the round based on those arguments.

Util Debate:

-I love good util debate. "Good" is the key term, meaning that you should be doing great evidence comparison, impact weighing, link comparison, strength of link weighing, etc. Evidence comparison in LARP debates are your best friend.

-Also, don't throw jargon out there for the sake of it. Doing the above things will earn you extra speaker points especially when it comes to evidence comparison. Also, being proficient at these skills will go a long way in helping your debate success. This is something rarely seen in PF and is what separates good debaters from great debaters.

-Do a lot of line-by-line work here. Evidence quality also probably matters a lot. Make smart arguments on the line-by-line and you'll be happy.

-Case Debate is good. A lot of cases are missing internal links or their internal links are straight garbage. A 1N that recognizes this and takes out the internal links will make me happy. Also, turns are good here. A 2N that collapses to turns and explains/weighs them really well will probably impress me.

-Impact turn debates are great, but they usually get incredibly messy. If you decide to engage in an impact turn debate, make sure you do weighing and evidence comparison. Otherwise, impact turn debates become card wars without any comparison which makes it impossible to resolve.

-Impact Defense is also incredibly important. Good Impact D can bring probability of an adv down to 0% or close to 0% pretty quickly. If you go for a CP, you should still spend some time on case to make it easier.

-Blippy extensions are 100% fine if the argument is conceded. If they concede an advantage, you can spend 8-10 seconds on it max. If they only decide to go for a link or impact turn, you can first spend 8-10 seconds extending that advantage and then proceed to frontline that turn. Obviously if there's a lot of link defense, frontline that and make sure you're doing a lot of good util debate to make the decision easier in your favor.

Underviews:

-I honestly believe that reading a few theoretical/paradigm issue spikes at the bottom of the case can be extremely strategic and give you a massive time advantage in the second half of the round. You can take out minutes of argument with one extension if you have good strategic vision. Just warrant your spikes and you're good.

Orders:

-Please try and refrain from using the term "off-time roadmap" some variant of that, it annoys me: Saying "I'm going to start on their case and come back to mine if time permits" is not the order. You need to tell me where you're starting, preferably on the card name in later speeches and specific contentions. Also, say THE ORDER will be... and BE SPECIFIC ON WHERE YOU'RE GOING. Literally tell me the exact part where you're starting and the specific part where you will proceed to i.e. starting on x card on adv. 1. then adv 2. then Elections DA or something. I get that the order might need to change during speech, if so, MAKE THAT CLEAR WITH SIGNPOSTING.

-Also, say "affirmative" and "negative," not "pro" and "con." Nobody pros a resolution, but you affirm it. Saying those things will just annoy me. I'm not gonna deduct speaks but it just annoys me.

Case:

-PLEASE actually find a card that states what you want it to say. I HATE teams who just make assumptions in case and say that doing x will obviously result in y. Logic is fine but in topics relating to foreign/domestic policy, cards are necessary. Some debaters think they are John Mearsheimer. They aren't. Also, make sure your case is actually well put together. Most cases have weak internal links or are straight up missing them. Seeing this as a debater and making the argument that they are missing an internal link or straight up taking the internal link out will go a long way in winning the round.

Generic Turns:

-Again, this is a strategy that is somewhat underutilized in PF. People have no idea how a 4 minute generic turn dump that can apply to any single affirmative case on a implementation topic can be so strategic. HOWEVER, if you just dump cards and the opponent tells me how they don't apply, that's a problem for you. Sometimes it is way more strategic to go 1OFF (read a DA or T or Theory) and then read a load of turns in the 1NC instead of a 4 minute NC. If you're doing this strategy, do weighing and give implications well as to the role that each turn plays i.e. turns case or a specific link.

Framework:

-You need to win offense under framework. Winning framework means nothing to me if you don't have any offense under it. I will filter all offense in the round through the winning framework. Strength of link weighing will definitely help you if you both have offense under the same framework. Frameworks need to be justified and warranted. Please never read a cost-benefit analysis framework as I default util.

-If you read an alternate framework, read below on phil. I'm also fine with tricky frameworks as long as you justify them. Also, if they read an alternate framework, in order to take it out, you need to put defense on their framework and you need to generate your own framework i.e. util. Otherwise, even if you just put defense on their FW there is still a marginal chance that it is true while you have no framework. Thus, if you are reading an alternate framework, you must read it in constructive otherwise it's incredibly abusive to bust out a new framework in second rebuttal and then force the summary to read new framework offense and put defense on your framework.

-Stuff like Memmi and other framing cards count as an alternate FW. That stuff needs to come in case. Also, Memmi is an awful card. Please read better framework evidence/justifications.

-Recontextualization of your FW to exclude certain arguments is iffy. If the implication was there early on and they just failed to respond, then I guess I'm fine with it. If it isn't there, then I guess it depends how much spin you put on it. If it's a super super unpredictable re-contextualization and you get called out, I'm probably not going to evaluate it.

TJFs:

-TJFs are fine and if you read theoretical justifications, I will instantly default to those as a higher standard than whatever your opponents read; however, the regular theory stuff kicks into play i.e. fairness vs. education, weighing, etc.

Theory:

-I am receptive to theory and have a pretty good understand of how it functions in round. I believe that theory can be run for strategy (i.e. run friv theory if you want) and will not deduct speaker points for doing so.

-However, if theory is run poorly I will deduct speaker points. Also, please run theory in shell format if you don't know how to read good paragraph theory. I absolutely hate paragraph theory that is run poorly. If you want to see what good theory that isn't in shell format is, go watch the 2AC of NDT 2016 Semis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlNgb2dELmU

-Other than that, I will buy theory on almost anything i.e. condo bad, PICs bad, must read advocacy text, but I am also open to listening to the opposite side. You also need to make the arguments for voter weighing i.e. fairness and education.

-Make sure you do Strength of link weighing and weigh between standards and voters. Otherwise, theory just becomes a jumbled mess and if I'm not feeling like attempting to resolve the theory debate, I may just default to substance and vote there. I'll usually always try to resolve the theory debate first, but if you make args for epistemic modesty on theory/substance and theory is muddled, I'll probably just take that route to make my decision.

-If you read disclosure theory and do it well, it's gonna be a good day for you when you see your speaks and the RFD.

-Don't need to extend full-interp texts, paradigm issues, or implications if they're conceded.

-I also REFUSE to gut-check theory. If you go for reasonability, you need to establish and warrant a brightline. Going for reasonability is probably an uphill battle for me, but it's possible to win still and probably easier to win on certain friv shells i.e. must spec status, etc. Also, I am probably more lenient towards reasonability on certain T interps that are grounded in semantics i.e. defending all AMS on AFF on the SoKo topic.

Defaults for T and Theory:

-I will not default that fairness and education are voters. If you forget to read voters or an implication to the shell, it sucks to be you. It really does. Fairness and education are probably voters though but again I'm tab on these issues.

-Competing interps, No RVIs. These are not hard defaults and only apply if nobody makes a single argument. You can easily convince me of an RVI especially if theory comes out in 2nd rebuttal or 1st rebuttal but you need to make the correct arguments. For both T and theory, I am tab on these issues. Just justify your warrants.

-Also, if you forget to read an implication in the original shell, I guess you're gonna have a bad time. If you go against someone who forgets to read an implication or voters, just say there's no implication and you can move on. Don't worry, I won't let them read an implication in the next speech.

Topicality/T:

-I also really hate PFers throwing out topicality arguments without reading it as a shell format. If you want to read T, please read it as a shell format as well as a TVA. If you don't, it just gets hard for me to evaluate and its going to get muddled. I'll try to evaluate but don't make me do that. You need standards/net benefits. Why is being non-T bad? Is there some prep skew, limits arg that you can make? Yes. However, you need to prove that. Same defaults as above apply. I am more persuaded by limits>ground. Impacts to fairness and education are fine. If you read other voters, just justify them.

TLDR: If you make topicality arguments against affirmatives without warranting why being non-T or questionably non-T is bad, I probably won't evaluate it. Also, if you read T, you need a definition and interp.

K's:

I'd prefer not. But if they are run correctly then I guess I'll vote on it if you win it. But look for another route to the ballot. I can evaluate them, but don't make me.

Default Layering:

Theory>Substance (probably going to be hard going for Substance>Theory but you can if you want)

T>Theory>K's. You need to do a lot of work to convince me that the ROB outweighs theory.

Philosophy:

-Minus an alternate framework, I default to util. However, I started to read a little bit of phil at the end of my junior year. I somewhat understand Kant, Hobbes, and other basic philosophy. If you want to take this approach, have good reasons why your framework comes first and give implications for how your FW controls the round. Please don't read high-theory (DnG, Baudrillard, etc.) as I have little understanding of them.

Plans and Counterplans.

-I believe that plans and counterplans do have a place in PF for most topics. I am not persuaded by NSDA rules because those rules should not exist in the first place. Do some actual topical research instead of writing your cases the night before because you were too lazy to do actual prep and then claim some rules that should not exist in the first place to help you win the round. The affirmative/negative did preparation beforehand, you should do it to. If you run T/theory on it properly, then I can be persuaded. Please make sure you read a plan-text for fiat power and slow down on the advocacy text.

-The advocacy text is binding i.e. you cannot kick out of a plank of the text. Also, please make sure your counterplans are actually mutually exclusive. Textual competition is fine. Make sure you win a net benefit to your CP though. PICs are fine and are probably extremely strategic in a lot of instances, but I am open to theory args against them.

-A permutation is a test of competition unless argued otherwise. Advocacies probably need a solvency advocate. PICs probably need to have a solvency advocate as close as possible to what you are actually advocating for. If they don't, I'll still evaluate it but it makes theory way more compelling.

DAs:

-I really don't understand why PF doesn't have more election/politics DAs in them since half the topics that we debate would probably massively influence the political climate in the United States i.e. abolishing the Electoral College would probably swing the next election.

-I'm fine with all types of DAs. However, the biggest problem with a lot of DAs is that the internal link is really weak or the internal link is completely missing, meaning that affirmatives with good strategic vision should capitalize on this and take out the internal link.

-You also need to weigh the DA i.e. DA turns case/outweighs case and give reasons why. Also, make sure uniqueness doesn't overwhelm the link and it's always good to have a link magnifier in the DA.

Rebuttal Offense-Style Overviews:

-I absolutely hate this style of debate. If you read this, be prepared to get your speaks docked. Also, I am extremely receptive to theory/spikes on this type of argumentation. A new contention/DA in the second summary is super abusive and will most likely get you downed in any other debate event and I will see that you are to in this decision as well if it justifies it. You're not being tricky, you're being stupid and your speaks will reflect that decision.

Speeches:

-I believe that defense does not need to be extended if it is conceded. However, if they frontline it, then you need to contest it. If they never address defense, there's no need to extend it. However, the implication needs to be there at some point i.e. terminal defense, alt-cause, etc. It can be brought up as late as you want as long as the defense isn't contested.

-I really prefer LINE-BY-LINE in every speech.

-I am fine with the 1NC reading off-case positions, i.e. case turns, DAs to the affirmative instead of a standard "NC."

Rebuttal:

-The second rebuttal does not have to respond to defense, but must address turns as it is offense and the 1st summary should extend it. Also, go line-by-line please. You should also be reading cards. If you read a new overview that is basically a new add-on for case in the second rebuttal or some other argument that doesn't function as turns or a round break-down, I will deduct speaker points.

Summary:

-Please go for 2-3 arguments AT MAX. PLEASE WEIGH!!!!!! If you don't, you may not like my decision because I may have to intervene. Weighing should probably start in summary.

-I believe that the second final focus does not get new weighing unless the weighing first came up in the first final focus and I can be persuaded by second summary gets no new weighing as well if you give justifications at some point before that, preferably in case or rebuttal. I need extensions with card names.

-Blippy extensions are 100% fine if the argument is conceded. The best way to clear up a muddled argument is to do a lot of the stuff that falls under the "Util" section above. Do not extend through ink!

-Also, I believe that the summary should definitely go line-by-line. This is how I always debated on the circuit and if you give a great LBL summary, I will boost your speaker points.

Final Focus:

-The final focus should be focused on very similar things to the summary speech. IF IT IS OFFENSE AND NOT IN THE SUMMARY, I WILL NOT EVALUATE IT. Try to refrain from making new implications unless it was something made in the second summary/ first final focus etc. Also as I stated above, the 2nd FF does not get new weighing as that is an argument and no new arguments will be permitted in the 2nd FF.

-Final Focus should probably start going more big picture, but you still need to ensure that you're ahead on the line-by-line. If you decide to go pure line-by-line, I am 100% fine with that and honestly probably prefer that since it makes everything easier to flow and later evaluate. Overviews here are great and make sure break down the round simply for me.

Dan Huynh Hire 8 rounds

Joshua Jacob Independent Clements High School

Sachin Jain DULLES HIGH SCHOOL

Chakra Jonnalagadda Carnegie Vanguard High School 8 rounds

Akum Kang King High School

Last changed on Sun February 16, 2020 at 11:35 AM EDT

Email: kangakum@gmail.com

I debated LD at King HS in Tampa, FL from 2014-2018 on the national circuit and qualified to the TOC my senior year. I am conflicted from King.

If you’re reading this before the round, here is all you really need to know:

I don’t care what you read. As a debater, arguments I went for include Queer Pess, Virtue Ethics, Politics, Marginal Abuse Theory, and Tricks. What you read will not affect my evaluation of the round, although the quality of your prep and arguments will affect speaks.

I evaluate rounds by isolating the most important layer and determining which debater is winning offense back to that layer. If both debaters are winning offense, I will attempt to determine which debater is winning the weighing debate. If neither debater is winning offense, I will move to the next layer. For this reason, it is extremely important that you make nuanced weighing arguments, regardless of the positions you read.

Here are some of my more specific thoughts on debate:

Phil/Framework: I default epistemic confidence. You should understand your philosophical syllogism and any independent reasons to prefer very well (this means at a minimum you cut the cards yourself). You should be able to do well-warranted interaction with other frameworks. I personally don’t want to see a blippy, preclusion argument heavy, framework debate, and your speaks will reflect this preference. Hijacks are currently underutilized, and your speaks will increase if you execute one correctly.

Util: I started appreciating this more as a senior and as I transitioned to coaching. I will attempt to isolate the most important impact and determine offense back to that impact. Terminal defense does exist, 0.001% risk is no risk if your opponent points it out. You should understand the methodology of your studies (time frame, scope, statistical significance, etc). I am impressed by debaters who make smart analytic arguments against their opponents’ util positions. I will also increase speaks for a well-researched caseneg to a specific aff, and well-researched author qualifications which are used in round to compare evidence.

Theory and T: I think about these arguments the most. I am fine with frivolous shells, but I think that persuasion is underutilized when going for otherwise non-persuasive shells. RVIs, Drop the Arg, and Reasonability are underutilized when responding to them. If you are going for T, I will increase speaks for a well executed 2NR on either limits or semantics. Otherwise, be efficient, make weighing arguments as early as possible, and collapse effectively.

K: This is the layer that I think about the least, although I’m fine evaluating these debates. The 1NC should do specific role of the ballot comparison with the aff framework, and have specific links to the aff. The 1AR should focus on the framing debate, link debate, and alt debate when responding to the K and should be efficient. The 2N should be very well structured (don’t read nonsense in an overview for 3-6 minutes) and should isolate the parts of the debate they are winning clearly.

If you are reading Set Col, Baudrillard, or any of the other Ks that have cropped up recently in LD, I would appreciate good explanation of the philosophy/ontology warrants.

K/nonT affs vs T: I was on both sides of this debate throughout my career, so I’m comfortable voting either way. The aff should be clear about what they defend in CX, and should pair impact turns to T with an efficient and engaging counter interp. The 1N and 2N should have specific TVAs, do comparison between their fairness warrants and the aff’s role of the ballot, and collapse effectively to the key arguments in the 2N.

Tricks: I am fine with these debates, but would prefer the tricks be creative. Examples include creative burden structures or Nailbomb affs and well researched topical NIBs. If you read generic tricks and blitz off a bunch of NIBs and a prioris, your speaks will drop.

Misc:

I average about a 28.3 for speaks. You will most likely get in the 28s. If you get 29+, that means I think you will get far in the tournament/bid based on your performance in the round I judged you in.

If you don’t collapse effectively you will not get above a 28.9.

If you are debating a novice or a lay debater, go at a brisk conversational pace, read something your parents/lay people could reasonably understand (CP/DA/basic Phil NC) and show that you have clearly won the round. If you do this, you will get no less than a 28.7. If you are mean, you will get no higher than a 28.1.

I will evaluate disclosure like any other argument. This includes open source/round reports etc.

The words “independent reason to drop them” mean nothing to me. Your argument must link back to some framing mechanism (standard, rotb, theory voter). If it doesn’t link back to a framing mechanism that has already been justified, justify why your argument matters/comes first . An example: “They said [x], which is exclusionary because [y]. Exclusion is a voting issue and comes first because ...” . The “exclusion is a voting issue because ...” part must be included absent a framing mechanism that has already been read which justifies me voting on this argument.

Extensions must have a claim and warrant at minimum. I will not hesitate to drop you if the argument you are going for is not extended properly.

I will not vote on “evaluate the debate/part of the debate after the 1AC, 1NC, or 1AR”. My reasoning is that, like most judges, I will only vote for arguments extended in the last speech. For example, I would not vote on a 1AR theory shell that the aff was winning unless they went for it in the 2AR. Therefore, I must be able to evaluate the extension of “evaluate the debate/part of the debate after the 1AC, 1NC, or 1AR,” but I cannot do this because your argument tells me to ignore at least the last speech. Therefore, absent further explanation of how to do this, I will not vote on these arguments.

I could see myself voting on “evaluate the theory debate/debate after the 2N,” but there are a couple caveats:

1. My threshold for responses to this is very low, just like other bad theory paradigm issues people read, especially if this argument is introduced in the 2NR.

2. It is very possible that the neg loses the debate, because I evaluate only up to the 2N and determine that the 1A beat the 2N on the theory debate, for example.

Overall, just be nice and have fun. I’d much prefer if everyone in the round was happy, rather than really tense and defensive.

Amyn Kassam Hire 8 rounds

Aimun Khan Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri June 26, 2020 at 9:49 AM CDT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other things that affect your speaks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sam Khanna Elkins High School

Gurmeet Kindra Cypress Falls HS

Benjamin Koh Hire 8 rounds

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

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

Overview

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

Evidence Ethics/ Clipping Cards/ etc.

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

Speaks:

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

Post- Round

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

Jacob Koshak Cypress Woods

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 8:00 AM EDT

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

Framework

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I default on reasonability unless specified otherwise in the debate.

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

Some other random items that you might be looking for:

Extensions

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

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

Speed

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

Tricks

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

Speaks

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

Disclosure

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

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

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

Michael Joseph Kurian Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 2, 2022 at 1:10 PM EDT

Hello! My name is Michael Kurian and I did Natcircuit LD for 2 years at Dulles High School in Houston, TX.
I had 5 career bids and qualled to the TOC as a junior and senior. I also did a bit of policy as a senior and qualled to NSDA in CX.

Yes, email chain me friends:

Mkdebate@gmail.com

Kritiks: 1
Phil: 1
Theory: 2-3
LARP: 2
Tricks: 3-4

Do whatever you want, some things tho

1. I will say clear and slow if you're incoherent. I have ADHD and will lose focus if the debate has 5+ shells and every single sentence refers to a specific line by line argument. Extremely dense theory debates are not good for me and I will vote on overviews and voting issues, ignoring line by line concerns sometimes. I would not recommend you debate like this infront of me.

2. I dislike theory when frivolous (you know what "frivolous" means) but will vote on it. This means yes, I will vote on it, but I give the opposing side a ton of leeway. If the aff makes a bad I meet or has marginal offense on a really dumb shell like "Link chains bad" I will err that way. I like theory when strategic, but LOVE it when there is legit especially if you use creative interps or good combo shells. My favorite theory shell is O-Spec :)

3. Lets say you read a dump of some kind and you don't flash the arguments to the room. If your opponent asks you to flash them during CX or prep, you will do so. Otherwise, I will eviscerate your speaks.

4. You're allowed to be a jerk proportionally to the amount of foolery going on in the debate
ex. If the aff has 3 NIBS, you can be a little mad. If the 1NC is racism good, you can be furious etc.

5. I dislike partial disclosure shells ie. "Must disclose Plan Text of new aff, must open source, etc."; Disclosure is simple - if you've read it, disclose it. All of it. If you haven't broken it yet, you don't owe your opponent jack. You can give them the ROB text or the plan text if you're feeling benevolent.

Exceptions:

*****I will NOT vote on ****

1) Brackets theory
2) Font theory
3) Arguments that are explicitly homophobic, racist, or otherwise bigoted.
4) Evaluate the debate at X speech (no - I will eval the whole debate regardless)
5) New affs bad (but "Must disclose plantext/framework" is fine)
6) Arguments that exclusively link to your opponents/your identity without structural warrants- ex. "White ppl should lose", "vote for me cuz im X minority group"
7) Must Disclose Round Reports

Kritik:

This is the form of debate that I did the most in high school. I will probably understand your insane postmodern nonsense as long as you understand it enough to explain the application back to me. Race and Id pol Ks are fine

1) Link work - really important.

2) Alternative explanation - I have a somewhat low threshold; I'll assume it solves case and the K's links unless that is contested by the Affirmative

3) WEIGH with the ROLE of the BALLOT - tell me why your pedagogy is important, why it belongs in debate, and how we can use it to derive the best form of praxis. If you aren't doing these things, you will probably lose to a more intuitive RoB.

Things I don't like but will still vote on:

1) Kritikal presumption arguments

2) Links of Ommission

3) Lazy, overused link arguments

4) edgy jargon that stays edgy jargon (explain ur stuff at SOME point at least)

Framework:

Love it, think its cool and underused.
.

Do lots of weighing and explain why your framework resolves meta-ethical problems -- Infinite regress, Constitutivism, Actor spec. etc. If not, tell me why it should be preferred over another framework. I don't like particularism (or rather I like it as an ethical theory, but think it is weird when used in debate); my favorite frameworks to hear are Pragmatism and Virtue Ethics.

LARP:

I prob went for a DA 2 times in my entire career lol. Just do weighing and warrant comparison. It's a relatively intuitive debate style and if it doesn't seem so, I'm not one to say, but you might be doing it wrong. I'm a sucker for good IR analysis. If you understand how States function in relation to eachother and can use concrete examples in explanations I'll be persuaded and also boost your speaks.

Theory:

Weigh. Make good arguments or make really creative bad arguments. Failure to do either will make me sad.

On the Theory vs K debate:

1. If the AC references the topic heavily, is strongly in the direction of the topic, defends implementation, and/or in some other way grants you your topic ground, don't whine and call me a K-hack when I err aff against whatever shell you read. If they're doing everything within reason to grant you your prep, and I still hear 9+ mins of crying in the 1NC and 2N about how you have LITERALLY ZERO GROUND™ I'm going to be much more likely to vote the other way. That being said, if you genuinely feel like the aff is out of the range of the topic or is straight up non-T, go for T, or T - Framework, and go as hard as you want.

2. Reading disclosure against K affs is a good strat.

Tricks:

I just evaluate it the same way I would a bs-heavy theory or framework debate, which lets be honest, is what this is.
Paradoxes, Aprioris, and presumption/skep triggers are all fine.

Things I'll boost your speaks for:

Naruto Reference in speech: +.1
Dressing like you don't give a crap: +.1
Cool Affirmatives: +.3
Solid Collapsing: +.5
Ethos: +.2
Creative arguments: +.2

Speak Breakdown:

30: straight fire
29.5-29.9: ur fire
28.6 - 29.4: You good
28.1-28.5: meh
27.1-28: oof
26.1-27: big oof
25.1-26: go to church dude lol
25: f you

Michael Kurian The Hill School 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 2, 2022 at 1:10 PM EDT

Charles Li Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 6, 2019 at 11:32 AM CDT

Strake Jesuit '18

University of Texas '22

Conflicts: Strake Jesuit, River Oaks Baptist School, Dulles SZ, Hunter College MN

Contact: Facebook message me with any questions about my paradigm or the round.

Email: charles.li@utexas.edu

LD PARADIGM SHORT:

LARP: 1

Theory: 1

Phil: 2

K's: 2

Tricks: 3

High Theory: 4

Non-T: 5

LD PARADIGM:

I am a second-year Business student at UT Austin. I've done debate for 4 years for Strake Jesuit and I don't judge too often. I cleared at TFA State twice and qualified to TOC once. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains: charles (dot) li at utexas (dot) edu. Most of my paradigm will be stolen from either Chris Castillo or Matthew Chen.

I primarily debated LARP, Theory, Phil, T and some Ks as a debater. Junior year, I mostly read frivolous theory and a few different ethical frameworks, both analytics and continental. I branched out to reading more policy-style args near the end of my junior year and throughout my senior year, and even to plan-less affs and more Ks near the end of my senior year. This is to say, 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 RVIs 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 don't care if you use CX as prep time. 2. It is ok to ask questions during prep time. 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.

Kenneth Lin Independent Clements High School

Nick Malanga Jack C Hays High School

Dhruva Mambapoor Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue June 13, 2023 at 6:05 AM CDT

Hi I'm Dhruva Mambapoor!

I debated for four years in LD at Westwood HS (2018). I qualified for the TOC and NSDA. I have been an assistant coach for Westwood and then Greenhill over the past 5 years.

email: dmambapoor+tabroom@gmail.com

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

Pref Shortcuts:

LARP: 1

K: 2

Phil: 3

Theory: 4

Tricks: Strike

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

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:

Topicality/Theory:

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.

Kritik:

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.

Phil:

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.

CP:

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.

Disads:

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.

Politics:

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.

Disclosure:

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.

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

Speaker Points:

If you read circuit-style arguments (Theory, Tricks) against novice or traditional debaters, I will dock speaks (-2).

Final Remarks:

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.

Reagan Mason Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon December 16, 2019 at 7:51 PM CDT

I debated for three years at Barbers Hill mainly in policy, but I also competed in LD for a bit! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me: reaganmason@utexas.edu.

TLDR

I'll vote on almost any argument, so feel free to read what you want-- whether it's frivolous or not-- and I'll evaluate it as long as you provide a warrant and a clear pathway to the ballot.

I default to competing interps and no RVI's, and drop the debater for most shells. I like disclosure.

Interact with and weigh the arguments. If there's anything I "prefer" to see, it's analytics during rebuttals instead of a huge card dump.

Do the work for me. Even if you're reading theory that identifies the inherent unfairness of the AC, engage with the aff in a way that demonstrates your theory argument to be valid. This makes giving you the ballot significantly easier if you are able to prove in-round abuse while not simply escaping substantive debate as a whole.

Framework

Foremost, I'll evaluate the round through the winning FW, ROB, or ROJ as long as it's extended. If the debate isn't framework-oriented, provide impact calculus as another clear weighing mechanism. If your specialty is a highly intense FW debate, then just explain it well and signpost exceptionally well. Bottom line: spend sufficient time fleshing out your framework to me if you want me to evaluate the round under your standard.

Kritiks

In policy, I was into fem on the china topic and ableism on the education topic, but mainly as separate advantages to other big stick impacts. So, if Ks are your thing, be sure to explain the lit thoroughly-- I don't keep up with it. As long as you tell me the warrant clearly, I'll buy your argument :)

I am more persuaded by your K if you outline a link to case during the 1NC and a thorough explanation of the world of the alt. (The more specific, the better.) IE if the aff operates under a capitalist structure, but doesn't actively increase capitalism, then there's definitely a no-link argument to be made as the potential link is reasonably vague.

Please don't try to use the "academic" language from the K to confuse your opponent. If you really are a good debater, explain it in simpler terms and be able to explain it well in your own words.

Don't assume I'll make connections for you. Alts should be clear about what they do. Perm texts should also be explicitly clear and kept consistent throughout the round.

Theory

Before looking at my defaults, have a decent shell. Make sure the opponent has clearly violated your interpretation.

I default to competing interps and no RVI's, and drop the debater for most shells. I don't care how frivolous the shell is; as long as it's impacted out and you're winning on it, I'll vote on T. If you're going to read frivolous T, just do it well.

However, there must be a clear violation. Just explain the link well and I'll buy it.

Don't just respond to theory with your own shell w/o engaging with the OG shell!!

If you think the theory debate may collapse and become a wash, I'd suggest extending substance if you want me to look to the substantive debate when voting.

Non-T Affs

Have a clear ballot story! I don't care if your aff is topical. However, I’ll listen to warranted T shells against kritical affs.

do what you want, essentially. this is your space.

Speed

Don't expect me to flow a one-sentence blippy argument that should have "won you the round." This is where the quality of arguments is crucial, and clarity is key. Slow down for taglines, author names, and particular arguments that you want me to for sure have down. I'll tell you to slow down as many times as needed in order to ensure that my flow is most accurate.

Policy

Policy arguments are great. love them! I find that my favorite rounds are policy-oriented. In regards to perms, make your permutation explicit, and identify net benefits during your speech.

Identify the explicit link to the DA(s).

If you're dropping an argument, explicitly tell me that you don't want me to evaluate it. Also, be sure to respond if there's offense on that argument's flow, or else I'll buy those arguments as independent voters if I'm told to.

Weigh arguments!!!!! Most debaters throw a ton of arguments at judges and do no work. I don't want to intervene, but if you don't do the in-round weighing, I will have to intervene. Don't make me do work for you in the round.

Maybe this is progressive PF??? but a framework would be exceptional. I'll probably inflate your speaks because I'll be impressed.

Generic impact calculus (we outweigh on magnitude, timeframe, probability) should be executed in front of me.

Speaks

*** Speaks will be determined by efficiency, quality of arguments, strategy, and weighing ability. ***

29.5-30: Really good/may win the tournament

29-29.5: Probably will get far/bid

28.5-29: Probably will break

28-28.5: Postive but won't break

27.5-28: Go even

26.5-27.5: Not great

Anything below 26.5 means you did something egregious in round

Tell me if you're in a bubble round, and I'll inflate.

Miscellaneous

Efficiency is key with me as a judge. If you're quick, I'll be more likely to boost speaks. Don't take 20 minutes to prepare a file for the email chain. I'll doc your speaks if this becomes an issue.

I don't want something not said in earlier speeches to suddenly be blown up in the 2AR/NR.

If an argument goes conceded, concise extensions are fine (signpost, what the argument is, its implication to the round.)

However, if the argument was contested, I need to see a clear explanation of the warrant and a longer extension.

Cameron McConway McNeil HS

Last changed on Thu October 1, 2020 at 3:55 PM CDT

Update for online tournaments:

Please slow down and make an extra effort to be clear for these rounds online. I will not call clear online since then we miss some of what you are saying.

I did LD for three years at Cy-Fair HS outside of Houston, Texas, qualifying to the TOC and NSDA nationals, and reaching semifinals at TFA state. I worked for McNeil HS in Austin while attending the University of Texas, and I teach at NSD and TDC.

Conflicts: McNeil HS, Cy-Fair HS, Lovejoy KC, Pembroke Pines MC

TL/DR:

I'd rather evaluate your style of debate than have you do things you're not comfortable with because you think it's what I want. My paradigm is here so you get an idea of how you want to pref me and how to debate in front of me, not to dissuade you from any particular type of debate.

Feel free to ask me questions at cameronmcconway@gmail.com.

If I am judging you at 8 am or late after a long day of rounds, please make an extra effort to be clear and organized. I'm tired and I want to make sure I can evaluate the debate as best as possible, so this is in your best interest!

The trend of taking forever to send speech docs (and then wait for everyone to download them) is extremely annoying. I haven't figured out the best way to check this, so for now I'm asking that you come to round with the aff ready to send, and have docs ready to send as soon as prep ends before the NC. If you think you might have wifi trouble or problems with your email, a flash drive would speed this process up.

General:

I will vote on most arguments as long as they aren't morally objectionable or blatantly false. I will do my best to be tab, but I think there is a level of plausibility necessary for me to vote on an argument (for instance, I won't vote on an obviously false I-meet). It will be difficult to convince me to vote on a super blippy apriori or an argument that turned into a voting issue after being one line in the original speech.

I'd like to be on the email chain in case I need to look at a card, but I will flow you not the speech doc.

Speed:

I'm fine with speed, just slow down on tags/author names and interps/advocacy texts.

T/Theory:

I am comfortable evaluating theory under whichever paradigm you prefer, so long as you justify it. I have found that I enjoy a good theory debate where there is a lot of weighing and internal links.

I am not a fan of disclosure debates, especially when the violation is unverifiable or the wiki was down. That said, there is a difference between a debate about disclosure vs a debate over open source or round reports, and I would much prefer the former.

Ks:

I read both high theory and identity politics. I feel comfortable evaluating most K debates but I strongly prefer debaters err on the side of overexplaining/not relying on jargon rather than assuming that I am familiar with the literature they are reading. These debates tend to either be excellent or my least favorite.

I enjoy K affs, but I do think if you are nontopical you need to a) win that being nontopical is legitimate b) have an evaluative mechanism and c) have offense under that mechanism. I am happy to listen to unique/innovative K affs regardless of their topicality, though I am also happy to listen to T debates against them. I think these can be interesting debates.

Recent observation: I find positions that rely on premises like "performative contradictions good" or "debate itself bad" to be unpersuasive. Not positions that criticize the current iteration of competitive debate (I am fine with that), but rather I think there is inherent value to the act of debating. This doesn't mean I won't vote on high theory authors like Baudrillard, because I will and I have, but I do think your interpretation of these authors should be compatible with your performance.

LARP:

I think that high level LARP debates tend to be more difficult to evaluate because a lot of debaters do not do sufficient weighing or impact calc. I enjoy well done LARP debates, just please do good weighing.

Framework:

I enjoy framework debate more the longer I judge. Slow down a bit on long analytic dumps and err towards overexplaining the dense philosophical warrants, because these things are difficult to flow at your top speed.

Speaks:

I start around a 28.5 and go up or down depending on in-round strategy and skill relative to the tournament. Speaks tend to be over-inflated and relatively arbitrary, so I try to give speaks with influencing who clears in mind. I like speaks as a way to reward well-executed or particularly clever strategies.

John McMillan Strake Jesuit College Preparatory

Jacob Nails Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 9:31 AM CDT

LD Paradigm

This is the LD paradigm. Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

If there's an email chain, you can assume I want to be on it. No need to ask. My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com. For online debates, NSDA file share is equally fine.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

My email is jacobdnails@gmail.com

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. No, I don't need a compiled doc at end of round.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

Andrew Nguyen Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 21, 2022 at 3:27 AM CDT

Debated LD at Strake Jesuit for 4 years. Broke at a few bid tournaments throughout my career. Read a lot of Util, T, and theory.

** Add me to the email chain: andrewnguyen22@utexas.edu. If using a USB, don't flash anything to me

TLDR

I'm fine with most arguments as long as it is warranted. Just don't say anything really offensive. If spreading, slow down on taglines and analytics. I will say "clear" or "slow" (doubtful) if necessary.

Read whatever you are comfortable with. I'll vote on anything. I default to comparative worlds, No-RVIs, competing interps. I like disclosure, so please disclose.

Don't be a doc debater (i.e. a DocBot) and just spread for 5/7 min off a pre-written doc. Make arguments specific to the round. Rebuttals should be more than card dumps. I should be able to hear something from you that explains how the turns or something interacts with your opponent's case.

Weigh arguments. Most debaters throw a ton of arguments at judges and do no work. I don't want to intervene, but if you don't do the in-round weighing, I will have to intervene. Don't make me do work for you in the round.

Please do not read theory or spread against a clearly less experienced debater. If you do, I will doc your speaks harshly.

Read something well-justified. Provide a clear weighing mechanism. I'm probably not the best judge to evaluate a highly intense FW debate. If it's a bit complicated, just explain it well and signpost exceptionally well. I also understand a bit of high theory (Deleuze, Derrida, Lacan), but I may not remember everything exactly, so just explain it well.

When reading framework justifications, please number them. Slow down on analytics if you want me to flow them.

Ks/K Affs

Provide good clear links (the more specific to the round, the better). Your ROB/ROTJ should be explicitly stated and well justified. (Also do not have a ROB of "vote for our method") Make ROB/ROTJ framing as a way to weigh/evaluate arguments. Ks/K Affs should be explicitly impacted under the ROB/ROTJ. Do not assume I will make connections for you. Alts should be clear about what they do. Please don't try to use the "academic" language from the K to confuse your opponent. If you really are a good debater, explain it in simpler terms and be able to explain it well in your own words.

Perm text should be explicitly clear with any and all benefits delineated.

Performance is good but should only be restricted during your speech time. Do not play music during your opponent's speech (I've seen this happen before). I would like to see creative ks but run them well. Non-T affs are great. Don't read POMO unless if you understand it. If reading a non-T aff, have a clear ballot story.

Try to contextualize your arguments before your 2AR/NR. I may hesitantly grant these contextualizations to the aff, but don't bank on this.

T/Theory

I'd vote on friv theory, but I'm more persuaded by true abuse in the round. If you want high speaks, have a relatively legit shell. Please do a lot of standard weighing. Don't need to extend paradigm issues if conceded. If your reading multi-planked shells, don't just rant about why each plank is individually bad. Rather, explain why these actions together are uniquely abusive in the instance of the round.

I'm more receptive to T justified by good evidence. Theory/T tricks are fine. I don't like voting on side bias arguments such as "negating is harder because of X," but if done well, I will still vote for you. I would rather the shells be as specific in the round as possible, but it is ok if you decide to read a generic shell.

I default to competiting interps, no RVIS, and drop the debater on most shells. Pls ask if you have any questions about this.

*Pls make sure your opponent violates the shell you are reading. I don't want to waste my time listening to a pointless shell.

LARP

Go for it. Do more line by line than simply reading cards. Analytics that help clarify the round is much better than more turns. Do lots of weighing to make the round really clear. If your reading cards, flesh out the argument in the 2NR/AR. The better your explanation, the better your speaks will be. I'm pretty neutral on the "conditionality good/bad" debate. I have voted both ways on PICs good.

I have yet to see a good LARP debate this semester. The biggest flaw is reading too much, going for everything in the 2NR/AR (COLLAPSE PLS), and not weighing. Perms need to be clear and well developed in the 1AR. Case debate needs to actually interact with the aff. Clarify and explain where on the flow turns interact with case. Please be organized with the order of your speech; I have a higher standard for signposting during LARP debates.

I love plan flaw. If your opponent screwed up, I would like to see you go for it. That being said, do not just do something because I say I like it. Do what you are good at.

Tricks

When reading tricks as aff, trigger the impact in the 1AR. I am much less inclined to vote for some trick from the underview randomly extended during the 2AR. Judging a tricks round can be very fun to watch but that depends on the quality and weighing of the args. Impact everything really well and I will vote for you. Please be upfront about reading tricks and don't be blatantly lying during CX. Any a prioris should be extremely well warranted for me to vote for them, else lose speaks and potentially get downed.

Burdens and NIBs should be well developed and warranted. Impacts and any necessary details should be explicitly delineated. Overall, I'm fine with most tricks and will more than likely vote for them.

FW-USFG (For CX)

If the aff isn't topical, the aff team needs to give benefits to why the aff is uniquely good. While on the neg side, any reason to be topical should be impacted out really well. I would rather you have this type of debate than read a topical version of the aff as a CP. You must do the work to impact it to fairness or education.

Speaks

Speaks are subjective and may deviate from this a bit, but this should be close to how I give out speaks.

*** Speaks will be determined by efficiency, quality of arguments, strategy, and weighing ability. ***

29.5-30: Really good/may win the tournament

29-29.5: Probably will get far/bid

28.5-29: Probably will break

28-28.5: Postive but won't break

27.5-28: Go even

26.5-27.5: Not great

Anything below 26.5 means you did something terrible in round.

Miscellaneous

Don't unnaturally stare at me during CX. It can make me feel uncomfortable. Try to be efficient with sending out the doc. I don't want to wait 20 min for your speech doc, just to delay the tournament. I won't time your prep. I assume you are keeping track of each other. Try to do all the offense contextualization by the 1AR/NR. I don't want something not said in earlier speeches to suddenly be blown up in the 2AR/NR.

Prep stops when you send the doc.

I will give extra speaks for sitting down early or having an amazing CX.

For policy, I guess open cross-x is ok. I don't really care. Also, I will not automatically kick things in policy just because you don't go for it in other speeches. Explicitly kick anything.

Here's my senior wiki so you can see get an idea of the type of debater I was:

Aff: https://hsld17.debatecoaches.org/Strake%20Jesuit/Nguyen%20Aff

Neg: https://hsld17.debatecoaches.org/Strake%20Jesuit/Nguyen%20Neg

(The neg page probably gives more info than the aff page)

Nelson Okunlola Hire 8 rounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General/Short version:

- Tech > Truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck, do your thing, and have fun!

Whitley Perryman Montgomery

Devin Race Hire 8 rounds

Anindu Rentala Anderson High School

John Sasso Hire 8 rounds

Jai Sehgal IH Kempner High School

Last changed on Fri February 9, 2024 at 8:20 PM CDT

Jai Sehgal

Updated for 2023-24 Szn

*Online Rounds*

Please go at ~60% of what your normal speed would be. I am not going to flow off of the doc, so if what you are saying is not coherent, I will not flow it. I have seen far too often debaters compromise articulation in their speech because they assume judges will just blindly flow from the doc. I understand that virtual rounds are a greater hassle due to the sudden drops in audio quality, connection and sound, so err on the side of slower speed to make sure all your arguments are heard.

Be sure to record your speeches locally some way (phone, tablet, etc.) so that if you cut out, you can still send them.

Prefs Shortcut

LARP/Generic Circuit - 1

Theory - 2

Phil/High Theory Ks - 3/4

Tricks - Strike

General:

I default to evaluating the round through a competing worlds paradigm.

Impact calculus is the easiest way to clarify my ballot, so please do this to make things easier for you and I both.

Assume I don't know much about the topic, so please explain stuff before throwing around jargon.

Give me a sufficient explanation of dropped arguments; simply claims are not enough. I will still gut check arguments, because if something blatantly false is conceded, I will still not consider it true.

I love good analytic arguments. Of course evidence is cool, but I love it when smart arguments are made.

I like it when a side can collapse effectively, read overviews, and weigh copiously.

There's no yes/no to an argument - there's always a risk of it, ex. risk of a theory violation, or a DA.

Evidence ethics are a serious issue, and should only be brought up if you are sure there is a violation. This stops the round, and whoever's wrong loses the round with the lowest speaks possible.

Disclosure is a good thing. I like first 3 last 3, contact info, and a summary of analytics the best. I think that as long as you can provide whatever is needed, you're good. Regardless, I'll still listen to any variation of disclosure shells.

Please write your ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. Crystallization wins debates!

I debated mostly policy style, so I'm most comfortable judging those debates. I dabbled into philosophy and high theory as well, but have only a basic understanding of most common frameworks.

LARP:

My favorite kind of round to judge is a util debate. Unique scenarios/advantages are great.

I love impact calculus. The more specific your scenario is, the more likely I am to be persuaded by it, and a solid analysis of the impact debate will do good things for you.

A lack of offense means that there's always a moderate risk of the DA or the advantage. Winning zero risk is probably a tougher argument to win - that being said, if there's a colossal amount of defense on the flow, I'm willing to grant zero risk. However, simply relying on the risk of the DA will not be too compelling for me, and I'll have a lower threshold for arguments against it.

Theory:

If you're going to read theory, prove some actual abuse. My threshold for responses to frivolous theory has certainly gone down as I've judged more debates, so be wary before reading something like "cannot read extinction first."

I default competing interps, DTD, and no RVI's, but have realized there is some degree of judge intervention in every theory debate. Therefore, the onus is on you to win your standards clearly and do weighing between different standards.

Please go at like 50% speed or flash me analytics when you go for this because I’ve realized theory debates are sometimes hard to flow.

Kritiks:

I'm fine with generic K debates, but I'm probably not the best judge for high theory pomo debates.

The K must interact specifically with the aff because generic links a) make the debate boring, and b) are easy to beat. The more specific your link is to the aff, the more likely I will like listening to it.

I'd rather see a detailed analysis on the line-by-line debate rather than a super long overview. In the instance where you read an egregiously long overview and make 3 blippy arguments on the line-by-line, I'll have a very low threshold for 1AR extensions for the concessions.

I'll vote on K tricks and dropped framing arguments, but only if these are sufficiently explained. An alt solves the aff, floating PIK, conceded root cause, etc. are all much more persuasive if there's a clear explanation.

I don't have many reservations in terms of what I want/don't want to see while judging PF, but here are a few things to keep in mind:

If it's not in FF, I will not vote on it.
Weighing should ideally begin as early as possible, and it will only help you if you do so.
If you would like to read theory, don't hesitate, go ahead.
Second rebuttal needs to respond to everything + frontline.

Aisha Sheikh George Ranch HS

Kevin Si Hire 8 rounds

Martin Sigalow Lake Highland Preparatory

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

Email chain: msigalow61@gmail.com

Conflicts: Lake Highland Preparatory School

Policy at CFL Nationals:

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

Some quick policy debate comments

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

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

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

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

LD:

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

Aaron Singh Hire 8 rounds

Julie Smith CTCS

Last changed on Sat December 4, 2021 at 4:35 AM CEST

Shortcuts

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 nathan.smith191710@gmail.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.

Defaults

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.

Disclosure

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.

LARP: Cool.

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.

- Kant

- Levinas

- Virtue Ethics

- Mackie/error theory/emotivism

- GCB

T/Theory

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.

Trix

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.

Speaks

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

Christopher Stearns Tuloso-Midway High School

Last changed on Tue February 20, 2024 at 4:53 PM CDT

Update for 2023-2024 Policy topic: I am a Personal Financial Advisor so this topic is my jam. However, this does mean that I will probably hold solvency to a higher standard than usual since a big part of my workday is taken up by social security and taxes.

Former debate coach for American School Fez. I competed in Policy debate at W.B. Ray High School from 2015-2018. I competed in Policy debate at UT-Austin in 2019. Currently an Assistant Financial Advisor with Ameriprise.

I coach for free so if you'd like some help, shoot me an email.

Put me on the email chain: stearcd247@gmail.com

TL:DR

I am down for whatever you want to do. I am probably just as good for PoMo goo vs PoMo goo as I am for stock issues.

Please don't throw things at me or your opponents or light things on fire.

I would like to intervene as little as possible, so please explicitly tell me how to weigh the round.

Arguments that run towards clash are always better in front of me than arguments that try to skirt around your opponent.

I believe that each debate round is a story. The better story at the end of the debate wins. This means I will attempt to view the round holistically instead of looking at just the last two speeches.

Speaker Points

28.5 is default. 29 is breaking. 29.5 is speaker award. LD tends to go up by about a .2 since speaker points are just higher in the event. I will try to change based on tournament norms and competition level. If you'd like a more in-depth breakdown, read Ali Abdulla's paradigm. I will say clear twice during the whole debate, not just a particular speech. If you do not become clearer after the second time, I will stop flowing and put my head on the desk/table.

Things that will make me your speaker point fairy:

• Executing high level argumentation at a conversational pace

• Bringing cross-ex answers into speeches

• Making me laugh

General Gripes. This section is for things I've found annoying/bad about debate and have chose to impact my speaker points, but not my ballots:

• Ontology debates. If you read ontology and do not have a coherent explanation by the end of the debate, your speaks are capped at a 28.5. If you do have a coherent explanation, speaks are floored at a 29.

• Turns case on DAs. Turns case does not mean that you also read an internal link card to the aff's impacts. Turns case means that the DA turns the solvency mechanism of the aff. A good turns case is floored at a 29. A bad turns case is capped at a 29.

• Debating slow. I personally find speed to be incredibly strategic. I also find it to be incredibly grating. If you debate at a circuit level slowly, speaks are floored at a 29.2 and I will probably give you more leeway on implicit clash. No penalty for debating fast.

• If you go for self harm good, I will vote for the other debater and give you the lowest speaks possible. If the other debate asks me to stop the round, I will stop it. This does not mean you cannot read death good, just no Liggotti.

• If you use Patrick Fox as a reason policy affs are good, I will cap your speaks at a 27.

I like LD theory when it's about content. I'm not especially fond of it when it's about form. That translates to content=default to competing interps and form=default to reasonability. These positions are not set in stone as every argument is winnable. RVI's make sense to me on theory arguments but not on T. That being said, I still tend to not like them as I did Policy for most of high school. Please slow down on all of these. I'm not familiar enough with judging these debates to catch the intricacies of your arguments at the same speed I can hear your read cards about hegemony and capitalism.

T RVIs probably need to be all 3 minutes of the 2AR and dropped by the neg. Theory RVIs need to be all 3 minutes of the 2AR. The greater the number of theory/T shells, the more likely I am to buy an RVI.

Don't use big analytical philosophy words you never define. I will not understand them. I will most likely understand any big critical philosophy words you never define. This is not true in every instance, so please define them all to me. I'm very familiar with philosophy but not the way it's talked about in LD.

Tricks have to be full arguments from the get go. LD is hard enough when there isn't any sandbagging, and down right impossible when there is.

If you read DAs/Plans/Ks/Performance/Things read in Policy, read below

POLICY

Affs:

You do you. I did performance, kritikal, and policy affs. I was a 2A for most of high school and and college. Please have fully explained internal link structures. I will vote neg on presumption if I have no clue what the aff does.

The worst part of any aff is always the internal link. Please have a rigorous explanation of what your aff does and how that process changes the status quo to solve your impacts.

Survival strategies are very important but I would prefer if they were tied to a method outside the ballot.

I think inherency is important.

Framework/T-USfg:

Most debates that I judge center on this question. I tend to view framework as competing interpretations of the kind of debates we should be having. What does this mean for you? A) I'm probably less interested in hearing your impact turns to framework. B) The neg probably still has to answer case. C) I am very interested in the TVA. D) I am very interested in creative definitions of the words in the resolution.

I'm probably more interested in interesting FW interpretations than I am in T-USfg.

I used to coach in Morocco. This means I tend to hold aff teams going for no CI + Impact turns to a higher standard than most judges.

I am fairly persuaded by the argument that "should" denotes action, while "ought" denotes theoretical underpinnings. Feel free to change my mind.

T debates are awesome when there is clash, but that can sometimes be more dependent on the topic than on the debaters (I'm looking at you education topic). I went almost exclusively for T my first year in policy debate but didn't the next three years. I usually judge this in an offense/defense paradigm but I can be persuaded by a highly developed reasonability argument.

I am probably good for a debate about the terms of art in the topic. Probably bad for grammar.

My default understanding of competing interps vs reasonability is that competing interps is preponderance of evidence and reasonability is reasonable doubt. Feel free to change my mind.

DAs:

DAs are fun. Please have a counterplan or highly developed turns case. Turns case does not mean turns the impact, it means turns the solvency mechanism of the plan. Turns the impact is probably impact framing, so see below.

Politics:

Politics can either be a lot of fun, or an absolute disaster. I am not up to date on what is occurring in the political landscape unless it involves financial institutions in the US. Please take this into consideration.

I am probably more susceptible to an intrinsicness/fiat solves argument than most judges.

CPs:

All CPs are justified until proven otherwise. Some CPs hold up poorly to theory arguments, others hold up well. Advantage CPs with one aff advantage impact turned are great debates.

Textual competition seems silly. Functional competition and opportunity costs seem important. Feel free to change my mind.

I generally tend to think CP theory as a justification for a permutation, rather than a reason to drop the arg/debater. I can be persuaded otherwise, especially by arguments such as solvency advocate theory or object fiat bad.

Judge kick on an instinctual level is bad because I think strategic choices are one of the best things students learn in debate. Fell free to change my mind though.

Judge kick is probably an additional world in a condo debate context. Please consider this when writing your interps.

Ks:

At TOC-type tournaments, great! At NSDA-type tournaments, probably not the best idea.

This is the second most popular argument in front of me. I can probably count on one hand the number of round judged this year that did not include some for of K debate.

I read Ks back in the day. I read critikal literature for fun. I'm probably up to date on your lit but please do your best explaining as I haven't read or been in a Baudrillard debate since 2017.

I am very familiar with Queerness, Agamben, Magical Realism, Settler Colonialism, and Cap. I am very comfortable with Afropessimism, Afrofuturism, Bifo, and Foucault. I am not very comfortable with Baudrillard just because he makes me feel uncomfortable. I can flow a Derrida or DnG round but don't expect me to know what any of the fancy words you say mean.

The link probably isn't as strong as the neg thinks, but also not as weak as the aff thinks, please clash on it. Anti-state links are just as annoying as state links even though I understand the strategy and think you should read them.

I'm probably not good for kicking the alt and going for the links as linear DAs. This has always seemed nonstrategic to me. If you're winning your theory of power necessary for the linear DA, you're probably ahead on FW or the alt.

Analytics:

Please for all that is good in this world, slow down. Debaters tend to go far too fast on these and if I don't catch your warrant I'm not very likely to buy your argument.

Case Defense/Turns:

This is the second least utilized part of the debate. Solvency cards are usually bad. Impact cards are always bad. Please capitalize on this. I will give you just as many speaker points if you go for a CP/DA, a K, or Dedev so please don't be worried about the argument that you choose.

CX:

This is the least utilized part of debate. Not because debaters don't try to use it (unlike the case debate) but because debaters don't know how to either A) not be rude little snots or B) don't know how to use it in a speech. If you use CX properly then you can win the debate nearly immediately, if you use it improperly you can lose the debate immediately.

I will flow cross if I think it has an impact on the round. I will probably flow cross if it doesn't have an impact on the round.

Every time you ask a question that shows you aren't flowing, I'm mentally deducting speaker points. Probably about .1 to .2

Impact Framing:

All positions require it, so be good at it. If neither team does it then I'll do it myself. Trust me, you don't want that happening. I generally default to probability > magnitude > timeframe. This is in no way set in stone so feel free to change my mind. You do not need cards to change my mind on this, just a well developed argument.

Performance:

My favorite aff I ever wrote was a queer ballroom X-Men magical realism aff. Go wild but have a compelling reason why I should sign your name, rather than the other teams, on this ballot.

General Thoughts

I was a 2A, if that matters.

The best way to win a round is clear judge instruction. I want to intervene as little as possible and that requires explicit instruction from the debaters. If you do not instruct me how to judge, my own bias will come into play. I don't want that, you don't want that, and your coach doesn't want that. The only person that does is your opponent.

I was a flex debater because I think debate is more fun when there is contestation on the content of an argument. I also was very bad at framework/T-USfg. Please keep this in mind when you decide to pref me for clash rounds.

Tech over truth generally, but truth can sometimes overcome tech when you are just patently false. If you have a two minute long explanation about how Bifo is a materialist because he has material impacts, and your opponent says you're on crack, I'm probably voting for your opponent. If you spend two minutes explaining how your specific argument takes into account materialism even if Bifo the author does not, and your opponent says your on crack, I'm probably voting for you. In both scenarios you're probably not materialist, but in the second I'm far more likely to give you the ballot.

I do my best to leave my biases outside the room, but that will always be a difficult thing to do.

If you want any other information about how I think feel free to email me or read John Henry Stearns' or Ali Abdulla's paradigms. One is my brother, the other is one of my best friends growing up. Both think very similarly to me and reading their paradigms might help.

Other people who influenced me, in order of impact: Andrew Garcia, Aron Berger, Michael Antonucci, Walker Perkins, Tillman Huett, Preston Stolte, Shaneal Harun, Steven Pipkin

Stolen from Patrick Fox. Mr. Stearns is my dad. If you call me Mr. Stearns, I will assume you would rather be judged by him and adjust my judging accordingly. Mrs. Stearns is my mom. If you call me Mrs. Stearns, I will assume you would rather be judged by her and adjust my judging accordingly.

I only flow warrants. If I am not actively flowing, it's probably because I don't think you have made an argument yet.

I am not a flow bot. I am human and will miss things. If you think something is important, make sure you tell me.

I would actively prefer if debaters spoke at a conversational pace. This does not mean that I can't flow your spreading, but talking normally is just a lot more comfortable.

If you read an ethics challenge and wish to stake the debate on it, I will stop the round and go to tab. If you do not stake the debate on it, I will not adjudicate it.

Subtlety is for cowards.

I have voted on presumption in about half of this year's debates.

I think I suck at writing ballots. I think I'm coherent while giving the RFD. Please let me know if I'm not. If you get your ballot back and it is illegible, please email me.

I tend to give RFDs very quickly. This is because I am at all times attempting to evaluate win conditions for each debater. I will try to be as informative and constructive in my RFDs as possible.

Having Fun

I know this is a competition, but please have fun with it. I know that I did and I hope you do too.

thomas stewart Strake Jesuit College Preparatory

James Stuckert Hire 8 rounds

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

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

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

For online rounds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Other:

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

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

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

Felix Tan Hire 8 rounds

Nigel Taylor-Ward The Episcopal School of Dallas

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 4:21 AM CDT

The things:

Npiredebate@gmail.com

Affil: Baylor, Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.

If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.

**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):

Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.

Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).

In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.

Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.

Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.

***

TLDR:

Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.

Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.

Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.

There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?

-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.

-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.

-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.

-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.

-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.

More category specific stuff below, if you care.

From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.

I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.

Top-level stuff

1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.

2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.

My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.

1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.

2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".

Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.

- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.

- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.

- Solvency comparison is rather important.

Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.

Reasonability claims need a brightline

FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, I'm rather even on this front.

I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.

Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.

Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.

Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

James Thomason Hire 8 rounds

Drew Thorburn Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 20, 2022 at 4:36 PM CDT

I debated for two years at Strake Jesuit High school in Houston, Tx. I've competed at TFA, Nationals, and the TOC. I worked five weeks over the summer with NSD and coach a handful of kids independently. I agree with my old coach Chris Castillo on most things so I'm just going to paste his paradigm below (Matthew Chen's paradigm is another good jumping off point). My email is thorbura@bc.edu, feel free to email me any questions and include me on the email chain.

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. D

Non-T affs: These are fine just have a clear ballot story.

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 cx. 3. Compiling a document counts as prep time. 4. Please write down how much time you have left.

Paradigm Update:

I haven’t judged in a while. Going slightly slower than usual and over-emphasizing will be appreciated.

Alberto Tohme Hire 8 rounds None

Anthony Tohme Hire 8 rounds

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

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

Are you okay with speed?

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

How do you feel about theory?

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

How do you feel about K's?

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

How can I get good speaks?

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

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

Neville Tom Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 11:27 AM EDT

Contact Info:

Email: nevilletom1@gmail.com

Facebook: Neville Tom

Basic Info:

Hi! My name’s Neville. I debated for four years at Strake Jesuit (got a few bid rounds during my career if that makes any difference), and I’m currently a freshman at UH. I’m still kinda working out the whole judging thing, so there’ll probably be some edits to this as time goes on. As such, please feel free to ask me any questions prior to round if you need any clarification about my judging style or my paradigm.

How to Win (the TL;DR version):

You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

- Weigh: Do it. A lot. As much as you POSSIBLY can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate.

- Crystallize: Don't go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take time to provide me a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as we're winning this/these argument(s), we should win the round."

- Use Overviews: I find that debaters who use overviews effectively tend to win more rounds. It will definitely help me evaluate if you start off your rebuttal speeches with an overview, so... *shrug*. A good overview will have these three components: (1) explain which issues matter most in the debate, (2) explain why those issues matter most (why I should care about them most), (3) why you're winning those issues. After that, feel free to go to the line-by-line to do the grunt work. This will help clarify the round and will help me to focus on the issues that matter.

- Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any disambiguities that might affect my decision.

- Creatively Interpret Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit on first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. For example, if you win a Hobbesian framework and claim that the sovereign should settle ethical dilemmas, then feel free to make the implication that theory is illegitimate because it is not a rule that the sovereign has proposed.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Losing & Lower Speaks (Borrowed from Chris Castillo's paradigm):
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, so don't just read some dense phil or K and expect me to understand it.
3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters.
4. Don't steal prep.
5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip. If I get conclusive evidence that you are purposely clipping, then I will down you.

Speed:

I’m fine with it – make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism (This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. Tags

5. Author Names

6. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

7. Analytics (in rebuttals)

**NOTE: I'm not asking to talk at a snail's pace when making analytical responses to arguments. However, if you blitz out ten 1-sentence analytics in the space of 5 seconds, I will not be able to catch all of them, so it would be to your betterment to slow down a bit. Additionally, it would help me flow analytics if you provide a verbal short 2-word tag prior to making your argument. For example, "A-point, no warrant: (insert argument here). B-point, missing internal link: (insert argument here). C-point, turn: (insert argument here). D-point, turn (insert argument) here." etc., etc. Feel free to be creative with your tags.

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategical decisions in round, but sounding pretty doesn’t hurt. I’ll start at a 28 and go up or down based on how you do.

Explicit Argument Preferences:

- LARP:

Read what you want. I'm cool with plans, CPs, DAs, PICs etc, as I tended to run them quite a lot as a debater. Just run them well.

Things that I would like to see in LARP rounds:

1. Rigorous Evidence Comparison. In my opinion, this skill is the key to being a good LARPer. It is much more compelling to me if you read one card about climate change being false and winning why your evidence is better than your opponents compared to your opponent spreading 18 cards on climate change being real.

2. Weigh. Do it as often as possible and make sure to do comparative weighing between your arguments and your opponent's. Prove to me why your arguments matter more than your opponent's. The earlier this debate starts, the better.

3. Advocacy Texts/CP Texts. I need to know what I'm endorsing.

4. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Case Debate is Amazing. People don’t do it enough. A 1N that isolates every internal link to solvency on the aff and line by lines the warrants + reads weighing and comparison for their turns vs aff solvency links / 2NR that collapses to the case debate and just gives a really good ballot story and explains all the interaction will really impress me. Similarly, a 1AR that deals with a heavy 1N press well and explains/weighs their own ballot story will impress me.

5. Small Plan Affs/PICs. These really interest me. Don't lose on the case debate as (a) if your aff/PIC is really a small one, they really shouldn't have any good answers to the aff/PIC and (b) it will indicate to me that you weren't all that prepared to defend your position to begin with, which will not be good for your speaks. Also, be sure to be prepared for the theory debate as I tend to err towards the abuse story of the interp, especially if they provide round-specific abuse stories.

- Kritiks

Again, read what you want. While I was definitely fascinated by critical literature and knew how to read and go for one, I admittedly didn't read Ks all too often, and so may not know/be aware of all the nuances of this style of debate. I have a decent understanding of some critical literature, including (but not limited to): Wilderson, Deleuze & Guattari, Edelman, Puar, Lacan, Agamben, Baudrillard, Tuck and Yang, etc.

I tend to view debates as an issue of testing the truth and falsity of the res (but this can easily be changed). Unless convinced otherwise, I view Ks similar to frameworks: to me, Ks filter what offense matters. As such, I view ROBs and FWs to function on the same level (you can convince me to think otherwise in round, but that's my view).

Things that I would like to see in K Rounds:

1. A Clear Link. I need to know explicitly what the K is criticizing. It doesn't matter whether it is the method, the reps, the discourse, or whatever. Just make clear to me that the aff has done something wrong and what exactly that is.

2. A Cohesive and Comprehensive Explanation of the Alt. Make sure to spend a decent chunk of time in the 2N explaining the alt. Explain to me (1) what the world of the alt looks like, (2) why this is net preferable to the aff, (3) why the alt solves the impact, and (4) why the alt is mutually exclusive. If you can explain all of these very clearly to me, I will be much more inclined to vote for you and will definitely boost your speaks.

3. Normatively Justify your ROBs. While not ABSOLUTELY necessary, I find completely impact-justified ROB somewhat uncompelling. Providing a conclusive ethical theory (this doesn't necessarily have to be justified by analytic phil - it can be justified by your critical author of choice) that provides a framework for your ROB will provide more nuanced discussion and will definitely give you a leg up in justifying your ROB as the framing mechanism. If done well, I'll give you speaks a big boost.

4. Make your K Accessible. Show me that you understand your K. Explain it to me (especially in the 2N) in easy-to-understand language. Also, even if you're using generic literature, use your K to provide a very close, nuanced analysis of the aff and paint a very detailed picture of the world of the aff vs that of the alt. This will help me to learn and understand more about the K and garner you good speaks.

5. Provide an Explicit and Unambiguous ROB Text. Give me an explicit metric through which I should view the round and adjudicate. If I can not make heads or tails of how to weigh using your ROB, I will use an alternate weighing mechanism. If the ROB is ambiguous and doesn't provide a clear way to weigh arguments, I will be much more compelled by a Colt Peacemaker-type shell that has a contextual story to the round, should it be read.

6. Notes for Non-T Affs. I have no problem with them. If that's your style, then go for it; just do it well and tell me why I should vote for you. However, if T-FWK/T-Defend the Topic becomes an issue, then be sure to: (a) provide good justifications for why you could not have been topical as I tend to be compelled by nuanced TVAs, (b) provide ample well-justified reasons for why the aff/your voters come prior to fairness and any impacts to it, (c) depict a clear picture of what your model of debate looks like and why it's net preferable to that of the interp, and (d) (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm), generate impact turns based on your aff, not just random impact turn cards like Delgado. I’ll vote on these external criticisms, but it’s much much less compelling and persuasive than your specific arguments about the aff.

7. Notes for Aff v.s. K. (a) PERM THE ALT. I will listen (and evaluate) any type of perm that you come up with, even "silly" ones like judge choice or method severance. (b) Go for "Case Outweighs", ESPECIALLY if the alt is very vague: I have not heard many great responses to this argument. (c) If your opponent's alt is vague, point this out: if I think you're correct in your assessment, I will be much more lenient in your responses to the K as a whole.

8. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Performances are fine, but it ends after your speech. If you try to play music during your opponent’s speech, for example, I will drop you. Believe it or not, I need to hear your opponent’s 1NC to evaluate the debate.

9. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Personal attacks in a debate round are unacceptable. I will not vote on an argument requiring someone lose for something that happened out of the round or out of their control, such as an attack on someone for their school/coach/affiliations. This is not limited to the K debate, but it is where I have seen it happen most.

- Phil/FW

As a debater, I loved the framework debate as I found the literature super engaging and the style super strategic. Unfortunately, the style seems to be falling out of fashion (#bringbackfwdebate), and so I am definitely down to judge this kind of debate. I'm decently well-versed with a lot of philosophies, such as: Util (duh), Kant (and Neo-Kantianism), Hobbes, Deleuze, Innoperative Community, Agamben, Particularism, Virtue Ethics, Derrida, Existentialism, Testimony, Levinas, Butler, etc.

Things that I would like to see in FW-heavy rounds:

1. Have a Meta-Ethic. Not only is this super strategic in excluding other frameworks (and thus, offense), but it also provides a great starting point to any framework.

2. Provide a Syllogistic-Framework. Explain why each premise (following your starting point) is necessarily the only possible derivation from the former proposition. This will make your framework (a) a lot harder to attack, (b) a lot easier to understand, and (c) a lot easier to defend, which is a definite win-win. It's a lot more compelling than random blips about "preclusion" or impact-justified frameworks. Also (especially if you're aff), draw out implications from your premises so that you can apply it to different scenarios. For example, if you've justified that there is an intent-foresight distinction (i.e. all that matters in judging the morality of an action is the intention behind it), feel free to draw out the implication that this means that you should not lose on theory because you did not intend to violate the shell. If you do this, I will definitely give your speaks a boost.

3. Use Skep. Do not be afraid to justify why skepticism is true as long as you justify why your framework resolves the problem. Use it to justify why your theory is better than others. If necessary, feel free to trigger skep in round for your strategic necessity - I feel that this is a legitimate strategy and that the onus is on your opponent to prove why it is not, should they have a problem with it.

4. Provide a Explicit Framing Mechanism. Be able to explain in simple terms (a) what your normative starting point is, (b) why your framework is the only one that can be drawn from this point, and (c) what actions your framework cares about. In other words, be clear about your view of what ethics is. Be sure that you provide a clear weighing mechanism that explains how I should evaluate arguments.

5. Don't be Sketchy. Make it clear to everyone what offense links and doesn't link. if in CX you do not provide a clear answer to your opponent about the offense that links to your framework, chances are that I won't know how to use your framework. As such, I will be very lenient to new reinterpretations of your opponent's arguments and will be much more like persuaded by a theory argument about vague weighing mechanisms.

6. TJFs/AFC are great. Read them if that's what you want. I will definitely be impressed if you manage to have decent nuanced theoretical reasons to prefer frameworks that aren't Util as I feel that this is an area that is (as of yet) unexplored by the debate community.

7. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Framework hijacks are super strategic. Well explained and executed strats based around hijacks will get you high speaks. If you are able to provide good clash in defending your framework against a hijack, that will also garner you high speaks.

- Theory/T

This style of argumentation was one that I initially struggled a lot with. Later in my career though, I grew to love and implement it in a lot of my round strategies. If you are able to run theory and debate it well, I believe you will definitely go far in your debate career as it definitely improved my winrate and my capacity to generate arguments quickly as well as my critical thinking skills.

Things that I would like to see in Theory Rounds:

1. WEIGH and CRYSTALLIZE. Theory has a bad rep of being super blippy and unaccessible and I can't say I blame the people that feel this way. The theory debate tends to collapse down to who blitzed out the shortest analytic responses which tends to result in very, very messy and hard to adjudicate debates. Doing this can make you a "good" theory debater. However, in order to really get to a higher level in this style of debate, you have to master the essential skills of weighing and crystallizing, which are generally seen in the later speeches. These speeches on the theory debate should be less and less blippy and focused on the essential issues of that debate. In front of me, you should (a) provide an overview where you isolate how I should evaluate the theory debate and what offense matters under this framing, (b) explain your offense really well, (c) prove that your offense comes prior to your opponent's, and (d) clearly indicate why this offense links back to a voter. If you do this successfully, I will definitely give you high speaks.

2. Do Comparative Analysis between the World of the Interp and the World of the Counter-Interp. Use this framework to explain what the net benefit is in terms of the interp/counter-interp. Don't be afraid to explicitly say, "Under the world of the interp, there is (some net benefit). The counter-interp can't resolve this issue, and as such, you should reject it."

3. Default Theory Paradigms. I do not like to default to any specific issue in this style of debate, as I believe that it is your job to justify them. However, if there comes a situation in which I need to default, then here they are:

(a) Theory > K/ROB

(b) Fairness > Education/Other Voters

**NOTE: I will only default to these if these voters are read. If you do not read voters on your shell, then I will not evaluate the shell - the onus is on you to provide a framework through which I should evaluate the debate.

**NOTE: if you're going for reasonability, PLEASE provide an actual brightline that tells me conclusively what counts or doesn't count as reasonable. If you tell me to gutcheck the shell or something along the lines of "you know this shell is silly", I will simply evaluate the line-by-line of the theory debate to determine the winner.)

(d) No RVIs > RVIs

(e) Meta-Theory > T/Theory

(f) T > Theory

(g) Semantics > Pragmatics

(h) Text of the Interp > Spirit of the Interp

**NOTE: If you go for spirit of the interp, provide some sort of metric through which I can understand the "spirit" of the shell, as (a) I dislike gutchecking as it can lead to arbitrary decisions and (b) I'm rather compelled by the argument that the text is the only objective metric as I cannot truly know what the spirit of the interp is.

(i) Drop the Argument (DTA) v.s. Drop the Debater (DTD): I do not have a default on the implication of the shell. The onus is on you to read them.

**NOTE: Conceded paradigm issues do not need to be extended. For example, if Competing Interps and No RVIs are conceded, you do not need to extend them again. If you need to refer to them again for whatever reason, feel free.

4. Be Creative. This style of debate really rewards those who like to go off-script and try new things. As such, I encourage you to try new ideas with theory in front of me. For example, use creative independent voters and argue why said voter comes prior to other voters.Just be sure to explain how to evaluate the argument and why it means that you are winning.

5. Be Nuanced. Make your shells as contextual as possible to the specific round. Feel free to extemp your shell (just be sure to provide either a written or digital copy of the actual interp before your speech so that I have something to hold you to). This will not only boost your speaks, but is also much more strategic as it becomes more difficult to respond to.

6. Policy on Frivolous Theory: To be perfectly honest, I've never quite understood what frivolous theory is. If you can provide a definition that conclusively defines what differentiates frivolous theory from a "normal" theory shell and why it's bad, then I won't evaluate the shell. In other words, use theory however you want.

- Tricks

I got introduced to this style of debate late in my career, but I really developed a liking to it as I found justifying and running meme-y arguments very entertaining. If done well, it can be a really fun round to both watch and adjudicate; if not, though, it can be near-impossible to judge.

Things that I would like to see in Tricks Rounds:

1. Be Upfront. I like debaters being tricky by reading tricky arguments (like NIBs or burdens). However, this does not give you free license to be shifty. In other words, be open with the implication of your tricks and how they function. That being said, I am okay with you providing slightly ambiguous answers. However, I heavily discourage you from providing responses like "I'm not sure, it COULD be a trick," or "I have no idea what you're talking about," or "What's an a priori/spike/NIB?", or just blatantly lying and later doing a complete 180. I will dock your speaks heavily if you do this, will significantly lower the burden of rejoinder for your opponent, and will want to vote for a theory argument indicting your practice, should it be read..

2. I'm not a huge fan of a prioris. I will vote on them provided you do a good job both (a) warranting why they should be my foremost concern under a truth-testing paradigm (if necessary, win that truth-testing is true and should be the framing mechanism first) and (b) provide a well-warranted reason why the a priori tautologically proves the resolution true/false. I will hold you to a higher threshold on proving these issues. If you do this well, then I will not dock your speaks and will likely pick you up if I deem that you won the argument. If you do not do it well, then I will likely dock your speaks and adjudicate the rest of the debate. Other than a prioris, I'm perfectly fine with every other trick, including, but not limited to: NIBs, Burden Structures, Triggers (i.e. Skep, Trivialism, etc.), Contingent Standards, Theory Spikes, etc.

3. Be Creative with your Tricks. Try not to default to recycled tricks like the Action Theory NC or a recycled Distinctions Aff from yesteryear with a slightly changed up burden. Creative tricks will be rewarded with higher speaks.

4. Weigh. Win why your winning of the trick is a prior question to adjudicating the rest of the debate. This can be done via making some claim towards fairness or education, for example. Admittedly, this can be tricky in a trick v.s. trick debate. In this case, attempt to provide unique reasons for why your trick is more true/comes first, and also have an additional out if that debate becomes too messy.

Random Notes:

- Tech > Truth: Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

- Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts. In order to avoid any mishaps, please provide a trigger warning prior to reading any (possibly) sensitive issue. If you are doubtful on whether you should give a trigger warning, then provide one anyway to be safe.

- Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste, however; there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong".

- Disclosure is probably good: I find myself compelled by the argument. This does not mean that I will auto-hack for Disclosure Good or any of its variants - I believe that it is a legitimate debate to be had and if you conclusively win that disclosure is bad, then I will vote for you. That being said, do NOT run it on someone that is clearly novice level/just started circuit debate. If you win the argument, I will vote for you, but I will not be giving you higher speaks.

- Strength of link is a great weighing argument. Use it.

- People I Share Similar Judge Philosophies With: Chris Castillo, Matthew Chen, Tom Evnen, Erik Legried, Etc.

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

*Edit - Here’s my wikis from senior year so that you can get an idea of the type of debater that I was:

Aff: Senior Year Aff Wiki

Neg: Senior Year Neg Wiki

Elijah Valerio Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun August 19, 2018 at 4:06 PM CDT

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.

THE HIGHLIGHTS-

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 (elijahvalerio9@yahoo.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 elijahvalerio9@yahoo.com

Amber Wang Cypress Ranch High School

Daniel Wang Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:20 AM CDT

Strake Jesuit '18, University of Texas at Austin '22

Creator of the PF wiki

Conflicts: Strake Jesuit, Plano West

Contact: Facebook message me or email me with any questions about my paradigm/the round.

Email:dwang18@mail.strakejesuit.org

***Just my personal thought: "flow/tech" judges that refuse to vote on theory (esp disclosure) are worse than lay judges. ***

"Flow" judges or just people in general who refuse to vote in disclosure theory or other progressive arguments are the worst judges on the circuit and are carcinogenic to the activity (I said it). It's like saying I won't evaluate x case argument because I don't agree with it personally even if the debate is heavily one-sided in-round. All the arguments against it are just bad.

***Disclosure bad is the worst argument I've ever heard but if you win cause your opponents can't debate I guess I'll buy it***

Disclosure is also a true argument but tech > truth.

-Interp texts must be sent -- this includes CIs as well and is NOT negotiable

SECOND REBUTTAL/SUMMARY OBLIGATIONS -- A SCENARIO ANALYSIS:

The second rebuttal must respond to turns -- this is not negotiable. However, responding to defense in second rebuttal is optional. First summary obviously needs to extends turns if they want to go for it, but let's dive into some scenarios about defense.

Scenario A: The second rebuttal only responds to turns and not defense. This means that the first speaking team does not need to extend defense. Extending defense in the first summary doesn't matter because I will allow the second summary to frontline. You can read new evidence/warrants on their case, but defense extensions do not matter in the first summary. If you do extend defense, they will still be allowed to respond, but you can make clarifications or make new arguments if you desire.

Scenario B: The second rebuttal responds to turns and some pieces of defense. The first summary needs to extend those pieces of defense that were contested or else if the second summary extends frontlines from second rebuttal, I will view that as conceded and final focus will not be allowed to make new responses. The first-speaking team does not need to extend or mention defense that was not touched by the second rebuttal unless they want to make new arguments/read new evidence.

Scenario C: The second rebuttal responds to everything on the flow. The first summary needs to extend their pieces of defense that they want to go for. If they do not and the second summary extends their frontlines, then that is conceded by the first-speaking team.

- All evidence read including evidence in rebuttal or summary must be sent on an email chain. To save time please start the email chain before the round. Format the subject as "Blue Key 2021-- Round # -- AFF Team Code vs NEG Team Code" please.You have 1 minute to send the doc after ending prep -- virtual debate has been around for almost 2 years. It shouldn't take any longer to save, drag the doc into the email, and hit send. Anything longer means that you are stealing prep and you will be sad when you see your speaker points at the end. I want Word documents sent, not the awful thing that exists called Google Docs. It's 2021, please learn how to use Verbatim (it's been around forever)

- Because we are virtual, please try to be more clear. I will not flow along the email-chain but based on what you say. I will only use that to view evidence quality. If you're unclear or going too fast, I won't flow that argument, but I will go back and look if you cut out or there are technical difficulties on either my end or yours.

- You may not and I repeat MAY NOT spread any paraphrased evidence -- literally the worst thing to happen to this event. If you do, everything spread will be treated as analytics.

- Running progressive arguments badly is a good way to make me cry

- I have not prepped this topic at all -- do not assume I know common literature or arguments or acronyms

- VBI theory bad article is objectively false

- Is paraphrasing bad?? Probably-- but read theory if you think it is.

- Clarity of Impact is not a weighing mechanism

-Always True: Impacts such as unemployment or poverty or econ loss are not terminal impacts. Instead, they are internal links into something tangible which then can be a terminal impact.

Speaker point incentives are all under here:

-Disclosing on NDCA PF Wiki (good disclosure) -- +0.3/person + not risking a L on disclosure theory. Tell me if you disclose because I'm not checking every round. Must be at least 30 minutes before each round.

-Winning on disclosure theory -- very good speaks if you do it well

TKO: Technical Knockout.If you at any point in the debate believe that you have won the debate without a reasonable doubt i.e. a conceded theory shell, total domination on substance, zero extension from the other team, or a double turn, you can call TKO. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team basically has no plausible routes to the ballot, I will give both speakers on the winning team aW-30 and the other team whatever they deserved. However, if I see some plausible ways for them to win that they can take (absent some hail mary whack route that they probably won't take) I will give you-1.5-3.5 pointsfrom whatever you deserved at that moment in the round. This is depending on how bad your judgement was/how close you were to being right. If you call it when getting destroyed, that's probably -3.5 points. Yes, this is somewhat subjective but really rewarding and fun and a great way to get high speaker points from me. If you call it after second FF, you're getting no higher than 26 speaks since the round is already over and you're a goon.

Generics:

- I debated PF for Strake Jesuit for 4 years, won a few bid tournaments, qualified to TFA state 3 years and ended in semi-finals my senior year. I qualified to the TOC twice and cleared senior year going 6-1 in prelims

- Please be pre-flowed before the round and flip before the round so that I don’t waste my time and it’s better for debate to know what side you’re debating before.

-Evidence must have the author’s last name (or institution if last name not available) and last 2 digits of the year i.e. “Wang 18.” If you don’t have this, then I do not consider it valid evidence under NSDA rules and debate in general.This means in rebuttal you need to cite the author’s year of publication and at least the author’s last name or institution if last name is not available.

-Evidence matters a lot to me.You don’t need evidence to make an argumentbut that argument is going to have a lot less weight especially when going against carded evidence.The “this is logical” argument doesn’t really fly with me especially on topics that are evidence heavy i.e. domestic or foreign policy. Do prep. I like rewarding teams that put hours of work into developing their case and building frontlines to every argument imaginable. I’d rather some decent warranted evidence than good, logical analytics. This means your rebuttals should be evidence-heavy and your cases should be evidence heavy as well. Frontlines should be a solid mixture of good evidence and good analytics.

-Few pieces of good evidence> lots of bad evidence. Smart analytics > blippy, garbage evidence. Decent evidence > most analytics.

TLDR for my Paradigm:

A. I am tab, meaning that I will buy any warranted argument excluding "offensive" ones like racism good.Tech > Truth. Making truth over tech arguments is a great way to show me that you're not good at debate.Yes, truth is good but I believe that debate is a game and thus functions on a technical level. However, having both tech and truth will typically win you the round. However, I probably lean a little more truth > tech on the disclosure level and evidence ethics level but you still need to win the flow since I am overall tech > truth. (Read Below)

If they email you, you can still probably read disclosure theory in front of me and I'll still be receptive to args on norm-setting. There's lots of arguments that you can make against those types of conditional planks on the counter-interp.Basically, I will still gladly buy disclosure theory even if an offer to disclose to you privately has been made before the round.

I'm a fan of the arg that teams that only selectively disclose when they're threatened with disclosure theory should be punished still. If they only disclose once or specifically to you, you can still read disclosure if you read the right interp.

If they say their coach will kick them off, you can still read it if you feel like it. There’s arguments against that argument (like a lot).

B.Conceded arguments are 100% true.There is a threshold for what counts as an argument though (see below). Make sure to implicate your argument.

C. Evidence ethics are extremely important.At the end of the round I may ask you to compile a doc of all relevant cards and send them.Learn how to use verbatim/paperless debate and make a speech doc. It's 2020 and it's not that hard.You should disclose. Read below. There are some massive speaker point incentives to disclose.Evidence ethics is also the only time I will intervene. If you make evidence up, that's a trip to tabroom. Power-tagging severely (adding countries in, butchering stats) is probably a L with low-speaks.

D.Summary needs to have all offense that you're going for.The 2nd rebuttalmustrespond to all offense on the flow i.e. turns or else it's considered conceded if the 1st summary extends it.I do not require the first summary to extend defense if the second rebuttal did not address it but the 2nd summary needs to extend summary for it to be in final focus.If the 2nd rebuttal pulls a James Chen strategy, then 1st summary needs to frontline their responses and extend defense on case.

Please refrain from going full big picture. Line-by-line in all speeches is definitely preferred.

E.Plans, CPs, DAs, other progressive styles are fine.NSDA rules for these arguments are not a valid response in itself, but you can make it a standard. Just make sure you know what you're doing and not trying to execute a progressive strategy for the first time in front of me. Theory/T is fine as well. You can run theory for strategy even if there isn't real abuse. Friv theory is great and theory education is good.

F. Arguments need a claim and warrant at the minimum. You probably should have an impact and implication somewhere, but arguments without warrants are just not arguments. Just because you have a card doesn't mean there's a warrant as well.

G. If both debaters agree, I will allow you to use whatever is left in CX as prep time or the entirety of CX as prep instead of having to ask questions.THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS GRAND CX. You can't skip that lol for obvious reasons as Grand CX would cease to exist basically.

H. Blippy extensions are 100% if the argument is conceded. If they concede an entire contention for example, you can spend 8-10 seconds on it max. If they only respond to the link or the impacts, just spend more time on that and quickly extend the conceded portions. Just make sure to do implications and weighing with the conceded args.

I. Line-by-line in every single speech and weigh along the way after each argument (I prefer that). Give implications to each argument. Turns case analysis is the best so if you're winning offense from the case, it turns x on their case. Doing that well will most likely win you the round assuming you're winning offense from case.

J.2nd Final Focus DOES NOT GET NEW WEIGHING!!Weighing is an argument and the 2nd FF does not get to make new arguments. The only exception is if it came up in first FF for the first time. If it came up in either summary, GG. You've conceded a weighing argument and you better pray that you're winning some super strong link or impact defense on that argument to where it's zero-risk.

K.If you call "clear" against your opponent and I think they're clear, you're losing a full speaker pointbecause calling "clear" really messes with your opponent's train of thought and interrupts them.

L. Please don't steal prep time i.e. prep after you stop the timer and say that you are done with prep. Doing so will make me sad and you will be sad when you see your speaks. However, to encourage good evidence norms i.e. keeping your evidence organized and being able to access the evidence quickly,I will allow teams to prep while evidence exchanges are happening.Abusing the rule though will make you sad when you see your speaks i.e. calling for 6 cards in one go when you clearly don't need to.

M. You cannot read contradictory arguments in the later half of the round. For example, if someone goes for 4 minutes of impact turns on your case, you cannot de-link yourself or non-unique it unless they also have read a de-link in which case they are stupid. Also, the same thing goes for conceding a link turn and then reading impact turns to your own case. No, just no. Don't do it.

Theory:

-I love progressive arguments andDO NOTbelieve that they are ruining this activity. If anything, I think there raising the rigor of this game. As I state below somewhere, I love theory and read them on anything. You can read it as a way to win. Just don't be a massive prick about it if you read it as a way to win against novices. If you win and be courteous about it, I will give you what you deserve but if you're a prick, I'll deduct speaks but it won't affect my decision.

-I am extremely receptive to theory. I believe that theory can be run for strategy (i.e. run friv theory if you want) and will not deduct speaker points for doing so if you do so graciously.

-I probably prefer shell format for theory since unlike policy, PF doesn't have the speech times to fully develop paragraph theory args so this usually causes a skew and leads to the actual theory debate happening in the final 20% of the round.

-Make sure you do strength of link weighing and weigh between standards and voters. Otherwise, theory just becomes a jumbled mess and if I'm not feeling like attempting to resolve the theory debate, I may just default to substance and vote there. I'll usually always try to resolve the theory debate first, but if you make args for epistemic modesty on theory/substance and theory is muddled, I'll probably just take that route to make my decision.

-If you read disclosure theory and do it well, it's going to be a good day for you when you see your speaks and the RFD.

-Don't need to extend full-interp texts, paradigm issues, or implications if they're conceded, but may be useful to talk about them in an overview to frame the round.

-I believe that theory is aquestion of competing interpretationsmeaning that in-round abuse doesn’t matter but instead is a question of what norm you are promoting. However, this is just my belief but I can be persuaded by in-round abuse, etc.

- If you go for reasonability, you need to establish and warrant a brightline. Going for reasonability is probably an uphill battle for me, but it's possible to win still and probably easier to win on certain friv shells i.e. must spec status, etc.

Defaults for T and Theory:

-Iwill notdefault that fairness and education are voters or the implication of theory. If you forget to read voters or an implication to the shell, it sucks to be you. Fairness and education are probably voters though but again I'm tab on these issues.

-Competing interps, No RVIs are my standard defaults. These are not hard defaults by any means and only apply if nobody makes a single argument. You can easily convince me of an RVI especially if theory comes out in 2nd rebuttal or 1st rebuttal but you need to make the correct arguments.For both T and theory, I am tab on these issues. Just justify your warrants.

-Also, if you forget to read an implication in the original shell, I guess it also sucks to be you. If you go against someone who forgets to read an implication or voters, just say there's no implication and you can move on. I won't let them read an implication in the next speech.

Topicality/T:

-I also really hate PFers throwing out topicality arguments without reading it as a standard shell format or policy-style. If you want to read T, please again read it as a shell format if you don't know how to read it policy-style and make sure to include a TVA.In PF I probably highly prefer shell format since there aren't as many speeches to develop the shell and blippy policy-style leads to the debate happening at the end of the round basically.You need standards/net benefits.Answer why is being non-T bad?Is there some ground, limits arg that you can make? Hell yes, there is. However, you need to prove that. Same defaults as above apply. I am more persuaded by limits>ground. Impacts to fairness and education are fine. If you read other voters, just justify them.

-Also, I am probably more lenient towards reasonability on certain T interps that are grounded in semantics.

-RVIs:

-I am completely open to this debate. I believe that you could get a RVI or that you don't get a RVI. It all depends on how the debating goes.

-For teams responding to theory in the first summary: Proving a RVI here should be incredibly easy. Think please. This means that teams reading theory in 2nd rebuttal should be sure as hell that it's necessary and that they can debate the RVI layer well.

-I default to no RVI so if you want a RVI make sure you read it.

-If you read a shell, make sure you include the RVI debate in the paradigm issues section. Otherwise, you're going to be making RVI args kind of late into the debate and depending on how late they come up for the first time, it might be too late so it's better to be safe than sorry.

K's:

-I am not really well-read in critical literature so please refrain from running extremely complex Kritiks in front of me. Also, please actually understand your kritiks instead of pulling them from a random backfile that you found on the internet.

-I understand the basic stuff (security, colonialism, Foucault, cap, de-dev etc.). If you read a K, I high prefer a link specific to the AC. I don't want K's critiquing the resolution in general that you can read every single round. Those debates are stale and boring.

-K AFFs are also cool by me but they need to do something. Otherwise, I'm just gonna vote neg on presumption and I think we can all finish the round early. I wrote multiple K-AFFs throughout my career but just usually never broke them. If you want to read a K AFF in front of me, that's cool.

-K's that I Love: Cap and De-Dev. If you can run either one of these well and win, your speaks are gonna be good. Cap is probably good in real-life, but this is debate and I read cap occasionally and cut a bunch of cards for cap Ks so I understand both Cap and De-Dev pretty well. For De-Dev make sure you have a uniqueness/brink card.

Default Layering:

Theory>Substance (duh)

T>Theory>K's. You need to do a lot of work to convince me that the ROB outweighs theory.

Daniel Wang Strake Jesuit College Preparatory

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:20 AM CDT

Strake Jesuit '18, University of Texas at Austin '22

Creator of the PF wiki

Conflicts: Strake Jesuit, Plano West

Contact: Facebook message me or email me with any questions about my paradigm/the round.

Email:dwang18@mail.strakejesuit.org

***Just my personal thought: "flow/tech" judges that refuse to vote on theory (esp disclosure) are worse than lay judges. ***

***Disclosure bad is the worst argument I've ever heard but if you win cause your opponents can't debate I guess I'll buy it***

Disclosure is also a true argument but tech > truth.

-Interp texts must be sent -- this includes CIs as well and is NOT negotiable

SECOND REBUTTAL/SUMMARY OBLIGATIONS -- A SCENARIO ANALYSIS:

- You may not and I repeat MAY NOT spread any paraphrased evidence -- literally the worst thing to happen to this event. If you do, everything spread will be treated as analytics.

- Running progressive arguments badly is a good way to make me cry

- I have not prepped this topic at all -- do not assume I know common literature or arguments or acronyms

- VBI theory bad article is objectively false

- Is paraphrasing bad?? Probably-- but read theory if you think it is.

- Clarity of Impact is not a weighing mechanism

-Always True: Impacts such as unemployment or poverty or econ loss are not terminal impacts. Instead, they are internal links into something tangible which then can be a terminal impact.

Speaker point incentives are all under here:

-Winning on disclosure theory -- very good speaks if you do it well

Generics:

- Please be pre-flowed before the round and flip before the round so that I don’t waste my time and it’s better for debate to know what side you’re debating before.

-Few pieces of good evidence> lots of bad evidence. Smart analytics > blippy, garbage evidence. Decent evidence > most analytics.

TLDR for my Paradigm:

If they say their coach will kick them off, you can still read it if you feel like it. There’s arguments against that argument (like a lot).

B.Conceded arguments are 100% true.There is a threshold for what counts as an argument though (see below). Make sure to implicate your argument.

D.Summary needs to have all offense that you're going for.The 2nd rebuttalmustrespond to all offense on the flow i.e. turns or else it's considered conceded if the 1st summary extends it.I do not require the first summary to extend defense if the second rebuttal did not address it but the 2nd summary needs to extend summary for it to be in final focus.If the 2nd rebuttal pulls a James Chen strategy, then 1st summary needs to frontline their responses and extend defense on case.

Please refrain from going full big picture. Line-by-line in all speeches is definitely preferred.

Theory:

-I am extremely receptive to theory. I believe that theory can be run for strategy (i.e. run friv theory if you want) and will not deduct speaker points for doing so if you do so graciously.

-If you read disclosure theory and do it well, it's going to be a good day for you when you see your speaks and the RFD.

-Don't need to extend full-interp texts, paradigm issues, or implications if they're conceded, but may be useful to talk about them in an overview to frame the round.

Defaults for T and Theory:

Topicality/T:

-Also, I am probably more lenient towards reasonability on certain T interps that are grounded in semantics.

-RVIs:

-I am completely open to this debate. I believe that you could get a RVI or that you don't get a RVI. It all depends on how the debating goes.

-I default to no RVI so if you want a RVI make sure you read it.

K's:

Default Layering:

Theory>Substance (duh)

T>Theory>K's. You need to do a lot of work to convince me that the ROB outweighs theory.

Jonathan Wei Hire 8 rounds

Tess Welch KAPS High School

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 2:45 AM CDT

Last Edited for 2022 NSDA

**Speech Background**

I did speech in high school at local tournaments and competed nationally in college. I made it to finals in Impromptu 2x and Extemporaneous Speaking 1x. I also competed in After Dinner Speaking, Prose Interpretation, Persuasive Speaking, Rhetorical Criticism, and Informative Speaking.

CONGRESS

I care about arguments and refutation. Your delivery should have varied tonalities and emphasis. Intros do not make your point about the legislation any stronger. SIGNPOST, tell me the tags of your args before you do it, or tell me to expect refutation. I care about quality evidence that strengthens your points, do not claim causality when your evidence does not either.

If you're a PO, I expect you to run a tight ship.

**DEBATE (LD/PF/Policy)**

bammytess8@gmail.com Put me on the email chain or on the speech drop!

My paradigm used to be long and extra, I've lost a lot of these opinions.

Background: I did LD at Cy-Fair High School in Houston, TX for 4 years (2014-2018). I did TFA 4x, TOC x2, UIL x2, and broke at every bid tournament attended except 1. I got 5 career bids and 3 bid rounds. I graduated from Western Kentucky University in 2022 as the National Forensics Association Runner Up and Second Speaker.

I don't think any judge is truly tabula rasa, but I do my best to not push a certain form of debate. I'm comfortable with LARP, T/theory, framework, and some K debate. Don't be a jerk or offensive. Make sure you pause in between arguments or signal transitions. Signpost and extend your arguments. Frame theory for me.

I'm not the best flower. Analytics need to be slower and have pauses in between them and flashing them would do me good if you don't want to slow down on them.

//Trigger Warnings\\

If you are reading something of a sensitive nature, please give a trigger warning to the room. I have triggers and you don't know if your opponent/ any audience member does too. A trigger warning should be delivered as “I’m reading arguments about X, is everyone okay/comfortable with that?” If someone is not comfortable with arguments of that nature, you must read something else.

//Don't Be Offensive\\

Please do not say things offensive – racism good won’t persuade me, and if you get called out for saying something morally reprehensible, you’re likely to lose. I reserve the right to give the lowest speaks tab will let me and drop debaters for this.

//Theory\\

I like it. If you don't like it, explain why your arguments come first. If you are collapsing to it, I want an overview of what you think is necessary for me to vote for you. EX "Competing interps is conceded which means all I need is to win a risk of offense on the shell and you negate." If not contested, I default competing interps, drop the debater, semantics before pragmatics, and fairness and education are voters.

I like innovative arguments as well - I often read theory shells in the bottom of my affs and I need an extension of the interp, a standard, and voter to vote on something conceded.

I think disclosure is good and I think people should disclose first and last three words of positions read, except those that involve personal narratives. Debates that are about disclosure practices that go above and beyond first and last three are fine but are not as egregious.

//Tricks\\

I don't mind tricks debates. But I'm not the best flower which means I need you to slow down through heavy tricks analytics.

//K’s\\

K's are fun, but using buzzwords with no explanation means you aren't saying anything. Please read arguments you understand and can explain. I place the burden on you to explain what your literature talks about.

I like non-T K affs but most don't have a good defense against framework.

//Framework\\

I love framework, but I don't assume I know what you're talking about. Explain each step and what the syllogism means.

*If you are reading an analytic framework, PLEASE number the steps and subpoints, rather than blocks of text. I have difficulty flowing a block of text.*

**You should also have verbal separations from the steps and subpoints**

//SPEAKS\\

Please say "and" or "next" or do something whenever ending a card and starting a new tag.

I will say clear, slow, or loud as many times as needed at no punishment to the debater as long as there is a change in clarity, pace, and volume.

I base speaks off of arguments and strategy and view the round as a way for you to prove to me how you should do. The below list is how I approach speaks and they're adjusted for the type of tournament and competition.

30 - should be able to beat all of the competitors

29.5 - should be able to beat most of the competitors and be in late elims

29 - should be able to get a positive record and break

28.5 - likely to get a positive record and high speaks

28 - should have a close or even record

27.5 - showed improvement is necessary, struggled to make strategic decisions likely to win a couple of rounds

27 - showed a lack of understanding of concepts or made very poor strategic decisions.

anything below that means something egregious happened - ie 6 shells in the 1ar and trying to go for all of them in the 2ar or being racist, sexist, ableist....

Kris Wright Hire 8 rounds

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

Table of contents:

1. My Background

2. Paradigm Overview

3. LD specifics

4. Policy specifics

5. World School specifics

6. Public Forum specifics

- My Background -

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

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

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

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

- Paradigm overview -

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

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

- LD -

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

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

- Policy -

When judging Policy debate, here are my defaults:

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

- World School -

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

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

- Public Forum -

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

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

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

ALexander Yoakum Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 25, 2024 at 2:22 PM CDT

Email: xanderyoaks@gmail.com

Experience: I have taught at NSD, VBI, TDC. I've been coaching since I graduated in 2015 and I am the former director of debate at the Woodlands High School. My main experience is in LD, but I competed in/coached in NSDA nationals WSD (lonestar district), judge policy and PF somewhat irregularly at locals and TFA State. Across events, the way I understand how things work in LD applies. (WSD Paradigm at end)

Update for series online:

1. I have not judged any circuit-y debate since Grapevine, go slightly slower especially since it is over zoom. I do not like relying on speech docs to catch your arguments, but this is somewhat inevitable in zoom land. If you do go off doc or skip around you need to tell me.

2. Do whatever your heart desires. The paradigm below is merely an explanation of how I resolve debates, not a judgment on what kind of debate you like/have fun with. You can read pretty much whatever you want in front of me (with caveats mentioned below).

LD Paradigm (sorry this is long)

TL;DR: Use TWs, do not be rude, I am truly agnostic about what kind of debate happens in front of me. If you do not want to read through my whole paradigm check pref shortcuts and "things that will get your speaks tanked/I won't vote on."

Pref Shortcuts:

Phil: 1

K: 1-2 (more comfortable with identity Ks like queer theory, critical race theory, etc. I know some post-structuralist like Derrida, some Deleuze, Butler, Foucault, Anthro). Give me a 3 if you read Baudrillard unless you're good at explaining it

A bunch of theory: 2. I have been judging a lot of this lately, so do what you will. More specific theory stuff below.

Tricks: 2-3 I like good tricks but please have the spikes clearly delineated. There have been a couple rounds recently where I started to believe negating was in fact harder due to the affs that were being read. This kind of debate makes my head explode sometimes so collapsing in this form of debate is essential to me.

Policy/LARP: 3 (I guess?) I understand all of the technical stuff when it comes to this style, but I am not the judge for you if you're hoping that I would give you the leg up against things like phil or Ks. I vote on extinction outweighs a lot though (just bc I think LD has made a larger ideological shift towards policy args)

The trick to win my ballot regardless of the style/content: Crystallize!!!! Weigh!!!! Your 2nr/2ar should practically write my ballot.

I know that all of these have me in the 1-3 range, just consider me 'debate style agnostic'

Kritiks:
I am familiar with most kinds of K lit, but do not use that as a crutch in close rounds. Underdeveloped K extensions suck equally as much as blippy theory extensions. Here are some other things I care about:
1. Make sure the K links back to some framing mechanism, whether it is a normative framework or a role of the ballot. You can't win me over on the K debate if you don't clearly impact it back to a framing mechanism. The text of the role of the ballot/role of the judge must be clearly delineated.
2. Point out specific areas on the flow where your opponent links. I'm not going to do the work for you. Contextualize those links!
3. If the round devolves into a huge K debate, you must weigh. Sifting through confusing K debates where there isn't any weighing is almost as bad as a terrible theory debate.

Overview extensions are fine, people forget to interact them with the line by line which makes me sad. If there are unclear implications to specific line by line arguments I tend to err against you

Non-black people should not read afro pess in front of me. You will not get higher than a 27.5 from me if you read it, I am very convinced by arguments saying that you should lose the round for it.

"Non-T" Affs

I vote on these relatively consistently, the only issue that I have seen is an explanation of why the aff needs the ballot -- I rarely vote on presumption arguments (e.g. "the aff does nothing so negate!") but that is usually because the negative makes the worst possible version of these arguments

I am just as likely to vote on Framework as I am a K aff -- to win this debate, I need a decent counter-interp, some weighing, and/or impact turns. Recently, I have seen K Affs forget to defend a robust counter-interp and weigh it which ends up losing them the round. Maybe I have just become too "tech-y" on T/Theory debates

Also, generally, a lot of ppl against Ks have just straight up not responded to their thesis claims -- that is a very quick way to lose in front of me -- I sort of evaluate these thesis claims similar to normative frameworks (e.g. if they win them, it tends to exclude a lot of your offense)

Phil
This is the type of debate I did way back when, so I am probably most comfortable evaluating these kinds of debates (but I only get to rarely). I studied philosophy so I probably know whats happening

Make all FW arguments comparative

Unless otherwise articulated, I probs default truth testing over comparative worlds when it comes to substantive debates

Phil debaters: stop conceding extinction outweighs. It is my least favorite framework argument and it makes me sad every time I vote on it

Theory

If you are reading theory against a K aff/K's then you need to weigh why procedurals come first and vice versa. If the K does not indict models of debate/form then I presume that procedurals come first (e.g. if the neg just reads a cap k about how the plan perpetuates capitalism, then I presume that theory arguments come first if there is no weighing at all)

You should justify paradigm issues, but I default competing interps and no RVIs. Reasonability arguments need a specific/justified brightline or at least a good enough reason to 'gut check' the shell. I think people go for reasonability too little against shells with marginal abuse

I tend not to vote on silly semantic I meets unless you impact them well (e.g. text>spirit) my implicit assumption is that an I meet needs to at least resolve some of the offense of the shell. So, if the I meet does not seem to resolve the abuse, then I likely will not vote on it absent weighing

aff/neg flex standards: need to be specific e.g. you cant just say "negating is harder for xyz therefore let me do this thing" rather, you should explain how aff/neg is harder and then granting you access to that practice helps check back against a structural disadvantage in some specific way

If there are multiple shells, I NEED weighing when you collapse in the 2nr/2ar otherwise the round will be irresolvable and I will be sad

Really, just weighing generally.

Shells I consider frivolous and won't vote on: meme shells, shoe theory, etc

Shells I consider frivolous and will vote on: spec status (and various other spec shells beyond specifying a plan text/implementation), counter solvency advocate, role of the ballot spec (please do not call it 'colt peacemaker')

Combo shells are good but please be sure that your standards support all planks of the interp

Tricky Hobbits
Alright, so you roll up into the room and you got this really tricked out case with 100 different a prioris, so many theory spikes that they are literally jumping off the page to fight for fairness, and the classic incontestable descriptive offense, and you are ready to win. I just have a couple of requests:
1. I want the spikes clearly delineated. None of that hidden theory spikes between substantive offense bs. I won't catch it, your opponent won't catch it, so it probably doesn't exist (like absolute moral truths).
2. Slow down a little for theory spikes. I was and continue to be terrible at flowing, so help me out a little by starting out slower in the underview section.

Sometimes these debates make my brain explode a little bit, so crystallization is key -- obvi it is hard to be super pathosy on 'evaluate the debate after the 1ac' but overviews and ballot instruction is key here

Also, I likely will never vote on evaluate the debate after "x" speech that is not the 2ar. So if that is a core part of your strategy I suggest trying to win a different spike. I probably voted on this once at the NSD camp tournament, which was funny, but not an argument I like voting on. Similarly, I will evaluate the theory debate after the 2ar; you can argue for no 1ar theory or no 2nr paradigm issues however.

Against Ks, I will likely not vote on tricks that justify something abhorrent. I think 'induction fails takes out the K' is also a silly argument (again, I voted on it like once but I just think its a terrible argument)

Policy style

Unsure why I have to say this but DAs are not an advocacy and if I hear the phrase "perm the disad" you immediately drop down to a 28. If you extend "perm the disad" then you will drop to a 27. I'm not kidding.

Perms need a text, explanation of how the advocacies are combined, and how it is net beneficial (or just not mutually exclusive)

I do not really have any theoretical assumptions for policy style arguments, I can be convinced either way re:condo and specific CP theory (PICs, consult, etc)

Extinction outweighs: least favorite argument, usually the most strategic argument to collapse to against phil and K debaters

Unsure what else to say here, do what you want

Speaks
Speaker points are relatively arbitrary anyways, but I tend to give higher speaks to people who make good strategic decisions, who I think should make it to out rounds, who keep me engaged (good humor is a plus) and who aren't mean to other debaters (esp novices/less experienced debaters). Nowadays, I tend to start you off at a 28 and move you up or down based on your performance. The thing I value most highly when giving speaks is overall strategy and arg gen. If I think you win in a clever way or you debate in a way that makes it seem that you read my paradigm before round, then the higher speaks you will get. I think I have only given out perfect 30s a handful of times. At local tournaments, my standards for speaks are a lot lower given that the technical skill involved is usually lower.

Things I like (generally) that ensure better speaks: overviews that clear up messy debates and/or outline the strat in the 1ar/2nr/2ar, effective collapsing, making the debate easy to evaluate (about 7 times out of 10, if I take a long time to make a decision it is due to a really messy round which means you should fear for your speaks; the other 3/10 times it is because it is a close round).

If you are hitting a novice, please don't read like 5 off and make the round less of a learning experience and more of a public beat down. It just is not necessary. I will give you higher speaks if you make the round somewhat more accessible (ie going slower, reading positions that they can attempt to engage in, etc).

Things that will get your speaks tanked and that I will not vote on:

1. Shoe theory, or anything of the like. I won't vote on it, instant 25.

2. Being rude to novices, trying to outspread them and making it a public beatdown. Probs a 27 or under depending on the strength of the violation. What this means is that you should make the round accessible to novices; do not read some really really dense K (unless you are good at explaining it to a novice so that they can at least make some responses), nor should you read several theory shells and sketchy/abusive arguments to win the ballot. Not making the round accessible is a rip, and I think it is important for tournaments to be used as a learning experience, especially if it is one of their first tournaments in VLD.

3. If you are making people physically uncomfortable in the space, and depending on the strength of the violation, you can expect your speaks to be 26 or lower. If you are saying explicitly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc things then probs an auto-loss 25.

4. Consistently misgendering people. L 25

5. I will not vote on the generic Nietzsche "suffering good" K anymore, I just think that it is a terrible argument and people need to stop going to bad policy back files, listen to some Kelly Clarkson if you want that type of education. L 25

WSD Paradigm

Style: To score high in this category, I not only consider how one speaks but the way arguments are presented and characterized. To some extent, I do think WS is a bit more 'performative' than other debate events and is much more conversational. As such, I think being a bit creative in the way you present arguments wins you some extra points here. This is not to say that your speech should be all flowery and substanceless; style is a supplement to content and not a replacement. Good organization of speeches also helps you score higher (e.g clash points, the speech has a certain flow to it, etc).

Content: The way I evaluate other forms of debate sort of applies here. The main thing I care about is 1. Have you provided an adequate explanation of causes/incentives/links etc? 2. Have you clearly linked this analysis to some kind of impact and explained why I care comparatively more about your impacts relative to your opponents? Most of the time, teams that lose lack one of these characteristics of arguments. The best second speeches add a new sub that puts a somewhat unique spin on the topic - get creative.

Models v. Counter-Models: The prop has the right to specify a reasonable interpretation of a motion to both narrow the debate and make more concrete what the prop defends on more practical/policy oriented motions. To some extent, I think it is almost necessary on these kinds of motions because while focusing on 'big ideas' is good, talking about them in a vacuum is not. Likewise, the opp can specify a reasonable counter-model in response/independent of the prop. I try my best not to view these debates in an LD/Policy way, but if it is unclear to me what the unique net benefit of your model is (and how the counter-model is mutually exclusive), then you are likely behind. On value based motions, I think models are relatively silly in the sense that these motions are not about practical actions, but principles. On regrets/narrative motions, I need a clear illustration of the world of the prop and opp (a counter-factual should be presented e.g. in a world without this narrative/idea, what would society have looked like instead?).

Strategy: Most important thing to me in terms of strategy is collapsing/crystallizing and argument coverage. Like other formats of debate, the side that gives me the most clear and concise ballot story is the one that will win. The less I have to think, the better. Obviously, line by lining every single argument is not practical nor necessary; however, if you are going to concede something, I need to know why it should not factor in my decision as soon as possible. Do not pretend an argument just doesn't exist. I also do not evaluate new arguments in the 3rd speeches and reply. For the 3rd speech, you can offer new examples to build on the analysis of the earlier speech, which I will not consider new.

Also, creative burden structures that help narrow the debate in your favor is something I would categorize as strategic. The best burdens lower your win conditions and subsequently increase the burden on the opposing side. Obviously, needs to be somewhat within reason or a common interp of the motion but I think this area of framing debates is under-utilized.

(sorry if the above is somewhat lengthy, I figured that I should write a more comprehensive paradigm given that I am judging WS more often now)

Jessica Zhang The Academy of Science and Technology

Last changed on Mon August 20, 2018 at 4:11 PM EDT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Login to Tabroom

Strake Jesuit Tournament

2018 — Houston, TX/US

VLD Judges Paradigm List

Judges