I debated for 4 years at Jesuit Dallas. I was the 2N/1A my first two years and the 2A/1N my second two years.

Add me to the email chain: rilerhdebate@gmail.com

General:

Be nice, don't steal prep, clip, etc.

Well warranted extensions of qualified, warranted evidence = best way to win debates, no matter the argument.

Topic specific > generic.

CP:

Do the basics: get competition (I feel I could be persuaded that textual, functional, or both is the best standard), have a net benefit that links to the aff, explain how it solves the aff and/or mitigates the impact to the solvency deficit, etc.

If you do not have a net benefit that is a disad to the aff, smart permutations that prove the net benefit isn't an opportunity cost to the aff will be easier to vote on.

DA:

Read them, have specific link analysis to the aff, make turns case arguments.

Simple aff analytics like can significantly mitigate the disad - don't forget about them (either side).

I do think there can be zero risk of a disad.

T:

Probably 50% of my 1NRs my last year were going for T. If you do it well, I'll be happy.

Have a caselist, maybe a TVA (especially if their offense is "education about our aff area is important"), and compare what the topic looks like under the aff's interp to what the topic looks like under your interp.

The more arbitrary the T violation, the more persuasive reasonability is.

K:

Be sure to explain clearly an alt or a framework (or both). I can't stress this enough. Either demonstrate how the alt solves the links and all or part of the aff, or explain why the aff doesn't matter. The more clear your interp on framework, the easier it will be to distance from the aff's disads. If you are unclear about your interp, I will probably assume that it is "you don't get to weigh the aff;" you don't want that to happen. That means you should tell me how the aff wins the debate and how you win the debate, what I should consider as a link, etc.

Specific links to the aff are better than generic ones. I'll be particularly impressed if you can incorporate lines from their evidence or their explanation of the aff into the link.

Please, please, please, don't have a 4 minute overview then make cross applications all down the line by line. Please don't break my flow.

Justin Burns - Senior at Jesuit College Prep

Email: jesuitbj@gmail.com

Top Level

- I'm willing to vote for pretty much any argument you make, as long as you do the better debating on it.

- Do line by line. This requires you to flow and is made easier by numbering arguments in the 1NC/2AC

- I flow on paper, so it's probably beneficial to slow down on theory and other analytical args, especially online.

- I'll probably read the important ev after the round, so it's better to have a couple high quality pieces than a bunch that are barely coherent

- Overviews should be used to tell me how to evaluate the debate and write my ballot. That means they should not be half your speech; if they are, I'm going to try to put it on the line by line, which means I might miss something.

T/FW

- I default to competing interps. I can't really think of a debate where reasonability has mattered, except when the neg dropped it. Just win that your model of debate is better

- Predictable limits are key. Compare the limits you set vs the limits they set; the best and easiest way to do this is probably a case list. Then you need to describe why those limits are good.

- Clash and topic education are probably the best impacts to go for. Everything else is mostly just an internal link to those, but I can definitely be convinced to vote on procedural fairness if you do enough work.

Theory

- I'm pretty neutral on most theory

- The more specific the theory the better. For example, "multiple conditional PICs without a solvency advocate" is better than just condo or just PICs bad.

- Making individual planks conditional is almost always a bad idea

- Even if you don't think your winning it's a reason to reject the team, theory could still be useful. Rejecting a CP probably helps you against a DA. And theory about contradictory worlds is underutilized to prove things like perm vs the k.

- New affs are good

- "Reject the arg, not the team" doesn't make much sense to me if the theory is condo.

- Putting some-spec at the bottom of T without it being in the doc means I'll probably be lenient for the aff.

- If it's completely dropped, I'll probably vote on it

K

- I'll probably be able to understand most Ks, but you should be able to and should explain it without the buzzwords (especially high theory ks). If you're using jargon for jargon's sake, I'm not going to put much in much effort to understand it. This is especially true if you do it during cross-x.

- FW is often misused and really just becomes a wash. Affs probably get to weigh their impacts. It's probably better to use FW to either explain why the aff can't access their impacts or why the K's impacts come first.

- Contextualize links to the aff and directly explain how they worsen whatever you are critiquing. You should also have a diversity of links (to their method, advs, reps, etc.)

- Extend an external impact, so that you can actually outweigh.

- Have a consistent explanation for the alt and how it resolves the links (and the case if that's an argument you can make).

- I'm neutral on whether there are perms in a method debate

DA

- 0% risk is a thing

- They need to be unique

- Similar to Ks, contextualize links to the aff and try to have a diversity of them

- Politics is a thing if you have recent ev

CP

- Have a solvency advocate for everything in the CP text

- Have a net benefit that's actually an opportunity cost to the aff; this means it should be a DA to the aff, not an adv to the CP. Otherwise, it's usually pretty easy to vote on the perm.

- Sufficiency framing is usually sufficient

- Process CPs are less good than specific counterplans. Especially when the process is contrived and you probably don't have a solvency advocate for all or any of it; in that instance I'd be pretty convinced by theory to at least reject the arg.

- I can be convinced to judge kick, but I don't default to it and if the aff says it's bad because it makes them debate 2 2nr's I'm likely to agree.

K affs

- They're fine, but should have some relation to the topic (which is not hard, when the topic is CJR). If they don't then I'll probably be very convinced by T - CJR.

- If you shift what you advocate for throughout the debate, I'm going to be a lot more sympathetic for the neg

- If you are focusing on the debate space, you either need a good solvency advocate for focus on academic spaces or you need a really good defense of why the ballot matters.

debater at the School for the Talented and Gifted

yes, put me on the chain: francesca.gilbard@tagmagnet.org

Ks: i typically reads Ks, so I'm familiar with a good piece of the literature. i do think the link story matters; and links should be as specific as possible. That doesn't mean I won't vote on your generic link, but I have a higher threshold; so you'll need to do some analysis that contextualizes the link in the world of the aff. i also don't think the alt should/must solve for the impacts of the k. so, if your just offering the alt as an alternative pathway for me to vote on, then that's fine, but please vocalize that.

DAs: i think DAs are great. please read a complete shell with all four parts of the DA though (UQ, L, I/L, !). it is very difficult to evaluate a DA that has a missing component. however, i don't like to fill in the flow for you, so i expect your opponents to call you out on any missing component in order for me to evaluate it. impact calc is really important for me here.

T: topicality is very viable. please note that a counter-interp and impact defense are critical as aff. if you want to go for T in the 2NR, please don't spend less that a minute talking about it. reasonability is vague, please contextualize the round and explain how their impacts haven't been triggered. minimizing the violation args are also great. case lists are very important too.

CPs: i don't think i've ever gone for the cp, but that doesn't mean i won't vote on it. please just have a net ben, a good perm defense. i love a good theory debate on the cp flow; but please don't just read your generic theory blocks from a camp theory file. specificity is key.

aff tingz: ultimately, i think the aff should convince me that the world of the plan is inherently better than that of the status quo. the 2AC needs to be sharp with answering all case args in an effective manner, as well as the off case. please don't undercover/ drop args in the 2ac/1ar; it makes me very sad. don't underestimate the power of the 2ar.

neg tingz: ultimately, i think the neg should disprove the desirability of the plan. when it comes to the off case, quality over quantity, all day every day. i really don't want to listen to a 1nc that has 8 off that are super generic, not plan-specific, and aren't really good args. link specificity is really important to me. a succesful neg block should be able to overwhelm the 1ar. splitting the block is essential.

isaiah1415@gmail.com

I did policy debate at Townview Law Magnet & UTD. Minor experience in LD & World Schools. Currently work with the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.

Make the debate what you want it to be. I like creativity, think outside of the box, take risks, warrant everything.

Im not partial to anything, nor do I not like to see any particular arguments.

I will be listening to you, not reading your docs.

Feel free to ask me any specific questions.

I tend to try and have a form of tabula rasa, removing my bias.

Jack Griffiths

Assistant Coach and Alumni Service Corps at Jesuit Dallas

jack9riff at gmail dot com

Updated Before TFA State

About Me:
- Debated at Jesuit from 2015-2019 (2A)
- Have experience with all sorts of arguments, from mostly big-stick arguments my first few years to mostly K-oriented strategies my senior year
- Judged, coached, and cut cards part-time for Jesuit during the pandemic years
- Have been serving as assistant coach during my ASC year at Jesuit (2023-2024) and judging at local, regional, and national tournaments (about 40 rounds total so far this year)

**I have made some updates throughout the paradigm to give a better sense of how I have decided these different kinds of debates during this season.

I believe that my responsibility as a judge is to adapt to the debaters' arguments rather than the other way around. There are arguments I'm more familiar with than others, but as long as your explanations are well-warranted and digestible, you should feel free running what you want to run (with the exception of arguments that are discriminatory or advocate for self-harm).

For me, doing proper clash and line-by-line is absolutely essential. Debates become the most enjoyable when they feature lots of organized back-and-forth and detailed comparisons between arguments. The most crucial elements of line by line include keeping an accurate flow, proper signposting (“2AC 1—they say x, we say y”), and using your own voice to initiate comparisons (rather than simply reading walls of cards). To elaborate more on that last item, I find myself more persuaded by debaters who acknowledge the areas where they’re behind and explain why they still win (i.e. “even if they win x, we still win because y”) than by debaters who assert that they’re winning on absolutely every level (which is almost never true).

Note: to incentivize clash, if you show me your flows after the debate, and I believe that your flows truly served as the basis of your argumentation during your speeches, I will give you +0.2 speaker points.

Because of everything stated above, I find myself disappointed by debates in which teams either don’t directly clash or in which teams intentionally avoid the need to clash by throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. This isn’t to say that you can’t initiate a high volume of arguments in front of me, but if it comes at the expense of direct engagement with the other team’s arguments, I’m less likely to enjoy the round.

Things that increase speaker points: active flowing, direct clashing, strategic use of CX, effective use of framing moments in the final rebuttals

Things that limit speaker points: not flowing (and struggling to do effective line-by-line as a result), being overly aggressive/snarky, over-reliance on tag-team CX

Theory

Although I've generally unlikely to reject the team, I have pulled the trigger in the past. More often, theory is best used to give yourself more leeway when answering a sketchy argument. Conditionality is generally good but can become less good with multiple conditional contradictory worlds, an absence of solvency advocates, an abundance of conditional CP planks, etc. SPEC arguments are usually uncompelling to me. News affs are good—I wouldn’t burn 10 seconds in the 1NC by reading your shell.

Be sure to slow down a bit when reading all your compressed analytics. Finding in-round examples of abuse isn't intrinsically necessary but does help you out quite a bit.

Topicality

Topic-specific thoughts: While many debaters have asserted that tax-and-transfer is intrinsically the core of the topic, I'm not quite as convinced, as it often seems like affs with taxes sideline discussions of the 3 areas in favor of whole advantages predicated off of whatever taxes they choose to defend. I also am likely to be more skeptical of tax-and-transfer affs that don't have a solvency advocate that advocates for both the tax AND the transfer as a complete package. I can definitely still vote for such affs, but I’m open to listen to teams that can speak to the trends I've been witnessing, and teams that are in favor of tax-and-transfer as their view of the topic should have a more warranted explanation for why that view is good.

General thoughts:When deciding these rounds, I first decide whether to evaluate the debate through competing interpretations or reasonability (based on which framework I have been persuaded is best based on the debating) before looking deeper into the flow. I default to competing interpretations if not given an alternative (which generally means I end up deciding the debate based on the comparative risks of the two team's standards). I personally find reasonability at its most compelling/least arbitrary when contextualized to a counter-interpretation (i.e. as long as our counter-interpretation is reasonable enough, you should vote affirmative) rather than when presented in an aff-specific way (i.e. we’re a camp aff so we’re topical). If after the debate I decide to evaluate the round through the lens of reasonability, that usually means I should vote aff unless their interp is evidently bad for debate.

I think debaters tend to spend too much time reading cards in these debates that could instead be spent on giving concrete examples for their standards to help me visualize the limits explosion, loss in ground, etc. Teams also should be doing a better job at explaining the terminal impact to these standards (i.e. what does "precision" actually mean and how much does it matter?). Not articulating your impacts will force me to intervene more than I'm usually comfortable with.

K Aff vs T/Framework

I’ve judged a few of these, and my decisions in them have generally come down to which side gives me a better sense of what their model of debate produces relative to the other team’s. Negative teams are most compelling when they articulate how iterative debates with a resolutional focus produce research skills, engagement through clashing perspectives, and topic-specific knowledge. Affirmative teams are persuasive when they successfully point out limitations of the negative’s model of debate and/or when they argue that the values the negative espouses will be used for detrimental ends absent the affirmative’s method. “Procedural fairness” could be an impact but most teams that have centralized their strategy around it have sounded too tautological to me, so if going for it is your preference then make sure to articulate why fairness is important beyond just saying “debate is a game so fairness must be important.” A K Aff should still have some connection to the resolution/topic area as well as a clearly-signposted advocacy statement. Affirmatives also need to have robust answers to TVAs and switch side debate.

K vs. K

Although I’ve never judged this form of debate, I had a few rounds like these as a debater from the negative side. I think it’s an open discussion whether the affirmative should be able to have a permutation in these debates—the more vague the affirmative’s method is, the more likely I am to defer negative.

Policy Aff vs K

I have three asks for affirmative teams. First, leverage the 1AC, whether in the form of “case outweighs” argument, a disad to the alt, or as an example of why whatever thing the negative criticizes can be good. Second, choose a strategy that synergizes well with the type of affirmative you’re reading. If your 1AC is 8 minutes of heg good, impact turn. If you’re a soft-left aff, link turn by explaining how the solvency of the aff can challenge structures of oppression. Third, prioritize offensive arguments. I’ve seen too many debates where the 2AR spends almost all their time going for the “perm double bind” and overly defensive strategies. Instead, center the debate about why your method is good and makes things better and why the alternative makes things worse.

Negatives should be able to explain their kritiks without heavily reliance on jargon, especially when reading high theory (given my relative unfamiliarity with it). I like it when negatives present detailed link narratives that are specific to the aff, explain how the alternative addresses the proximate causes of the affirmative impacts, and leverage on-case arguments to supplement the kritiks. I like it less when negatives rely on “tricks” (e.g. framework landmines, ontology without impacting it out) or enthymemes (i.e. establishing only part of an argument/dropping a buzzword while expecting me to fill in the blanks for you simply because prevalent K teams make the same argument).

A note on framework: I am personally uncomfortable voting on overly-exclusionary framework interpretations (e.g. "no Ks allowed" or "aff doesn't get to weigh the plan) unless one team is dropping the ball, and so I'm more compelled by nuanced interpretations that leave some room for the other side (e.g. "the aff can weigh their plan but we should still be able to problematize their assumptions"). For similar reasons, I'm not the biggest fan of pure fiat Ks (but if you win them then you do you, I suppose).

Counterplan Debates

I've progressively grown more and more frustrated by the proliferation of random, old process CPs that steal the aff this year. Not to say you can't read them, but I'll be more sympathetic to smart aff permutation arguments, and you should make sure your theory defenses are sufficient.

Counterplans should have solvency advocates—and if you manage to find a hyper-specific solvency advocate related to the aff, that can make me more open to counterplans that I might otherwise deem sketchy (process, conditions, etc.). Topic/aff-specific PICs are valuable because they reward targeted research, but word/language-related PICs are likely less legitimate unless you have a very compelling reason why they make sense in a given debate. I’m ambivalent about multiplank counterplans, but if you claim planks are independently conditional and/or you lack a unified solvency advocate for all the planks, I’m more likely to side with the aff. I won’t judge kick unless you tell me in the 2NR.

Disadvantage Debates

Disad debates are fun as long as they’re presented with qualified evidence that can reduce the need for too much “spin.” Controlling uniqueness is important. Turns case is most valuable when contextualized specifically to the aff scenarios and when it isn’t reliant on the negative winning full risk of their terminal impact. Risk can be reduced to zero with smart defensive arguments and if the quality of the disad is just that bad, but generally you’ll be in a better spot if you find a source of offense (which can be even something as simple as “case outweighs”).

Case

Although case answers are (sadly) generally underutilized by the negative, they have influenced quite a few of my recent decisions, so negative teams should feel compelled to make case debating a more crucial part of their strategy in front of me. Internal link and solvency takeouts (both evidenced and analytical) are much more persuasive to me than reading generic impact defense.

Email: adam8.thall@gmail.com

Debated for 4 years at Dallas Jesuit.

Short List

Being smart x--------- Being unsmart

Longer Evidence with warrants ---x---------- More Evidence without warrants

Tech --x------- Truth

Line-by-line -x--------- Overviews

Specificity ---x-------- Generics

Read Cards -x----------- Don't Read Cards

Condo can be good or bad

0% Risk is possible

I'm okay with "inserting stuff into the debate" only if it wouldn't make sense to read it (i.e. they forgot to highlight the word "not" in a card.) If you logically could read it, do so.

Being unclear makes me sad.

Long overviews make me sad.

ASPEC makes me sad.

I dislike 1NCs with a lot of filler/throwaway arguments. In most situations, if your off case are reaching into the double digits, I would suggest cutting back.

Online Debate

Go slower than you would in-person.

I would prefer it if you keep your camera on.

General

Clash and argument resolution are paramount. I'm impressed by topic knowledge, an organized flow, and smart CX questions. I'm not impressed by dumb tricks, speaking really fast, or backfile recycling.

Impact calculus.

Topicality

I start most debates with the idea that T is a question of competing interpretations.

Rather than debates about ground, I want T to be argued in terms of the predictability of the research burden/limit set by a definition.

Having a caselist is good.

Disads

Disads are good.

All disads are not created equally, and 2AC time allocation should reflect that.

Internal links are the weakest point of most disads.

Counterplans

They are also good.

I won’t judge kick for you. I am open to being instructed to.

For theory, I lean aff on consult, conditions, delay, international fiat, and anything else that competes off immediacy/certainty. I lean neg on PICs and multi-plank cps that aren't super egregious. Ambivalent on agent cps.

For competition, if the counterplan could theoretically fiat a possible manifestation of the plan, it's probably questionably competitive to me.

Affs should make smart permutations. Limited intrinsicness is an underemployed tool.

Kritiks

I don't have a great grasp of critical theory beyond a debate context.

Not a fan of death good Ks, or anything that establishes “suicide” as its method.

Specificity is key, historical examples are good. K debating includes case debating (which doesn't necessarily have to happen on the case flow), and does not include lengthy overviews, or skipping around on the line-by-line. Some part of the speech should call up reference to 1AC/2AC evidence to bolster the link.

Winning a theory of power without applying it to the aff is meaningless in my perspective. Contextualize links. Discuss external impacts to individual links, and how they access/turn aff offense in some way.

Aff K strategy is sometimes frustrating. Aff teams forget to talk about their aff when they debate a K. Don’t do that. Leverage offense.

FW debates on Ks have little to no impact on my decisions. The aff gets the aff, the neg gets the K, links don't have to be just to the plan. Anything beyond that I probably won't vote on.

Planless Affirmatives

In these debates I am looking for instruction about what is important + how to resolve pieces of offense.

I think critical affirmatives have immense strategic value. That being said, I am more of a fan of ones that are in the direction of/relate to in some way to the resolution, rather than ones that are just a an argument that is normally read on the negative or "a theory of power" with maybe 1.5 cards and a couple tags that reference the topic.

Usually, when affs in this genre lose, it is because they do not explain what voting for them means/looks like. Slow down on overviews and explain an impact. Affirmative teams in this genre too often rely on enthymemes.

Regarding topicality/framework. Impacts based on debate's form (fairness, clash) are better than impacts based on debate's content (topic education/legal engagement). For the affirmative, offensive arguments against negative standards should be coupled with an alternative vision of how debate should operate.

K v K rounds are probably what I have the least familiarity with. I have basic understanding of Historical Materialism. That's about it.

Impact Turns

Sometimes impact turn debates can be very enjoyable, clash, evidence heavy debates. And sometimes they can be a horrible, morally questionable waste of 2 hours. Make the debate the former rather than the latter.

Probably not going to vote on C02 Ag, Spark, Wipeout.

Non-Negotiables

There are 2 speakers on each team who have an equal amount of time to speak, and I will cast a ballot in favor of one winning team. Don't care about ins and outs, but there shouldn't be debates where students are “kicked out” or otherwise don’t participate in an entire debate. Intentionally interrupting an opponent’s speech, breaking time limits, playing board games, etc. is a loss for the team that initiates it.

Speaker Points

Don't be a jerk and don't make my flow too messy.

hemchandeisha@gmail.com

greenhill'21

rice'25

I am unfamiliar with the current years topic and am 3 years out of policy debate so make sure to explain terms/nuances

I was a 1a/2n for pretty much all of my debate career

you do you

tech>truth

pls flow

I prefer that you read a plan, but if you don't, it'll be an uphill battle for you to win if the neg makes any type of procedural fairness argument

Ks are fine as long as they are extensively explained and you're interacting with the aff arguments

long overviews make me sad and will result in low speaks

i appreciate line by line and heavy weighing of arguments

love DAs+CPs

I lean neg on most theory

for some reason, I really enjoy permutation debates against process cps

I love innovative case strategies; there's seriously nothing that impresses me more

impact turns are good except if they endorse racism, sexism, death, etc

above all, have fun!

I debated in WSD in high school for Greenhill ('22). I don't debate much anymore (Harvard '26)

Paradigm:

1. Assume I am reasonable but relatively uninformed. Explain what you want me to understand.
2. Comparative arguments are almost always the most compelling.
3. Both impacts and links should be weighed.
4. Extreme burdens and frameworks are generally uncompelling.
5. The prop 4 should not attempt to go for everything in the opp block, but they must respond. I have a high bar for what counts as new material.
6. I like principle arguments but they should be weighed and ideally be intuitive.
7. Regrets motions: prop must both define what the counterfactual is and defend why that is the likely case. Opp defends squo.
8. Speed: you can be quick but please do not spread.
9. Please be respectful to your opponents and to the topic you are debating. Also feel free to post-round me to your satisfaction.

PF specifics:

1. I do not consider an argument responded to because you said you responded. I consider the contents of your response, and consider an argument true until explained otherwise. However, I do NOT consider an argument important until explained why.

Hopefully you debate because you enjoy it. In that vain, have fun :)

Affiliation - Dallas Jesuit '19

2A/1N

-Email chains > flash drives - add me - Limkogan@gmail.com

Update Thing

I hate incomplete off case shells. E.g. If your kritik doesn't have a framework argument or a reason to prefer it, it's a non-unique DA. If your DA doesn't have an internal link, uniqueness, link, or impact, it's not a complete argument. Highlighting an argument in a card without a warrant makes it an incomplete argument. A CP without a net benefit is usually not a complete argument unless there's a justification - i.e. delay, consult, etc. In case there is something like this, say something like "this doesn't have ..., we'll answer when they make a complete argument" and move on. At that point, the neg must/should fully explain every part of the argument or else it gets pretty abusive.

General Topics

-If you have questions ask

-I'll prob be keeping track of prep

-Line by line = fun. 6 minutes of an overview and saying "onto the line by line" isn't. I will prob stop flowing an overview after 2 minutes and you will see me doing something else

-Tech>truth unless an arg is dumb

-Turns = good unless morally offensive

-Clipping/cheating = Bad. Don't.

-I'm pretty expressive

-Spin is usually good until someone points out it's not warranted

-Warrants = good. I won't vote for stuff I don't understand/think there's enough explanation even if I have background information (k debates)

-Passionate = fine. Mean = no

-Clarity > Speed. Efficiency = good. I'll say clear until I think you're ignoring me

-Talking to your partner = prep

-Taking out analytics = prep

-Emailing isn't prep unless it gets ridiculous

-If you're reading straight blocks don't expect above a 28.3 w/o line by line

Theory

-Fine

-Generally neg sided on condo except 7 contradictory, conditional worlds or something abusive. Everything else is viable

-Dropped theory usually = ballot

-If an arg doesn't link I'm not gonna vote on it even if it's unanswered

Topicality

-Yes

-Treat it like a DA

-T.VA's and case lists are really cool

-Ev comparison on interpretations is kinda important

-Reasonability - Make it a substance crowdout and a reason why the counter-interpretation is good enough even if it's not as good as the interp

-Limits can be a standalone but should prob just be an internal link

Case

-It's important

-Case in the block for some time is kinda hard to answer in the 1AR and makes life hell

-Do Ross Extensions b/c they sound cool - https://vimeo.com/5464508

-Circumvention = good

-I have a lower threshold for presumption but it should be an emergency scenario

DA

-Dropped DA's are usually true DA's unless they were incomplete in the 1nc

-Incomplete DA's are not worth taking full time to answer in the 2AC(they don't have X, this isn't a complete arg - we get new answers when they make a complete one)

-Defense doesn't usually take out 100% risk of DA

-Specific links are good - generics not so much but tech and spin is good

-Turns case/DA and solves case/DA is really good

-Impact calc isn't time frame is now, probability 100%, and magnitude is extinction - it's comparitive

-Cross applying stuff usually saves time and is cool

-Convoluted internal link chains are not my favorite and probably not true but go ahead

CP

-They're cool

-They usually access a lot of the case

-Sufficiency framing is kinda good except when it is morally bad from the aff

-Should always have a net benefit

-Process CP's are very abusive

-PICs are generally fine when they have a solvency advocate but are kinda abusive

-Block CP's are kinda abusive but you do you

-I'm not gonna judge kick unless you tell me to but even then I'm aff bias esp on perms

K Affs

-I get it's strategic but don't read overviews

-Framework makes the game work

-K v. K debates are fine but clash please for the love of all that is good

-Debate is a game that has pedagogical benefits/disadvantages that can be about

-You need an offensive reason you don't defend the res

-Not reading T-USFG and instead going for T-(the topic) is a good strat most of the time

-Being shifty on permutation debates probably prove loss of ground

-T.VA's are really good and any solvency deficits prove debatability

-The resolution is a stasis point which everyone should probably follow

-Reasonability/we meet generally isn't the A strat

*Special Note for K's of the debate space - I get that it's strategic but I'm prob not your judge. Debate is a voluntary activity that you are willingly go into. If your only reason why the debate space is key is the ballot is an endorsement, that's definitely not enough. The only time I've seen it go well is with North Broward increase participation. I honestly don't see why a book club or creating another debate space like communities of care external to debate doesn't solve all your offensive. Also these usually don't have a tie to the topic and topic education usually outweighs any education in my opinion but that's debatable. I also just don't see why the debate space is uniquely good or is necessary for change.

K

-You'll have to explain well. I don't connect the dots/do fill in the blanks (that means having a terminal impact and/or extending an impact is important)

-Empirics and examples are really good to have in a K debate

-Somehow everything becomes a link without evidence and that's probably not ok

-Alt explanation is really good - think reddit.com/r/ELI5

-I think you kinda need an alt b/c a question of method v. method to solve. I understand the strategic use of if link, vote neg, but it's real abusive especially if the impact is inevitable. I can be persuaded otherwise though.

-Links of omission aren't persuasive

-Re-characterizing the aff is a good idea

-Pointing to specific lines/advantages/instances is really good and serves as evidence

-FIAT isn't real is dumb unless it's impacted

-Specific links are really cool

1 year policy debate experience

2 years LD experience

I was a local debater. I coach middle school policy debate. I like framework and ks and policy arguments. I'm not good at evaluating theory arguments. YES. I will listen to and evaluate them but maybe thats risky of you. So just make argument interactions clear and we'll have a good time! :)

Jack Moore

Affiliation: 4 years at Jesuit Dallas, currently at Trinity University

2N Life

Email: mojack221.goo@gmail.com

Updated: 3/5/24

Round Procedure

- Send out the 1ac before start time, not after. The debate starts at start time.

- Send cards in a doc - not the body of the email

- Prep stops when docs are saved. Deleting Analytics is Prep. Don't send cards in the body of the email. If you do, I will make you take prep to put it in a document and send it.

- Respect your opponents and be nice to each other.

- Inserting Evidence: I'm conditionally fine with it. If it from a different part of the article that the other team hasn't cut, you must read it. If it's highlighting parts of the card that they just didn't underline or highlight, you don't have to read it IF you paraphrase or do the work to explain why the re-highlighting matters. BUT, if it's so important, you may as well read it because that's powerful

- Disclosure: new affs are good. Disclosure ought to happen, but it does not need to happen. Mis-disclosure is the only type of disclosure theory I will vote on and for that to happen I either need to have seen the mis-disclosure, which I probably won't OR both teams need to agree on what happened during CX or something.

- While I won't punish the lack of disclosure, I think generally keeping an updated wiki is good, so tell me if you have one and if you update it before my decision, I'll add a few points. If the wiki is down or some uncontrollable happens where that's not possible, I'll assume good faith.

Online Debates:

- if my camera is not on, I'm not ready

- please slow down.

- I'd encourage cameras to be on the whole debate, but obviously understand that's not always possible

- please get confirmation everyone is ready.

How I Go About Judging Debates

- I take judging very seriously and recognize the hard work you all put into it. Debate is not easy and sometimes it is very difficult to even show up to a tournament, much less debate your best every round. I do my best to keep a positive attitude and facilitate learning. You get my full attention during the debate and in the post round. I appreciated the judges and coaches who helped me grow as a debater by not just deciding the round, but also gave extensive feedback on how to improve. I strive to do the same.

- I'm not very expressive unless you say something absurd. I'm not really grumpy, that's just my face.

- Flowing:

- a) medium: I flow on paper 99% of the time. For me, that means I flow the debate and track it by the line by line. Even if you just speak "straight down" in overview fashion, I will still try to line things up to where I think that goes on the flow. It would benefit you to tell me either directly where you are going on the line by line OR tell me a different way to flow and give me plenty of pen/organization time.

- b) instrument: I prefer pen. G2 .38 or .5. I write a lot so slowing down is good

- Reading Evidence: I don't read evidence during the debate. I do not have the speech docs open during your speeches. I look at cards during prep if they are being disputed.

- Speed: Go for it. Clarity, Organization, and Pen Time are all essential to effective speed.

- Evidence quality > quantity. Part of this includes highlighting sentences/making your cards comprehensible. If I look at cards, I only look at the highlighting you read.

- Decisions: I start with important frames and judge instructions given by the 2nr/ar. I think through different ballots that could be given, exploring all possible victories for each team. I pick the one I think is most supported by the round.

- Trolls: If you've done the work to cut a lot of cards that at least have the illusion of quality and demonstrate how your argument interacts with the other teams in significant ways, I'm fine for you. If it's a terrible back file check or something that anyone could prep in 30 minutes, I'm not your judge and your points will suffer. It also helps if your argument has an impact instead of only trying to trigger presumption.

Fiscal Redistribution Thoughts

-This topic is great and you're lucky you get to debate it.

- single payer not topical

- When all things lead to the economy, differentiation, comparison, and interaction of the internal links is super helpful. Inflation pressures o/w government spending because XYZ warrants for example

- In terms of argument and evidence quality, the capitalism good-bad debate is one sided. If evenly debated, I’m probably going with cap bad.

The rest of the philosophy is mostly me rambling and heavily influenced by the explanation in any given round.

Case:

- It's underutilized - specific internal link and solvency arguments go a long way in front of me. Strategically, a good case press in the block and 2nr makes all substantive arguments better

- Impact turns are fantastic

Topicality:

- I evaluate Topicality like a CP and DA. You ought to do impact calc and have offense and defense to the other team’s stuff.

DA:

- I will vote on defense against a DA. There's probably always a risk, but that doesn't mean I care about such risk

- ev comparison or judge instruction about micro moments in the debate goes a long way for winning individual parts of a DA.

- I like good evidence that contains arguments. You should keep that in mind before going for politics.

- Most politics DAs end up sounding more like the political capital K to me, meaning they lack any specific internal link from an unpopular plan to an agenda item. I really hope the economic inequality topic fixes this issue, but I doubt it.

CP:

- For questionably competitive CPs, clarity on the difference between the aff and the cp, what words if any are being defined, and an organized presentation of why your standard is better are crucial. It would also be helpful to slow down on texts, perms, theory, the usual stuff. Blippy cards and analytics mixed with speed are the enemy of the flow.

- Solvency advocates that compare the CP to topic or plan mechanisms greatly help in winning competition and theory

- I don't judge kick unless instructed to in the 2nr. Debate to me is about choices and persuasion. So unless your choice in the 2nr explicitly includes the fail safe of judge kick, I'm not going to do it for you.

Theory:

- I don't think I lean heavily aff or neg.

- Conditionality is debatable. Quantitative interps don’t make sense to me. Condo is good or bad. Fun fact, dispositionality was originally used because it was in a thesaurus under the word conditionality. This is to say, if your interp is anything under than condo bad, I'm going to need you to unpack the terms for me.

- My default is to reject the argument for all things except conditionality. This shouldn't deter you from going for theory given rejecting a CP usually means the neg has little defense left in a debate.

K:

- Good K debating is good case debating. A good critique would explain why a core component of the 1ac is wrong or bad.

- The link is the most important part of the debate. Be specific, pull 1AC lines, say what you are disagreeing with, give examples, etc. Explain why winning the thesis takes out specific parts of the solvency or internal link chain. More link debating is my number one comment to teams going for the K.

- Framework needs a purpose and that purpose should be communicated to me. Affirmatives often go for arguments about links to the plan or weighing the impact, when the neg agrees. Make sure you explain how your fw arguments explain how I evaluate the link, impact, alt, solvency, whatever. It should be explicit how winning framework changes the debate. I’m more persuaded when framework is explained as impact prioritization.

- Defend things. The neg should have a clear disagreement with the aff. The aff should defend the core assumptions of the aff. If you're reading an aff that defends US hegemony, going for super specific internal literature indicts against a settler colonialism K won't help you. A defense of IR scholarship, realism, impact prioritization, and alt indicts might.

- I don't care for alts.

- Perms against pessimism Ks, absent some specific perm card, have generally been unpersuasive to me.

K affs:

- Go for it. They should have some connection to the topic and some statement of advocacy. If you can read your aff on every topic without changing cards or tags, I’ll enjoy the debate less, but it's your debate, not mine.

- Role of the ballot means nothing to me and often a substitute for judge instruction

- Presumption questions are usually just questions of framework and the value the aff's model provides. Neg teams spend way too much time asking questions about ballot spill up or the debate round changing the world. We all agree fiat illusory is a bad argument in a policy prescription model of debate. Why is it all of the sudden good now? Your time is much better served explaining how the aff's model of debate is counterproductive to its benefits. In other words, answer the should not would question.

- Aff teams should critique presumption in favor of the status quo.

Framework/T USFG

- Framework debates are important because they force us to question fundamental assumptions and norms of the activity. It's about models of debate. Convince me yours is good and theirs is bad.

- I'm open to most impacts to framework. I judge them like most debates where I compare the aff's offense to the neg's offense, defense, and framing arguments from 2nr and 2ar. I have voted for and against all the common impacts for T-USFG/traditional FW (procedural fairness, clash, topic mechanism education, agonistic democracy, advocacy skills, etc).

- I'm not the biggest fan of aff strategy's vs T that exclusively rely on the impact turn. It's a really hard sell that the idea of a topic for debate shouldn't be a thing. I think the impact turns are more persuasive if the neg is exclusively going for fairness or it's a game with no other value. However, if the neg has a coherent defense of clash, negation, or research over a limited topic plus defense against the impact turn, I'm likely to be persuaded by the T strategy.

- The inverse of this is that when the aff has a counter interpretation that defines resolution words in creative ways, I find it very hard for the negative to win much offense. I'm much more persuaded by an argument that says singular interpretation of the topic as mandating simulated federal government policy are unpredictable and bad than I am by the argument we should throw away the topic because it can be read in a singular way.

Speaker Points:

- a bit arbitrary, but I'll start at 28.5 and go up and down based on the round

- factors I consider: smart arguments, strategic choice, and organization are the biggest factors in determining speaker points

Garrett Nagorzanski

Jesuit Dallas ’20 - 2N

University of Notre Dame ‘24

General

Prefer email chains – grnagorzanski@gmail.com

I don't think debaters should advocate for people to die - that applies to Ks, spark, wipeout, and the assassination CP.

Most importantly, if you make bold/decisive/smart choices in the debate and execute a well-researched strategy, you have a strong chance of winning my ballot.

Dropped arguments still need a warrant and must be logically sound at a minimum – even if the other team drops “the sky is red,” I’m not going to find it persuasive.

Below are my general thoughts on debate - the only time they come into play is if teams don't debate something out and leave it to my interpretation.

Theory

If you win theory, I’ll vote on it, so any predilections take a backseat to what actually happens in the debate.

Procedurals run by the negative should be grounded in the resolution – there are infinite, unpredictable ways that the aff could be improved, but those usually aren’t mutually exclusive with the aff’s method.

--- bit of a sidenote: if negs read a bunch of "theory violations" in this vein, I think affs should respond with condo and perms. If the neg is proposing an opportunity cost to the aff's method, that is a conditional advocacy and should be treated as such.

Topicality

Offense/defense paradigm on T never really made sense to me.

T comes down to whether or not the literature base thinks the aff fits within the parameters of the resolution, not whether your standards outweigh theirs.

Balanced research burdens are good, but that doesn't mean as few affs as possible.

Critiques

Like all arguments, critiques must disprove the desirability of the aff – not necessarily the plan. Framework interps like “neg only gets links to the plan” and “discourse comes first” are both unpersuasive to me – I don’t think either side gets to arbitrarily restrict the other side’s ground. Affs should defend the plan and their rhetoric. Negs should explain why the problematic discourse of the aff matters.

Disadvantages

Disads need specific link explanation to the plan. I think turns case can be very helpful, but it should be contextualized to the aff’s specific impact scenarios. Affs should contest shady internal links and uniqueness. Risk of a link framing can be persuasive, as can zero risk of a DA.

Counterplans

You probably aren't going to convince me that PICs are bad unless it's a word PIC. I'm a big fan of targeted research, and in my experience, aff-specific PICs foster very fruitful and entertaining debates. Topic generic PICs are slightly less entertaining.

I think you need a solvency advocate.

Affs should press the neg on how the CP would be enforced - I generally think the CP text is pretty important, so negs shouldn't get away with fiating too much past the text of the CP.

I won't judge kick unless told to, but it shouldn't take much for affs to explain why judge kick is terrible for debate. I like people making smart choices, so I'd rather see you commit to and win either an opportunity cost or the status quo.

K Affs

The last couple of topics have convinced me that affs should probably have to defend a topical plan – there are creative, abstract ways of doing that, and there are ways to promote governmental action with nontraditional, critical scholarship.

I have yet to hear a persuasive reason why debating the possibility of state progress and reform is bad, especially given the plethora of research from numerous fields that suggests governmental action can be good - encountering new viewpoints used to be a good thing.

There are infinite models of debate that are better than plan-based, but plan-based debate is the only model grounded in the resolution. Negs don't need to win that it's the best model, they just need to win that the most predictable model encourages the best form of research and preparation. Most of my paradigm could be summed up as "super-specific well-researched debates are best," so if the neg could never anticipate or prepare for your model of debate, I'm not going to be a fan.

That being said, if you can demonstrate that valuable research and debates can happen under your alternative model of debate, that should be your victory path with me.

Email Chain: linhpham1998@gmail.com

or Speech Drop: https://speechdrop.net/

I competed primarily in CX debate in high school at Irma Rangel YWLS, competing in local, TFA, and UIL. I have some experience in PF & Informative/Persuasive. I have continuously worked with the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance since 2016.

*Please note I am coming off a couple of years hiatus so I am not as "up with the times" as I would like to be and haven't caught up on any camp/summer files.

I tend to analyze the debate as a stock issues/ policy-making judge, but not exclusively. Feel free to take creative approaches as I am still open-minded. Although I have my paradigms, you should still do YOU and do what YOU think is best.

Try not to run too many off as they tend to get convoluted and lose importance. Kritiks/ K-Affs are not my favorite but if you run it, keep it straightforward. The same goes for T/FW. I love a good DA and CP debate. You can call me old-fashioned and boring.

Keeping the debate structured and clean is the way to my heart. (ie.. signposting and road mapping) If you even have to question it, clarity is ALWAYS a must. If you sound like a buzzing bee, then most likely I am not listening and am most definitely not flowing. Line-by-lines tend to correlate with good clashes... Good clash = good debate. Make it clear what the net benefits are and do some impact calculations... Essentially, I appreciate debaters giving me their RFDs- I think it provides great self-reflection/analysis and makes things clear for me as your judge.

*Goes without being said, but keep your times and each other accountable. I do my best but I tend to be forgetful. :/

Feel free to approach me and ask me anything else.

Be nice and cordial. Condescending language/behavior will not be tolerated. Respect the debate and each other.

Cannot wait to see what you got and learn a bunch from you guys!!!

North Dallas High School

dallasrivas4@gmail.com

I am a JV debater at my high school.I will be Varsity next year.I made it to state(But got postponed)

I have only debated CX but I get the concept of LD

# of OFF cases < Significance of OFF CASE

Speed < Clarity

Tabula Rasa

*Speaker Points*

Be clear,slow down on tags

Organized speech

*Impact calc*

Probability is preferable

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

The debate should form itself

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

K's are totally acceptable but not my favorite(K's must be presented very clearly)

DA are Great

On-case should win solvency

CX-Open

Debate Experience
Law Magnet High School: 2012-2016
The University of Texas at Dallas: 2016-2019
Assistant debate coach at Coppell HS: 2018-now

sanchez.rafael998@gmail.com - I would like to be on the email chain :)

Specifics:
Case: You should read it. Lots of it. It's good, makes for good debates and is generally underutilized. Impact turns are best when they are debated correctly.

Topicality: I enjoy T debates. If you're looking for a judge willing to pull the trigger on T, I'm probably a good judge for you.

DAs: DAs are a core debate argument and I love judging DA(& CP) v. case debates. Specific DAs are always a plus, but obviously that's not always possible. I tend default to an offense/defense paradigm.

Counterplans: A well thought out specific counterplan are one of the strongest debate tools that you can use. I will vote on almost any cp if you can win that it is theoretically legitimate and that it has a net benefit.

Kritiks: I have a pretty good grasp of a lot of the more popular Kritiks, but that isn't an excuse for a lack of explanation when reading your argument. But be aware that if you are reading more PoMo/high-theory args, you might have to explain the arg a bit more.

K AFFs: I have no problem with teams running untopical affs but this doesn't mean that I wont pull the trigger on FW, you still have to win the affs model ow the negs model of debate.

Theory: I have no problem voting on theory if it is well warranted. I honestly believe affirmative teams let the negative get away with a ton of stuff, and shouldn't be afraid to not only run theory but to go for it and go for it hard.

*Note for online debates: I'm very forgetful and my keyboard is loud af, so if I forget to mute, remind me to mute myself if the keyboard noise is being bothersome.

Law Magnet ’16
The University of Texas at Dallas ’20

General:
Don't assume I know all the nuances of your arguments. Needless to say, you should probably explain your argument anyways. I evaluate all arguments. I think like most judges I like to believe that I evaluate debate from an unbiased position.

Specifics:
Case: You should read it. Lots of it. It's good, makes for good debates and is generally underutilized. Impact turns are fun. 

Topicality: I enjoy good T debates. Unfortunately, T debates are normally really messy, so the team to really put the debate into perspective and be very clear on how the two worlds interact first generally wins. If you're looking for a judge willing to pull the trigger on T, I'm probably a good judge for you.

DAs: DAs are also a core debate argument. I am a big fan of politics DA. Specific DAs are always a plus. I default to an offense/defense paradigm but I think an aff can win on defense alone if they making arguments about why having to have offense is bad. 

Counterplans: I think counterplans are a fundamental part of debate. Well thought out specific counterplan are one of the strongest debate tools that you can use. I will vote on almost any cp if you can win that it is theoretically legitimate and that it has a net benefit.

Kritiks/ K AFFs: Over the past couple years I have opened up towards the K a lot. I have a pretty good grasp of a lot of the popular Kritiks, but that isn't an excuse for a lack of explanation when reading your argument. I refuse to do that work for you regardless of my previous knowledge. I have no problem with teams running untopical affs as long as they can win that it’s good to do so. However, I will vote on framework if the aff/neg wins it produces a better model for debate.

Theory: I have no problem voting on theory if it is well warranted. I honestly believe affirmative teams let the negative get away with a ton of stuff, and shouldn't be afraid to not only run theory but to go for it and go for it hard. I am unlikely however to vote on cheap shot theory arguments \ were little to no warrants are presented example “condo-vote strat skew and education”.

Things that are good and you should probably have/do
Impact Comparison
If...then statements
Confidence
Flagging important issues in debate
Jokes
Respect
Good/Strong CX questions and answers

Things I kinda believe
Tech over Truth
Smart Analytics can beat evidence
Uniqueness probably decides the direction of the link
Uniqueness can overwhelm the link
New 1AR arguments are probably inevitable and good to some extent
Prep time stops once you save the speech to your flashdrive

Ethan Williams

Jesuit College Prep '21

I debated at Jesuit my 4 years in Highschool

Top Level things:

Yes I wanna be on the email chain: ethanmw22@gmail.com

My paradigm has been heavily influenced by my coaches Tracy McFarland and Dan Lingel so if you want anymore backround info check out their paradigms

No ism's of any kind will not be tolerated as my coaches say: debate ideas not people

Topicality - I think that T can definitely be underutilized sometimes, however it should be pretty fleshed out. Smart T arguments are always good and especially since I think T is all about what your view of the topic is/should be. I find that I usually defer to competing interpretations and the reasons to prefer them. I think caselists are a must and really emphasizing the internal links to your impacts will get you far. I also think that the impact debates are always lacking in T debates and so comparisons between the two versions of the topic and articulating a difference is really important.

FW vs K affs: I would say i'm fairly experienced in these debates. I think FW is usually the go to vs most K affs especially if they're not very related to the topic. I think K affs in general are fine but they probably need to have a reason why they don't run a plan and why the ballot is key for some reason. I find that in a lot of cases clash>topic education/advocacy skills> fairness are the way I prioritize FW impacts just given my experience in debate. I can be persuaded that fairness isn't an impact but the more work done on the internal link debate, the more I find myself sympathetic to the neg in these instances. FW debates vs K affs need to really have the last speeches narrow down and sit on their biggest pieces of offense and do some impact debating because it will likely decide my ballot.

Counterplans: Counter plans are good -- but I think that Affs underutilize solvency advocate based arguments. If you are going to have a CP with a ton of different elements, neg should be able to support that with solvency evidence that supports the whole CP not just the elements. I think that PIC's are great but usually should have some sort of solvency advocate in the context of the aff (ex. aff is abolition and the neg runs a carceral feminism PIC). I find that I am very sympathetic here to the aff and will be persuaded by some smart theory arguments. Judge kicking is good, but I don't default to it and even though most process CP's are bad, I do think some smart ones are just very strategic

Disadvantages - I really enjoy these debates especially intuitively smart DA stories. I do think politics has made DA's really wonky and that this topic overall has just not had a lot of DA ground so I am sympathetic to the negative. I will vote on 0 risk of a DA, so affs should make a bigger deal about how that zero risk means that any risk of a solvency deficit on the CP means should vote Aff. I think the most important thing with a DA is a link because it needs to be tailored to the aff. If I can't clearly articulate the story of the DA, I probably won't vote on it. Make sure to utlize the impact debate and how it access the affs impacts, turns the case, etc. Good case debates with solvency or impact turns are great and make for exciting debates. Negatives can win on case turns alone if the impacts are developed in the block.

Theory: Not very versed in these debates. I think theory can be good but usually it is sadly just a time suck or just a throwaway argument which is unfortunate. I am most persuaded by a combination of theory violations because it emphasizes the impacts and is a more specific violation (ex. conditional conflicting advocacies without a solvency advocate are a voting issue). I also think it can be really smart to use theory vs a CP or PIC and develop it in a way where I should reject the CP portion and it becomes just a NB/DA vs the aff debate because those are much easier to handle.

Kritiks: Ahh kritiks... I love them. This is probably the area where I have the most experience, especially on this topic. I find that topic specific K's are the best and have the most strategic utility. I am familiar with the usual literature abolition, cap, baudrillard, antiblackness and am not as familiar with ones like hiedigger, baudriallard, Puar/edelman, deluze, etc. That being said regardless I am still going have to have the theory and links clearly articulated to me, not just using a bunch of buzzwords that mean nothing. Make sure to chunk up parts of these debates because they get messy. I also think affs should have a clear plan vs each K and have a clear strategy of what needs to be in the 2AR (ex. I'm impact turning cap so I need to have cap good and cap sustainable in the 1AR). Similarly I also think the negatives should know what type of victory path they will use to win the debate whether its FW + link = I win or link + impact, etc. I find that almost always K debates are about the link. Last but not least I find that the impact debates in K debates get lost. Even if you have a link you need to explain the impact to that and why that means that the aff participates in a violent system that's bad because of X or means they can't solve.

Stylistic things: Stylistic Issues (Speed, Quantity) - I'm just gonna quote my coach here- "Clarity is important and so are warranted arguments and cards – say what you would like but be clear about it. If you have many argument but you have highlighted down the evidence to 3-5 words, you have also not made a warranted argument. Also, “extinction” is not a tag. Some highlighting practices have become so egregious that I think you're actually highlighting a different argument than the author is actually making."

Other things:

My average for speaker points is around 28.3-.5

Productive cross-examinations add to speaker points and help to set up arguments---needlessly answering or asking your partners cx questions subtract from speaker points. Did I mention flowing is a good thing?

The line by line is important as is the evidence you read, explain and reference by name in the debate. Line by line is the only way to clash and avoid “two ships passing in the night” debates. Line by line isn't answer the previous speech in order - it's about grounding the debate in the 2ac on off case, 1nc on case

I love to read evidence so please rep your ev and I'll make sure to read it after the round. That being said don't get mad if your cards don't say what you think they do.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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.
4. 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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
4. 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:

1. (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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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:

1. 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."
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.