I have been involved with speech and debate for 17 years both as a competitor in high school and college and as a coach and a judge.

My background is that I was a policy debater as well as an extemper and orator in college. I competed in the Dallas area. I also competed in Lincoln-Douglas (single person policy) and Parliamentary debate for Western Kentucky University.

As far as my paradigm goes, my preference is for substance and focus of arguments to be about weighing impacts. Don't make the assumption that I am going to do the work for you just because you throw out jargon. I need warrants because it is about your explanation of the evidence.

The following will help you know how best to get my ballot depending on the event I am judging you.

Policy

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I am fine with kritiks provided you have an alternative. I think if you run T that in order for you to win it on the neg that you need to demonstrate in round abuse. Tell me what ground you have lost. I am not a fan of performance debate. The ballot is not a discursive tool for your movement, its function is to help provide you feedback on your style of argument and presentation skills. It also serves as a tool to show that I have fulfilled my judging obligation.

If you are going to run a K please don't make the alternative just to reject. There needs to be a textual advocacy for your alternative and alternative solvency.

LD

I think you can certainly run plans in LD provided that you do the value criterion work. Please don't make the assumption that jumping up declaring "util good" suddenly means that you have done the work if you face an opponent that runs a more traditional value criterion set up.

PF

I am a firm believer in making sure that you actually provide impacts and explain why your arguments matter. Throwing out claims is not a way to win my ballot. I do not consider new arguments made in final focus. I want you to make sure to explain clearly what is going on not because I don't get it, but because it should be that the best argument wins which requires you to explain it not for me to do extra work on your behalf.

I am fine with talking fast so long as you are clear. I will say clear once and afterward I'll either stop flowing and / or drop your speaker points a bit because you failed to adapt.

I do not have a specific paradigm for any debate event, I do emphasize the items below however...

-Feel free to be unique and run anything you choose as long as it is factual, honest, and topical.

-Be respectful of your judges, audience, and probably most importantly your opponent
<do not make gestures via your vocalizations or physicality that could indicate a sense of disrespect towards he/she/them>

-Be culturally component and aware of your privileges when making general statements, truly try to understand someone else's experience before conducting a stereotype

-Speed is fine if you are CLEAR.

-Claims and Warrants are coactive.

-Road maps are ideal and a recap at the end makes me happy :)

***REMEMBER YOU ARE BOLD FOR COMPETING AND YOUR WORDS HOLD POWER***

Pronouns: They/Them

My general paradigm for debate is that all arguments, be they disadvantages or theory arguments, or whatever, have to be evaluated based on their impacts. Telling me severance is bad means nothing, even if the argument was dropped, if you don't give me a reason to vote on it. I do believe a dropped argument a droppped argument is a true argument, but I'm only willing to evaluate arguments that have been made in the round, meaning that i'm unwilling to infer the importance of a dropped argument, that has to be explained within the round. I recognize that no judge can truly divorce their personal knowledge and biases from a round, but strive to act as a blank slate(tabula rasa) in making my decisions.

Speaker Points: I'm pretty generous with points, and i typically won't give lower than a 27. If their are things that don't affect the mechanics of the round, but nevertheless need to be adressed(like if a debater misgenders me or engages in unremarked upon racism, sexism, etc.) I think that diminishes your pathos, and thus feel no quarrel docking speaks for those things.

Speed: speed is fine. I have a lot of CX experience both as a debater and a judge so I have no problem with flowing speedy arguments. It would be good to slow down during taglines, so that way I can differentiate between cards, and It is a very good idea to slow down during you theory arguments, because if I miss something then I won't be able to evaluate it. Theory args have a high density of things that need to be written down, so keep in mind a judges ability to keep track of all such arguments.

Kritiks: I like them, I used them frequently throughout my debate career. I don't have any special preferences for alternative is something abstract, it's good to give me a framework argument I can use to help frame the round, and make my decision.

Theory args(including topicality): I also like theory args. read whatever wild theory you want, but as I said above it has to be fully extended because when a theory arg is read I feel presumption on that flow goes to whoever it's being read against. I'm sympathetic to some theory args that I feel are real problems, so I'm more likely to vote for a severance arg than you time-cube spec shell, but as i said I'm willing to vote for any well made theory arg.

DA's CP's Case etc: any traditional argument I tend to think about pretty traditionally. Make the better args and you'll win.

0

Short paradigm because I'm writing this in the five minutes I have before I need to leave. If you need to know anything in more detail just ask.

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain my email is haydeniske@gmail.com

Backgorund - I currently debate at the University of Texas at Dallas and have been competing in policy debate in both high school and college for 5 years.

High School 2019-2020 Arms Topic Specific (updated 9/27/19) - I've only judged a few rounds on this topic. I'm familiar with the biggest affs but haven't done any research on the topic myself.

Things that should go without saying - don't be racist or homophobic, no clipping, and speech times are set. These are my only hard rules for what you do in the round.

Tech over truth - usually, I'm 9 to 1 tech over truth.

truth |--------X-| tech

No I won't vote you down if you don't read a plan -I'm going to flow the aff whether or not you read a plan, I generally think they're good, but that's a debate to be had within the round. Be ready for the framework debate.

Negs who say FW vs identity K affs - I have a very high threshold for voting on fairness as an impact in these debates, its probably violent, find a better impact like clash or education.

Topicality - I'll vote on T, read it.

DA/CPs - read em, these are the arguments I'm most familiar with.

K Lit - I'm most familiar with low theory and am definitely less familiar with the super edgy French authors. That being said I've debated enough that I can't plead ignorance. You should be able to make arguments without the judge having a strong background in your authors, even if I do.

Condo - I need a really clear and obvious abuse story to vote on condo bad, I've never voted on it before. That's not to say I wont... but it always seems like condo is the affs last ditch strategy when they've completely lost the actual debate, condo is really only a persuasive arg when it is absolutely forced on the aff, and not because you got out spread.

I'm probably missing things here. Once again if you need anything ask.

Midway '18 / Texas '22

He/him

put me on the email chain: kuanghanson@gmail.com

An argument is a claim, warrant, and impact. If they drop something you said, it doesn't mean it was an argument.

Framework/T-USFG

I haven't judged these debates much. Neg teams should make inroads to the aff's offense with arguments like TVA, cede the political, and case turns. Affs should not only win why the aff is good but why your model of debate is good.

K

I think my role as a judge is to be the adjudicator of a debate round and an employee of the tournament. It's hard to convince me otherwise.

Framework is really important. Have an interpretation about the purpose and power of this space. With enough work, you can convince me to not weigh the consequences of implementing the aff.

Alts should defend something. I am generally uncomfortable voting for an alt if I don't know what that world looks like.

The perm double bind is often an easy way for me to vote aff if mishandled.

T vs plans

Go for it. I'm more likely than most to pull the trigger on technical aff mistakes.

I default competing interpretations. I don't know what reasonability means so define it for me.

I'm not easily persuaded by "in round abuse" standards. Just win that your model of debate is better.

DA/CP/case

yay

Theory

Slow down.

Absent an explicit voting issue, theory is a reason to reject the argument unless it's condo.

If you want a judge kick option, the 2NR must explicitly tell me and pre-empt 2AR theory.

Misc.

I reward speaker points for humor, kindness, confidence, paperless efficiency, clear judge direction, smart cross-ex, strategic vision, organization, clarity, and passion.

I dock speaker points for rudeness, stealing prep, low effort, bad spreading, and not flowing.

Christopher (“Chris”) LaVigne/Judging Philospophy

Background: My background is in policy debate. I debated 4 years in high school (1988-1992) and 4 years in college at Wayne State (1993-1997). In college, I debated at the highest levels of NDT policy debate, but that was also a while ago, before law school and before a professional career. I have rejoined the ranks of the judging pool after a long absence because my daughter started doing PF debate. 2017 was my first year judging PF. I was surprised how easy it was to pick up again. Most of this paradigm is geared towards PF since that is usually what I am judging these days. I will cover policy rounds when the tabroom needs help, but most of my experience will be on the PF side so you might need to explain more if you have me in a policy debate. If I am judging something else you are probably in trouble because I don’t know what I am doing.

Speed: Not generally a problem; clarity is always the concern. I have not seen a single PF debate that I thought was “fast” by what I generally consider to be fast.

Paradigm: Generally a tabula rosa philosophy. The debate belongs to the debaters. I will endeavor not to intervene in any way in the round. I am open to almost any argument that is supported by evidence or sound reason. The team advancing an argument always has the burden of proof. Making an argument and supporting the argument are two different things. I am fine weighing and considering analytical arguments, but I am not likely to vote on substantive arguments that are unsupported with evidence (i.e., “its just obvious that if Trump does this, then he will react by doing something else that is bad”). Such an argument is a substantive position that requires support. It is different than arguing that the internal link evidence is bad for some reason. Those arguments don’t require support as they are identifying gaps in the other side’s proof. I actually think the burden of proof is an important part of argumentation. Once a team carries its burden, its up to the other team to address the argument. At that point I am not going to intervene.

Footnoting: I am NOT a fan of the practice of footnoting in debates, by which I mean the practice of citing an author or an article and generally describing what the article says as opposed to reading a specific piece of evidence from that article. Too often, when I ask to see a piece of evidence, I get an entire article handed to me because the source was footnoted and specific cards were not read. My primary problem with the practice is that it requires me to do too much work. I need to read the article and find the point being advanced, consider the context of the article, what caveats are in the card that were not read, what impact do those have on other arguments. I just don’t think it is very fair to the other team, especially since they do not have a meaningful opportunity to review the “evidence” in the debate when the only thing available is an entire article. I much prefer “cards” where specific text is read in the debate, although I have no problem with highlighting cards to read only the parts you are advancing.

Does the second rebuttal need to answer the arguments advanced by the first rebuttal: It depends. I was asked this question before every PF debate at Plano, so it must be something everyone is thinking about. In policy, this is never really an issue because the “block” is really required to cover all the arguments and arguments not in the block do not get flowed through. The structure of PF is obviously different because there is no block. If the second rebuttal is limited to only rebutting the other side’s case, then responses to the first rebuttal do not come until the second summary, which means new arguments and applications in final focus. I think that makes for a messy debate. I prefer when the second rebuttal covers the critical arguments in the debate, both on the pro and the con. My answer of “it depends” is really case dependent because arguments something relate to one another. Let me just say that if there is a large gulf on the flow where you have not extended arguments or advanced a contention then I am not likely to give it much weight later in the debate. Drops are an important part of the process. Opposing teams should be able to rely on those drops in deciding how to allocate time. If you think an argument is going to be important to the outcome of the debate, I encourage that argument to be advanced in second rebuttal, summary, and final focus.

Preferences: It’s your debate, so argue what you want to argue. I try not to let my biases interfere, but inherent bias is certantly present (see comment re footnoting). I prefer arguments with clear link chains, I prefer clash heavy debate, I prefer line-by-line refutation or a general summary of the argument that addresses all the key arguments, I tend to consider flat out drops as admissions (subject only to burden of proof requirements), impacts are always important, but impact fixation is not a panacea (uniqueness, timeframe, link stability, relationship with other advocacy are all important). In policy debate, process disads (politics, political capital, polarization) all make sense, but less so in PF debate where there is no plan and no clear obligation as to “how” any particular advocacy should happen. I will vote on process arguments, but the link needs to be explained and I am probably inclined to listen more to theory arguments that are detriment to the link (if there is no plan, is there still fiat, if there is no plan do we assume action now, later, in the abstract, etc.). I will reward debaters who identify interrelationships between arguments and who can use one part of the flow to answer another part. I really cannot stress this enough. Understanding interrelationships between arguments is very impressive. You should probably be able to explain at the top of final focus or 2NR/2AR why you win the debate and be able to explain it quickly. If you are not extending link chains and impacts in the middle of the debate, don’t bother at the end of the debate. Gulfs on the flow with no ink do not serve your interest.

Don’t be a jerk. Talking loud does not mean talking better. Being confident and assertive is fine.

Questions: Just ask.

Good luck.

I am a Tab judge who loves to experience clash inside a round. I will always vote on stock issues. I want a net benefit to voting neg so I love Disadvantages or Counterplans. I'll vote where the debater tells me to vote.

My paradigm is mostly tab, if you tell me why I'm voting for you in a persuasive way I will listen.

I really enjoy narrative and kritikal cases that have in-round impacts and question the realm of debate as long as the language is understandable.

When it comes to policy cases I place a lot of emphasis on impact calculus. If there is any chance of a link, I will typically refer to the impact debate for my decision.

I have a pretty high threshold for T and framework, if you go for it I want it to be solid and I want you to really go for it otherwise I won't usually put much stock into it.

Tab with preference for Ks. Will flow any argument if run well. Please read taglines slowly but speed is fine on everything else. Dont count flash as prep and open cx is fine in my book.

email is: spencersapptx@gmail.com

LD Paradigms

I debated in high school LD for four years, primarily on the TFA circuit, with a couple national and UIL tournaments. That is to say, I'm familiar with most forms of argument. I will flow just about any argument as long as it's warranted. Framing and impact calculus are important to me. Tell me how the round ought to be weighed. Otherwise, I'll default to utilitarian cost-benefit analysis.

TL;DR-- I'm fine with any warranted arguments, framing and impact calc are important.

Background-- I debated high school LD for four years, also doing some extemp and occasionally congress. I have participated in UIL, TFA, NSDA, and national circuit tournaments, though my own style most aligns with that of TFA. That being said, I am probably familiar with any style of argument you might present me, and if I'm not, I'm fairly open minded-- explain it to me, warrant it, and tell me what it does for the round.If the logic flows, I will flow it.

I'm overall tab. I'll vote on arguments I don't like if they make sense and are winning, that being said, I have some preferences like anyone else.

Framework-- I appreciate strong framework in the round. I want you to tell me how the round will be weighed and what the purpose of this round is, how I will decide the winner. If your opponent challenges your framework or you are proposing a competing framework on the negative, I want you tojustifywhy your framework is the best way to evaluate the round.

Framework does not exist in a bubble. Impacts and stock arguments ought to be viewed under the framework and connected back. Make it clear to me at the end of the round how your arguments connect back to the framework and show how you win under framework. Example: if neg shows we end up in a nuclear holocaust under the aff, but agreed to a framework that we decide the round based off of "stealing is bad," I will vote on an aff that shows the aff world still reduces stealing more.

I don't mind what framework construction you use: value/criterion, standard, role of the ballot, plan text, or something I have never heard of. Just justify it and evaluate the entire round through it.

If neither side gives me any framework, I'm forced to choose how the round is viewed, and will generally default to a material utilitarian cost/benefit analysis, but I really don't like to do this. Tell me how the round is weighed.

TL;DR--framework will tell me how I view the round. Justify your framework. I will weigh all (non-apriori) arguments through the framework, but I'm not going to extend arguments for you.

Theory-- I get tired of theory (particularly given its a priori nature), but I understand the occasional necessity of it. When you read a T-shell, be ready to justify it and actually explore your warrants. If you read 5 points in the underview and one is "no RVIs," I'm not just going to drop your opponent because you come back your next speech and say "They had an RVI but I said no RVIs." You'll have to actually elaborate and explain why something like RVIs are bad if you want to extend that (and particularly with points on the underview, I will hold you to a rigorous standard, as I get tired of people spiking the whole alphabet on underview in bullet points), and explain to me how dropping them solves the problem. Once again, warrant your arguments.

Side note-- if there is one place I err from being totally tab, it may be on certain theory arguments. I will have a very high standard to buy very exploitative arguments like NIBs or disclosure theory, so really think about if those arguments sound reasonable and if you can firmly prove them and how they help the debate.

K-- I have read a good bit and debated even more, so if I can't follow your Kritik, that is a problem. Make sure you understand the material you are citing and you can explain it well. I'm happy to vote for a valid Kritik, maybe even a K-Aff occasionally, but I'm not going to vote for an argument I don't understand. If you fly over my head and your opponent's head, you're not winning this argument.

Let me re-iterate, Ks are fine and I'm familiar with most of your run-of-the-mill stuff, Nietzsche, Wilderson, Marx, Kant (if you want to do some old-school deontology), and I lovephilosophical arguments in LD. But communication and understanding is important. I want to be sure the argument is warranted, and that you actually know what you're arguing. A good standard is to just check occasionally if it looks like I'm following.

TL;DR-- Ks are fine, make sure you and I know what you're saying. If I look confused, that is a bad sign, but if I'm engaged, you're doing fine.

Stock Issues/Case-- Once again, the way I weigh this all depends on framework. I am happy with any warranted arguments here. Make sure that your impact makes sense under the framework (the bees dying is horrible, but it'll be hard to convince me to weigh that in a round framed on Social Contract theory). I first vote on a priori issues like K and theory, but I love a good stock case with clash, and love to hear engagement with your opponent. Don't be afraid to kick moot args in the round, but be sure to extend voting issues.

Topicality-- Tell me why your resolutional interp best serves the round and how your opponent has compromised it. Basically, most of what I said about warranting and a high standard under theory applies here too.

Misc-- If you have some radical style of argument, that's great, I'm all for it, I love novelty. Just make sure it makes sense and walk me through it. I'm fine with flex prep and new cards as long as it's not the last two speeches. If your opponent drops something, tell me what that means for the round, what they agree to, and how that hurts their arguments. Just saying they dropped does nothing but make sure they don't extend it. I won't flow new arguments in the last 2 speeches and won't flow after you've been called out for a drop (don't worry, I keep a thorough flow. I know when drops are real or BS and won't drop an arg just because your opponent says so. Point out when they do drop, though) unless you can extend an answer to the harms from the drop off another arg or something.

And don't just cry abuse if your opponent does something bad. Explain what they violated, why that standard is important, what the harms are, and how that should affect my decision. Even if you don't run it as a T-shell, explain it to me. I'm not going to just take you at your word without warranting on abuse arguments 90% of the time.

K Affs? Fine. CPs? Cool. A traditional aff framed on deontological ethics? Also fine. I really am happy with most any argument,as long as it is warranted.

TL;DR-- explain weird args, flex prep is fine, new cards are fine in the 1NR, explain what drops mean, don't be abusive in final speeches.

CX Paradigms

I primarily judge LD, but I have judged CX several times. Most of my paradigms for LD hold for CX as well, but for a CX round I especially want to see effective sign-posting, extending, and a clean flow. I don't necessarily expect as much gritty work on framework in a CX round, but weighing is still important. Show me why you won the round.

If you have any other questions, about my opinions on args, style, my background, etc, feel free to ask before the round. I'm happy to explain. I'm fairly chill.