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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

Debated CX at Winston Churchill. Please add me to the email chain; my email is galcala0530@gmail.com

You can run anything as long as you can explain it. Don't expect me to know every acronym or specifics about any lit. That being said as long as you are clear and explain arguments I'm fine with it.

T- I default competing interps

CP/DA- Don't stress as long as you have a clear story as to whats going on.

K- I enjoy K debates, but i'm not an expert at every literature base so take time to explain these arguments. That's mainly for any funky K's, but cap or set col don't need a step by step explanation I understand those lmao.

FW- I evaluate it like normal.

General- Don't be rude. Your speaker points will reflect your behavior if this is a problem and I will really not want to vote for you.

if you have any more questions you can just ask me :)

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

~ last edited 11/21 ~

2021 Longhorn classic stuff

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

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

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

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

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

general

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

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

If you're lazy some pref shortcuts:

LARP - 1

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

Kritiks - 2

Phil - 2-4

Tricks - strike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I largely agree with Rodrigo regarding trigger warnings.

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

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

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

_________________________________________

Speed

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

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

Speaks

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

Efficiency and good strategy will bump u up.

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

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

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

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

Theory

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

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

Counter interps and interps must be flashed before read.

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

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

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

Topicality

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

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

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

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

Plans

I strongly believe they should have solvency advocates

frameworks are a must

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

CPs

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

One condo is chill

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

PICs

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

Phil

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

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

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

Kritiks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Performance

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

I do think all of your actions must be justified

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

Skep/permissability/tricks

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

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

Hi! I'm Chase Bailey and while I never participated in Speech & Debate in high school, I became a part of it as a teacher back in 2015. Since then, I've judged every type of event and grown to love this community. For reference, I graduated from Texas State University with a BA in English and have since taught AP Lang, UT OnRamps, and other advanced level courses. I love a good story, and I spent enough time in the theatre to recognize fake enthusiasm for a genuine empathetic connection to a topic.

I'm not easily offended, and if there is good evidence to back up an argument, I consider it fair game even if it's against something I personally believe in. Mature material and curse words are not offensive to me, but there is a difference between using it for effect and using it because you don't have the necessary vocabulary to insert a more meaningful word. Just as in writing, a good performance will be aware of our current global events and how a joke may strike.

I prefer a more conversational style of speaking that avoids using the same word or phrase over and over as a crutch. Real genuine connections to your piece are important, and faking your way through it by pitching your voice up inauthentically is a real disappointment.

I encourage the DX and FX events to follow a standard speech outline (Intro: hook, intro w/ topic stated, clear answer, and a preview of points to be made; Body: introduction of your point w/ analysis & meta-analysis followed by a clean transition to your next point; and a conclusion with the topic and answer restated along with an overview of the points discussed to tie everything together. Bonus points for making a witty, but meaningful, connection back to your hook!).

For the interpretation events, I vote for the contestant(s) who whisked me away into the story. Therefore, the jarring screams, cursing, and other shocking noises should be used with caution. All movements should have a purpose. Blocking, facial expressions, and again, having a genuine connection to the characters in your piece is SO important. Basically, I want to be entertained!

POI, you are my favorite. It combines my favorite aspects of an interpretation and informative and allows me to be in multiple stories at once. A well put together POI should transition between the pieces in such a way that I am never confused about what piece is being read. Facial expressions, voices, body movements, etc. are all encouraged to pop in and out of each section. Just as with the raw interpretation events, don't let me out of the story that you're telling. Drag me in. The other aspect of a POI that really makes me appreciate a piece is a meaningful thread that allows you to transition between each piece in a clever and witty way.

I wish all of you the best of luck!

I need Updated 1/10/19 for Churchill Classic

Background:

I debated for four years for Reagan H.S. in San Antonio. I primarily did LD but did a bit of CX my junior and senior year. I’ve been judging debate tournaments on and off since I graduated (since 2014), but this is my first tournament judging since last years Churchill tournament.

Overall:

If there is an email chain, include me on it: barraza.lu@gmail.com

As a debater, I was more comfortable running Plan’s/CP’s/DA’s than K’s and Theory. However, I’ll vote for anything that is explained well enough.

As long as your argument is not racist, sexist, ableist, or homophobic, you should use the style/arguments you’re most comfortable with/best at.

I have no issue reading evidence you tell me to call for after the round, but don’t tell me to read it for the sake of reading it, there needs to be a clearly articulated reason.

I am fine with speed, but again, it’s been 5 years since I’ve debated so I wouldn’t go super fast. I’ll yell clear when I lose you.

If you want to know your speaks, politely ask me after the round is done and the room is cleared

Have respect for your opponent: don’t be an ass in round, don’t steal prep, don’t cut cards

Framework:

I think this is an important part of LD debate and should be discussed at some point regardless of what you’re running, how you do this (value/criterion/standard/ROB) is up to you!

Topicality/Theory:

I really dislike voting on potential abuses, but if it’s what you want to do, go for it. If it’s explained well and you made a convincing argument, I’m willing to work with it. I personally am not a fan of RVI

K’s:

If you can explain it well, do whatever your heart desires. However, I need a clear overview/explanation towards the end of the round, and a roll of the ballot arg always goes a long ways

CP:

I loved running these in LD, and think they’re great if done correctly. Simply changing the actor is not enough imo, I need to see a well thought out/evidence based net benefit

DA:

Love them, I think every piece of evidence is equally important in them. Get as creative as you want, as long as you can back it up.

For me, the round does not exist solely in the word document containing the evidence, and as well overcrowding your evidence usually does more harm than help. The analysis is crucial, how do your arguments fit together? How does your position (aff/neg) play into the story of the round, and more importantly why is it imperative that I vote for you?

I love Kritiks that intersect the round in a real way, if you would like to run a kritik I want the same analysis previously mentioned and really extrapolated links.

I am not a fan of throwaway arguments, please don't read arguments that aren't a viable winning strategy for you, within reason (I won't hold it against you I'd just rather not waste time, paper, and ink.

Keep in mind that your opponents are not your enemy, and do not deserve hostility. This is an event that does not function without competitors and we all deserve respect.

Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and bigotry will shutdown the round and result in a loss for the offending team, this is not a platform for hate and I won't listen to it or vote for a team that perpetuates that behavior. Again we all deserve respect. Continued misuse of someone's pronouns is considered bigotry.

Content warnings are appreciated when appropriate.

Teasers should set the mood for the piece and not be too lengthy.

Intros need to continue to prepare the audience for the piece by setting the appropriate tone as well as to give important exposition. A sharp or clever intro that is well constructed can be the determining factor in scoring among two equally done pieces.

Blocking and movement should be clear, well defined, and motivated. Clever or creative staging is appreciated. Unclear or unspecific pantomime, upstaging, or weird angles that prevent seeing the actor's faces should be avoided.

Characterization should be consistent and easy to follow if performing multiple characters. Pops should be clean. Vocal characterization should be suggestive of the character and not an opportunity to showcase cartoon voices/cliche characters (the surfer, the New Yorker, the Brit, the Aussie, etc.) unless warranted by the script/story.

The binder is NOT a prop other than in POI. Movement below the waist (steps) should be clear and motivated as well as minimal.

Author's Intent and/or Appropriateness of Literature- How do I feel about an HI of Miracle Worker (author's intent) or a student performing mature material (appropriateness)? That's a big NO for me if it's offensive more than it is creative. (Miracle Worker as an HI, or The Lovely Bones, or anything like that is offensive to me. The topics in those pieces aren't meant to be funny and do go against the author's intent.) Mature content if it's handled well and suits the piece doesn't bother me- if it's excessive or for shock value, then I may not like it. It really depends on the piece and the performer; I'm not really conservative but I've seen some material that I definitely wouldn't coach or have ranked down because I felt like it was too much.

For Speech Events OO/INFO– I love that Orator’s Triangle! It helps me follow the structure of your speech. I weigh the written speech (construction/logic/novelty/grammar/humor) equally with the presentation of the speech. I personally don’t like laminated stuff on Info boards (because of the glare.) I loooove creative/inventive Info props!

Benjamin Brody (He/Him)

First Year out of Winston Churchill HS

I did policy for 4 years, but have judged/coached/debated in LD.

Email chain pls - winstonchurchillbm@gmail.com

-Topicality-

Topicality is about competing interpretations unless I’m told otherwise and I think that the lit base determines reasonability. T interps should define both what IS and ISN’T topical. Intent to define is cool. Why is ur interp/counter-interp better for debate? Substantial is usually unpersuasive because I think it’s relatively arbitrary.

-Counterplans-

If you’re not cheating you’re not trying hard enough <3

Probably better if you have a solvency advocate for each part of the counterplan though.

Recut their evidence. I promise there's a counterplan hidden in their solvency advocate. Counterplans that are super specific to the aff are way more persuasive to me. Actor counterplans are boring.

I will judge kick the counterplan unless told not to.

I love good counterplan debates.

-Disadvantages-

Some of my favorite 2NRs were on the China disad so I really enjoy disad/case + disad/counterplan debates. I don’t think I’ve judged enough debates to know if winning a 0% risk is possible, but I won’t believe it till I see it. PLEASE do the framing debate (UTIL/structural violence/urgent bodies/whatever you want to call it), it is SO hard to judge a debate I don’t know how to evaluate.

Just as you would with a K, the block should be making more than one link argument.

Turns case arguments are underutilized (including link turns the case args).

-Kritiks-

SPECIFIC LINKS. I don’t enjoy K debates when they’re not about the aff. Explain your theory of power to me. I went for biopolitics a lot my junior year but I’m not gonna lie to y’all, I never read the lit, only the cards that we had in the file. In other words, explain to me either on the line by line or in an overview that does not require a different sheet of paper. The less I understand your theory, the less I want to vote for you, and the more persuaded I am by simple no link arguments. Make sure that before you initiate a big framework debate, that you actually need to do so. Like if you’re gonna let them weigh the aff and just impact turn it anyway, why do all the framework magic?

You don’t always need an alternative. But usually you do.

For aff teams: KNOW YOUR AFF AND DON’T MAKE EASY MISTAKES. Do they have a LINK? Did they extend an ALTERNATIVE? Have they explained an IMPACT? Did you remember to extend a PERM?

Almost every single time we debated the K my senior year, we went for framework and the aff outweighs. I will have a lot of respect for you if you have defense of your epistomology and a defense of what you do materially. You don’t have to defend that the state is GOOD, or even that it’s redeemable. Just win that it is an infrastructural unit capable of rectifying the issues that it creates. You’re never gonna win that the state doesn’t have a history or that the state is free from violence. But all the aff does is recognize violence (or the potential for it) in its most unmediated form, and use the state’s ability to regulate itself to unwrite that violence.

All that being said, sometimes going for framework is not the move. So answer specific links, turns case, disads to the perm, and severance. I find those arguments persuasive insofar as they are reasons to reject the permutation or as independent reasons to reject the aff.

Simple no link arguments will help you greatly.

-K Affs/Performance/Planless/Framework-

I will vote for framework. I will vote for the impact turn to framework. I feel like that's all you needed to hear.

Like most things, I enjoy judging these debates when they're done well. I prefer it when it's in the direction of the resolution, but also understand that sometimes that is not an option/not strategic. In any event, I think both the aff and negative team should have a reason why I give you my ballot. If you are the aff team, please explain what I am voting for/what your theory is/how you understand the world/the meaning of the 1AC. I prefer it if you can explain why my ballot actually has a causal influence as well. TVAs are underutilized. I probably think fairness is more of an internal link than a terminal impact but could be persuaded otherwise. What does your model of debate look like? Why is your model good not just for debates but also what we do once we leave debates?

-Theory-

(This is mostly for the LD folks) I did 4 years of policy. I have a hard time buying a lot of the theory stuff that y’all do in LD. I guess if you think you have a reason why you think that other team has made it structurally more difficult for you to win the round, then make the arg. Just make sure to explain it.

-Things I've Noticed About My Own Judging-

I find myself not voting for conceded arguments if they're not explained. Very cool that they dropped the counterplan in the 2AC, but "don't make me reinvent the wheel" is not an explanation as to why that conceded counterplan solves the aff.

I reward well thought out strategies.

-Things I Hate-

"See Pee"

"Dee Aye"

Needing a new page for the overview

Clipping

Being excessively rude/offensive

Death Good

Email is lucas@debatedrills.com

I am affiliated with the DebateDrills Club Team. Should you have any questions or concerns, please look through the below link or email leadership@debatedrills.com.

https://debatedrills.com/en/private-prep-sharing/#policy

I've written some articles about debate you can read here:

https://debatedrills.com/en/blog/approaching-debate-exercise/
https://debatedrills.com/en/blog/nows-perfect-time-start-debate-team/
https://debatedrills.com/en/blog/competing-top-levels-small-school-debater-whats-being-invested/
https://debatedrills.com/en/blog/what-are-los-and-how-beat-them/https://debatedrills.com/en/blog/what-are-los-and-how-beat-them/
https://debatedrills.com/en/blog/competing-top-levels-small-school-debater-whats-your-perspective/
https://debatedrills.com/en/blog/skills-debate-teaches/

Updates 2020-21

Not very experienced with online judging and will adjust accordingly. I don't expect it to change much paradigmatically for me, but I will be more lenient about technology constraints.

Updates 2019-20

1. I will not really be looking at documents until after the round. This means a couple of things for you

-Speaks are now something I care about. If I clear you 3x, you're down a full point and I'm probably no longer listening.

-You will probably speak closer to a regular pace than at your top speed - think 80%

-I flow author names and tags, but prefer you reference the authors name on extension

2. I know very little about the topic. I don't do topic research these days.

3. I am officially not smart/invested enough to care about the ins and outs of this nebel question. I think it's a dressed up predictability impact and couldn't care less beyond that.

Overview

Read basically whatever you want. You should be able to defend your opinion in front of me and your opponent should be able to reject said opinion.

If your team has decided they have a non-disclosure policy/advocate that your opponent reads your full cite before the round instead of giving them tag+first three last three you can go ahead and strike me.

Policy-1
T-1
Theory-2
K-3/4
Framework/Performance/Dense K/tricks-3 or below

General

I like speed.

I presume neg.

New in the 2 responses to spikes/args like plan flaw I'm lenient about.

Comparative Worlds>Truth Testing. Avoid the latter in front of me for the most part.

I’ll most likely hack for util in a framework debate.

Non-T affs are not the A-strat for me. Your aff is not a survival strategy and you're going to struggle to prove solvency. Not necessarily that you can’t read them but I buy T. Especially if you drop the specific net benefits and try to go big picture because that ends up being a bunch of conceded offense that nobody ever weighs against and it’s very sloppy.

My favorite round is a policy approach from the aff with neg going for something along the lines of CP/DA/relatively legit shell. Not altogether necessarily.

I've decided I have a high threshold for extensions. It's not that I won't grant you a bad extension and thus impact, it's that most extensions seem to leave me with no concept of the impact or how I'm framing it. This is work that I really really don't want to have to do.

Theory/T

Default Competing interps/Drop the Debater/No RVI.

I think truth>tech in certain theory debates.

Semantics always second to pragmatics: don’t go for nebel go for limits.

Reasonability brightlines are good

Do weighing. Anyone who says they can pick out individual stuff from the shell is probably lying, so big picture weighing is extremely important.

Fairness is a voter; however, if the violation is mini I’ll easily vote on the impact turns.

CX does check.

Background:

Currently a Law Student at Wake Forest Law School 2022-present

Debated for UT Austin from 2018 – 2021

Debated for Winston Churchill (tx) 2014- 2018

Work for Winston Churchill HS and Texas.

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

TLDR: Debate the way you debate best, focus on impact comparison on all levels of the debate, and give me a clear ballot story in the last two speeches. I prefer debates over hypothetical enactment of a policy. My favorite rounds are high-level topicality debates against a plan.

Meta Issues:

· Do not try to over adapt to me. I’d rather listen to a CP/Politics debate, but I would much rather listen to what you debate best.

· Tech > Truth – Debates should be left to the debaters, so I will try to revert to my flow as much as possible. This isn’t to say you need to repeat the same answer to 5 args. You should group or cross-apply your answers. I will try my best to place arguments w because where they apply because expecting you to crossapply all the arguments that are relevant is unrealistic, but the cleaner you make my flow the better your chances are of picking up my ballot.

· Evidence comparison – ev comparison is under-utilized and is very important in deciding close debates. Evidence carries great weight in most debates. Evidence is the only thing that gives credibility to the arguments of a high schooler. In critical debates, I am far more willing to allow for uncarded arguments. You SHOULD still read cards that define your theory and explains the alternative else you don’t have the foundation to make uncarded args.

· Mark your own cards

· In LD Debates – I use moral hedging/modesty – I don’t think that a framework is a preclusive impact filter. Rather, I view it as a weighing mechanism.

Framework:

· * Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge on impact calculus and comparison.

· * I don’t view TVA’s as counterplans. They don’t need to have specific texts of a 1AC – your job isn’t to write a 1AC, but to prove that another plan can meet the negs interp and resolve some of their offense. However, better TVAs are often more specific bc you can no link their generic answer to TVAs. The neg needs to provide either topic areas or specific plans that meet your interp and access some of their education/fairness disads. The affirmative shouldn’t read a case neg against the TVA bc it is not supposed to be impenetrable. The aff responses should be about the effective solvency of that TVA to the your offense.

· * When I vote neg, it’s usually because the aff team missed the boat on topical version, has made insufficient inroads into the neg’s limits disad, and/or is winning some exclusion disad but is not doing comparative impact calculus against the neg’s offense. The neg win rate goes up if the 2NR can turn or access the aff's primary impact (e.g. clash and argument testing is vital to ethical subject formation).

· * When I vote aff, it’s usually because the 2NR is disorganized and goes for too many different impacts, there’s no topical version or other way to access the aff’s offense, and/or concedes an exclusion disad that is then impacted out by the 2AR. Without a credible counter-interpretation that the aff meets and that establishes some sufficient limits on the scope of debates, I lean negative.

Topicality:

§ I'm a stickler for the quality of a definition, especially if it's from a source that's contextual to the topic, has some intent to define, is exclusive and not just inclusive, etc.

§ Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff. The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I am towards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Kritiks

§ The kritik teams I've judged that have earned the highest speaker points give highly organized and structured speeches, are disciplined in line-by-line debating, and emphasize key moments in their speeches.

§ Just like most judges, the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.

§ I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview and do as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. If your overview is 6 minutes, you make blippy cross-applications on the line-by-line, and then you drop the last three 2AC cards, I’m going to give the 1AR a lot of leeway on extending those concessions, even if they were somewhat implicitly answered in your overview.

§ Framework debates on kritiks rarely factor into my decisions. Frequently, I conclude that there’s not a decisive win for either side here, or that it’s irrelevant because the neg is already allowing the aff to weigh their impacts. Usually, I find myself somewhere in the middle: the neg always has the right to read kritiks, but the aff should have the right to access their advantages. Kritiks that moot the entire 1AC are a tough sell.

§ I’m not a good judge for “role of the ballot” arguments, as I usually find these to be self-serving for the team making them. I’m also not a good judge for “competing methods means the aff doesn’t have a right to a perm”. I think the aff always has a right to a perm, but the question is whether the perm is legitimate and desirable, which is a substantive issue to be debated out, not a gatekeeping issue for me to enforce.

§ I’m an OK judge for K “tricks”. A conceded root cause explanation, value to life impact, or “alt solves the aff” claim is effective if it’s sufficiently explained. The floating PIK needs to be clearly made in the 2NC for me to evaluate it. If your K strategy hinges on hiding a floating PIK and suddenly busting it out in the 2NR, I’m not a good judge for you.

Counterplans

§ Just like most judges, I prefer case-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.

§ I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory.

§ I will not judge kick the CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue.

§ Presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a CP.

Disads

§ I’m a sucker for specific and comparative impact calculus. For example, most nuclear war impacts are probably not global nuclear war but some kind of regional scenario. I want to know why your specific regional scenario is faster and/or more probable. Reasonable impact calculus is much more persuasive to me than grandiose impact claims.

§ Uniqueness is important, but I will default to “link controls the direction of the disad” unless told otherwise and conceded by the other team.

§ Zero risk is possible but difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disad is probably background noise.

Theory

· * I default on drop the argument – I can be persuaded that many theoretical objections require punishing the team and not simply rejecting the argument, but substantial work needs to be done on why setting a precedent on that particular issue is important. This means don’t read generic “drop debater on theory.” You need to articulate a sufficiently offense reason to vote for your shell then articulate how rejecting the team resolves that offense.

· * Potential abuse can be a voter, but I am far less persuaded by potential abuse on theory as compared to T.

· * I am really persuaded by reasonability on theory – I find a lot of the “bad” and “frivolous” shells essentially have no disads to the counterinterp. For example, It might be true that disclosing open source vs just cites can lead to more educational debates, BUT this does not mean that the debates we have under sending cites is uneducaitonal. A marginal improvement in education is unlikely to be enough to gain by ballot.

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

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

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

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

I have a bad attitude and I know jiu jitsu. I prefer the K.

I'm a fourth. Debated CX at Winston Churchill. I did policy for two years and LD for two years.

Please add me to the email chain; my email is davism0503@gmail.com

You can run anything as long as you can explain it. Don't expect me to know every acronym or specifics about any lit

T- I default competing interps. I don't evaluate RVIs

CP/DA- Love to see it. Don't stress as long as you have a clear story as to whats going on.

K debates- assume I haven't read the lit. the NR should be clear in terms of what needs to be evaluated.

theory- frivolous theory debates are a waste of time- don't do it.

phil- didn't run it in high school. Don't like it now.

FW- I evaluate it like normal.

General- Don't be rude. Your speaker points will reflect your behavior if this is a problem and I will really not want to vote for you.

if you have any more questions you can just ask me :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long Version:

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

Ks:

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

K affs:

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

Performance:

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

DAs:

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

CPs/PICs:

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

Theory:

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

T/framework:

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

Phil:

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

Speed/speaks:

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

Updated: 01/07/2020

Standing Conflicts: Strake Jesuit College Preparatory (TX)

Background:

I am a 2016 graduate Strake Jesuit College Preparatory in Houston, TX. I debated LD for four years on the TFA and TOC circuits. I’ve qualified to TFA State three times, clearing to doubles my senior year. I also qualified to the TOC and NSDA Nationals my senior year. I also briefly debated college policy for UT-San Antonio during my freshman year of college.

Pref Shortcuts (1 = best):

LARP/Stock: 1

K: 1

Framework: 2

Theory: 2

Tricks: 5

Generic: 2-3

General:

I’m a pretty open book with what arguments I will accept. I’ll vote on almost anything, as long as I’m given a clear reason to do so. That being said, however, don’t be offensive. Definitely don’t impact turn something like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.; things like cap and extinction though, I’m fine with. If you do something morally repugnant, I’ll drop you with 0 speaks.

Speed:

I’m fine with speed. I have a pretty good ear, so I’ll usually be able to catch what you’re saying. I’ll say “clear” three times and deduct 1 speaker point after the three times, but after that I’ll probably just stop flowing. Just be clear. Sometimes it helps to have an email chain going for the round to make absolutely sure, but I won’t require it.

Ks:

I really enjoy hearing a good K debate. As a debater, I read a lot of ableism, cap, race, biopower, and discourse kritiks. Don’t know so much about stuff like DnG and other high theory arguments, but I can have a good enough understanding of them to evaluate them in the context of the round. I won’t be impressed if you simply just use cool jargon and name drop the entire round. I’d really prefer to hear well-thought-out, topic-specific links and kritiks that have good strategic value, as opposed to generic state bad links that you can recycle every topic.

T/Theory:

I have a similar view to my former coach Adam Tomasi… Taken from his paradigm- “It's absurd to me that people rush to theory instead of doing topic research. I don't think any frameworks are unfair, I don't think the lack of an ‘explicit weighing mechanism’ is unfair, and I don't care if the aff's theory spikes didn't ‘take a stance on drop the debater or drop the argument’.” Although, these are my personal opinions on many of the more frivolous theory arguments, I did read a good deal of theory when I was in high school. I’m certainly alright with theory debates, though it’s just not fun to judge all the time when it gets to the point of 2 new shells in the 1AR. T’s alright. I read some T, answered some T in my day. Make sure a topical version of the aff is well-explained and I'll be happier if it's very creative. My soft defaults are competing interps, drop the debater, RVI’s.

Theory vs K:

I don’t have a default as to which comes first. You should do that weighing for me in the round and I’ll evaluate it that way. In the event that neither debater does any weighing on that debate, I guess I’d just put the layer with most engagement done by both debaters first.

Framework:

I like a good framework debate. I know how to evaluate a framework debate and if it’s a good one, I’ll like it.

Policy Arguments (Plans/CPs/DAs):

As a debater, I read a lot of DAs, such as PTX, Elections, Econ, Court Clog, etc. I really enjoy these debates. If you just make sure links to disads are clearly established, a lot of comparative weighing and impact analysis is done, and CPs are competitive, we’ll be fine. I’d prefer it if your extinction scenario makes some sense and is reasonable. Have some basic semblance of uniqueness, link, internal link, impact. PICs are also cool too, if they’re well thought-out and have really clever competition with the aff. I also enjoy really nuanced theory interpretations about the legitimacy of conditional counterplans and PICs, and I enjoy listening to that debate.

Tricks:

Hate them. I’m not a fan of skep, NIBs, spikes, presumption, and other sketchy things. Proceed with caution because I won’t be too happy if you read these arguments in front of me. But I’ll vote on them if weighed correctly and won’t deduct speaks for reading them.

Speaks:

I evaluate speaks based on quality of argumentation, engagement, and strategy. Higher speaks if I sense that you know a lot about the topic and about the arguments you’re reading. I’ll also probably give higher speaks if I hear a good joke or two, or if you debate with flair. Speaks will also be deducted if y’all are exceptionally rude or aggressive to each other. Be nice, but confident. Have fun, but be smart.

Other:

-I default to comparative worlds. Arguments to the contrary can be made, of course.

-Tech over truth.

-Flashing and emailing don’t come out of prep time. However, don’t try and put together your speech doc and think you’re not gonna take prep to do so.

-Time yourselves.

-You should email, flash, or pass pages to your opponent, so they can be able to see your case somehow.

-Have fun and be nice.

If this doesn’t give you a good enough idea about my judging style or views on debate, I generally tend to agree with these people- Chris Castillo, Adam Tomasi

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the round. You can also contact me by email (qjc097@my.utsa.edu) or by Facebook message.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In high school I focused primarily on LD, but I also had the opportunity to participate in CX. I have a great appreciation for both, and can see the value of using skills from one in the other. That being said, if I am judging LD, I still primarily care about the value debate. When in the weeds of the cases and arguments, I still like to see these things tied back to the value and measuring criterion for the round. CX style arguments are fine, so long as they are tied back into the measuring criterion and, ultimately, the larger value clash of the round. I am also okay with some speed, but be advised that sometimes it is more important to get the message across clearly, prioritizing quality of message over quantity.

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

TLDR

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

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

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

GLHF

Defaults

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enjoy yourselves and have fun!

grossly overqualified parent judge

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

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

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

Quick guide to prefs

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

PF:

Tech > truth unless it's bigoted or something

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

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

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

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

Speed: Fine. Share speech docs

Problematic PF bro/clout culture: ew no

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

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

Flow: yes, i flow

Sticky defense: no

LD/Policy:

LARP/topicality/MEXICAN STUFF: 1+

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

kant without tricks: 1-2

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

most other k/nt aff: 3

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

Baudrillard/performance: 4-5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long version:

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

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

(cw: self-harm)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD/Policy Specifics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sitting/Standing: Whatever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy:

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

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

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

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

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

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

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

Doc Sharing

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

Speed

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

General Principle

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

Speaker Points

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

Policy

Theory

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

Kritiks

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

Performance/Pre-Fiat

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

Competition

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

Condo

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

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

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

Disads/CPs/NCs

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

Philosophy/Framework Debate

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

Public Forum

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

1. Debate

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

2. Speech

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

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

Theory

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

Framework

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

Finally Word for All

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

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

Debate is an activity about persuasion and communication. If I can't understand what you are saying because you are unclear, haven't coherently explained it, or developed it into a full argument-claim, warrant, impact, it likely won't factor in my decision.

I lean more truth over tech in the sense that I will not vote on something that can't explain to the other team at the end of the debate, but that doesn’t mean you can just drop things and hope I ignore them. Do what you do best. Seriously. I would rather judge a good debate on something I am less familiar with than a bad debate any day. The more you can write my ballot in the 2NR/2AR, and tell me what I am voting on and why, the more likely you are to win but also the more likely I am to give you better speaks. Make my job easy and you will be rewarded.

Take risks. It makes my job a lot more fun and often pays off big. Your speaks will be rewarded for it.

K affs seem to have a lot of trouble deciding if they want to go for the middle ground or just impact turn--pick a strategy and stick to it 1AC-2AR and you're more likely to be in a good place. The block is almost always great on T, the 2NR almost always forgets to do terminal impact calculus. Fairness is an internal link, but negative engagement and clash are very compelling impacts

Counter-plans-

-If your CP competes based on the certainty or immediacy of the plan, it doesn't take a ton on theory for me to reject the counter plan.

-I won't kick it for you unless you tell me to and win that judge kick is good.

Disads

-they should be intrinsic to the plan, with enough time investment affs can win that agenda disads are not a logical opportunity cost

credit for the paradigm from mason marriott-voss and david kilpatrick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General judging philosophy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other things that affect your speaks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was a debater at Winston Churchill High School that graduated in 2006. I judged extensively from 2007-2011 and was an assistant coach at Stephen F. Austin High School in 2010.

I am comfortable with all varieties of argumentation and speed of delivery.

Weighing impacts and issues is critical for winning my ballot. In most debate rounds, both opponents will win different issues. Weighing impacts and issues prevent's me from having to make decisions about the relative importance of these issues myself. This weighing can be on the theoretical or impact level, in the form of independent voting issues or links to a standard.

I flow rounds "old school" pen and paper style, so if I feel that your speaking is unclear or undecipherable, I will orally call out for you to speak clearly.

If you have specific questions about strategy before a round feel free to ask me. I've never heard an argument I think has no place in debate.

I don't love education as a standard in theory debates, but could be persuaded to vote for it in the right circumstance.

Been involved with the game in some way since 2008, do as you wish and I shall evaluate it in the way that I feel requires the least interference from myself.

Put me on the chain please: debate.emails@gmail.com, for the most part I do not look at the documents other than some cursory glances during prep time if a card intrigues me. I still may ask for specific cards at the end of the debate so I do not need to sort through each document, I appreciate it in advance.

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

I flow on paper, it is how I was taught and I think it helps me retain more information and be more present in debates. Given that I would appreciate yall slowing down and giving me pen time on counterplan texts and theory arguments (as well as permutations).

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

While I think that debate is best when the affirmative is interacting with the resolution in some way I have no sentiment about how this interaction need to happen nor a dogmatic stance that 1AC’s have a relation to the resolution. I have voted for procedural fairness and have also voted for the impact turns. Despite finding myself voting more and more for procedural fairness I am much more persuaded by fairness as an internal link rather than terminal impact. Affirmative’s often beat around the bush and have trouble deciding if they want to go for the impact turn or the middle ground, I think picking a strategy and going for it will serve you best. A lot of 2NRs squander very good block arguments by not spending enough time (or any) at the terminal impact level, please don’t be those people. I also feel as if most negative teams spend much time reading definitions in the 1NC and do not utilize them later in the debate even absent aff counter definitions which seems like wasted 1NC time. While it does not impact how I evaluate the flow I do reward teams with better speaker points when they have unique and substantive framework takes beyond the prewritten impact turn or clash good blocks that have proliferated the game (this is also something you should be doing to counter the blocktastic nature of modern framework debates).

It would behove many teams and debaters to extend their evidence by author name in the 2NR/2AR. I tend to not read a large amount of evidence and think the trend of sending out half the 1AC/1NC in the card document is robbing teams of a fair decision, so narrowing in and extending the truly relevant pieces of evidence by author name increases both my willingness to read those cards and my confidence that you have a solid piece of evidence for a claim rather than me being asked to piece together an argument from a multitude of different cards.

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

I find myself frustrated in debates where the final rebuttals are only about theory. I do not judge many of these debates and the ones I have feel like there is an inevitable modicum of judge intervention. While I have voted for conditonality bad several times, personally my thought on condo is "don't care get better."

Plan-text writing has become a lost art and should invite negative advocacy attrition and/or substantive topicality debates.

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

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

Experience:

Competitor-- Winston Churchill (2008-2012)

Assistant Coaching--

Past: Jenks (2012-2015) Reagan (2015-2017) Winston Churchill (2018-2023)

Currently: Texas (2017-present)

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

Email: jacoblugo101@gmail.com

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

A few thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory/T:

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

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

churchill '20

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

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

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

-- topicality --

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

-- counterplans --

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

-- disadvantages --

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

-- kritiks --

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- k affs/performance/framework --

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

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

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

-- theory --

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

-- for LD debaters --

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

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

-- for PF debaters --

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

-- last updated for the Longhorn Classic 2022 --

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. this is my 6th year coaching @ greenhill, and my second year as a full time debate teacher.

[current/past affiliations:

• i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
• team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-'22);
• program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
• full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
• director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com -would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

A note on the topic - after judging at hwl, i have realized that many of the policy debates I am seeing are too big, have too many moving parts, and are not being clearly synthesized by either the affirmative or the negative debaters. this leaves me liable to confusion in terms of what exactly the world of the aff / neg does, and increases how much i appreciate a comparative speech that explains the stakes of winning each argument clearly, and in relation to the other moving parts of the debate.

8 things to know:

• Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.

• i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.

• Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
• I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.

• please do not split your 2nrs! if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it, the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.

• Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.

• i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but has nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

• topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

• Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page

• IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.

• Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)

• Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature

• affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

Nikunj (Nik) Patel

nik.patel826@gmail.com

Third year out. I did four years of debate at Reagan High School. I did LD and FX all four years and did a few tournaments in CX near the end.

General

Please clarify before the round starts whether you are going to be flashing evidence or not, or creating an email chain just so we don’t have to worry about it during the round.

Don’t steal prep time, I’ve seen people do it from the other side of the desk for four years, so what makes you think that I won’t catch you now.

I am a judge who deeply evaluates arguments; however, speaking is a key factor. If I cannot understand you, then I cannot flow your argument. Even if your opponent concedes your argument, if I did not get it the first time, then I’m gonna try to draw some connection somewhere, all the while I am now missing your next argument. Basically, it is an endless cycle of lack of clarification. If an argument is important to you, than make it clear that it is, simple as that.

You need to understand that there are multiple levels to the debate, and you need to frame your rebuttals in that manner. If you do this, I can guarantee that it will help me make a decision during the round.

Framework

I don’t really care on this one. You can have a regular value and criterion or you can have a standard. I just need some weighing mechanism for the round.

Don’t run some BS theoretical pre-fiat framework that you don’t understand and simply use to just confuse your opponent. Also, don’t read it if it takes away from the actual debate either.

Preference for arguments

I am down with any arguments that you want to go for as long as it is not racist, sexist, ableist, etc.

I really like hearing many different and unique arguments. That being said, I really don’t want to push you to run anything that you don’t feel comfortable reading.

YOU DO YOU.

Policy-Making

I like them. Just make sure they are well structured. I read them and I enjoy seeing them in LD. Number one issue is being able to defend the parametricization of your plan text and why it is important that we take the debate to that topic area specifically.

Please be updated on your news before you decide to run an Elections DA.

Kritiks

I like them as well. I read them in high school and I am familiar with some of the literature. That being said, if you want me to vote for you on the K, you have to first make sure I understand what you are talking about. K's need to be articulated clearly in order for me to evaluate them.

Need to have a solid way for me to frame the round.

With generic Ks, I will evaluate them; however, I am growing tired of generic links that are just to the topic itself or links that require no work at all and are really just recycling of backfiles. Again, I will evaluate them and I will do my best to not be biased about them.

Theory

Aight, so when it comes to theory and topicality, there is one rule.

Do not run it unless there is actual abuse. I hate having to vote on theory that has “potential” abuse. Unless it is clear that it will make an actual impact on the debater or the round, I would not like to hear it.

Please be slow when reading through shells.

Theory is not an RVI especially if it is I-meet or defense on the shell. If you think it is wasting your time on the aff, read a position that you know won't cause your opponent to run it.

Miscellaneous

Do NOT read 4 off against a novice that is just trying to get experience and learn. There is no good in scaring off a novice just to make your ego bigger. I will dock speaks for this.

Please do not attempt to argue with me. I understand that you may have concerns but the best thing to do is just ask questions about how you could have done better/be better or how I evaluated certain arguments.

I really do not wish to have to ask for evidence after round unless I absolutely need to (i.e., you are banking your ballot on one piece of evidence, or there are opposing cards that are dealbreakers in the round). Thus, do your best to elucidate what the evidence says through your extensions so we don’t have to waste time doing that and I can make more time for the RFD and critiques.

Also, JUST BE NICE. Being civil in round sometimes matters a lot more to me than being a good debater. Sure, I will vote you up as a debater and you can go on to win tournaments, but I will vote you down as a person, and again I can do that with speaks.

Oh and yea, I knew you were just looking for this, so I put it at the very bottom

I’m good with speed. If you become unclear, I will yell “clear” once, after that I will put my pen down.

In terms of speaker points, (I like to think I am fairly generous), this is a general guideline of what I think about you as a debater

29.5 - 30: probably very late outrounds, winning it all maybe

29 - 29.4: will break

28 – 28.9: you are doing good so far, might break, but still much room for improvement

27 - 27.9: probably just starting out, which is completely fine, do not take it offensively. It was probably a lack of fluency during speeches and/or not enough clarity during the collection of arguments

26 - 26.9: too many filler words, hard to understand, could not keep track of arguments, did not make use of time well

Below 26: this was probably if you did one of those bad things in round listed previously

I prefer pragmatic analysis over evidence, but more recent/strong evidence is important.

I am impartial to conservative and liberal debating.

Outstanding speaking skills and presentation are always a plus.

Articulation is key for me to understand your argument better.

Background:

I debated at Winston Churchill (SATX) from 2014-2018 in LD and policy.

*Email: biancarathwick19@gmail.com

If you and your opponent are both waiting outside of the room between flights or waiting for me to get to the room etc., please have the email chain ready to send out the 1AC ASAP.

Few important things:

Tech over truth: Technical debaters do all of the work for me and understand how to evaluate arguments as opposed to leaving it up to the truth of an argument which largely relies on my own personal bias.

Don’t try to spread too fast. I was pretty fast in high school. But I also heard a lot of double breathing, gasps for air, wiggling around and not standing still. Overall looks funny and doesn’t make you sound persuasive. Your speaks will suffer.

I am ~generally~ open to whatever and want you to actually be into the debate and not sound robotic or just be reading blocks throughout every rebuttal. Do what you know and are good at. With that being said, here is how I view most arguments.

K affs: I read k affs sometimes. I enjoy them sometimes. That being said, if the 1AC is a riddle of buzzwords with no topic cards I’ll probably just stop flowing. I’m not going to vote on an aff I think you explain poorly. For instance, if your answer to every cx question sounds like “we solve by deconstructing subjectivities” (or something like that idk lol) I’m not going to be compelled to buy your solvency. Additionally, your aff should talk about the resolution, AFFIRM it, and have a methodology that is in line with what the resolution is doing. I’m fine with performances just please make sure it’s relevant to the resolution.

T/Theory: I personally default to evaluating competing interps because reasonability seems arbitrary unless you substantially explain to me why I should prefer reasonability and why that is good. I really like T and think teams need to be going for it way more often. As far as theory goes: condo, vague alts bad, floating piks bad, pics bad are all fair game in front of me. Where I will literally stop flowing are theory shells like: any spike ever, that shell that’s like “the solvency advocate of the k or cp must be the same actor as the aff” etc. Not convinced by RVI's.

Phil: I don’t know anything about phil and feel that high school debaters are very bad at explaining it. The frameworks confuse me and I always feel like there’s literally no offense whatsoever so if you want to read it in front of me you need to be explaining it and impacting out in the same way that a policy aff would be explained. Just because you have some framework from like 1822 that your opponent doesn’t understand doesn’t mean you can just extend that and weird anecdotes without ever talking about the advantages/contentions.

CP’s: You really can’t go wrong with a solid counterplan in front of me. Please slow down on the cp text. Do a good job of explaining how it solves the aff. Clearly explain and articulate how it doesn’t link to the DA. I feel like I shouldn’t have to say this but I do: make sure there’s a net benefit to the counterplan.

Disads: Have solid internal links and know how to articulate them clearly so I feel comfortable voting on a risk of the disad. Please get in the habit of doing a substantial amount of impact calc.

K’s: I enjoy them. While I’d rather hear a solid cap debate you can read whatever you’d like in front of me. That being said, there are a few areas where my prior knowledge is pretty limited. I probably don’t know about your new pomo strat. While I get the general theories behind big name authors I won’t be as caught up on the vocabulary of the alternative and stuff like that. So please make sure you are doing a good job of explaining things and NOT RELYING ON BUZZWORDS. Other than that, do whatever.

-Make sure you have good topic links that apply to the aff. I probably won’t vote on your Wilderson 10 card that was cut 4 years ago and is being recycled on every topic. However, if you’re reading older link evidence I will buy it if you know how to extrapolate on how it links to the aff in new creative ways whether it be specific instances of the language in the 1ac or particular moments in the debate.

-You really need to be doing a good job on the framing debate. I think the framing debate is something that is often under covered but it one of the easiest routes to the ballot.

-As far as permutations go, please slow down on the text of them so I am actually able to flow them and keep track of which ones are answered etc. If your opponent “dropped” one of your ten perms I need to have it on my flow before I can vote on it. As for the affirmative, spend your time in the 2ar explaining what the permutation functions as and what the net benefits are. I’m very convinced by policy affs that leverage their access to solving immediate tangible impacts which creates a sequencing question. Use that to your advantage.

-I don’t have any opinion on types of k’s that certain people can read. Just remember to be respectful and as a rule of thumb: read arguments that you actually care about and preferably the ones that you’ve actually read the lit for.

Other: Don’t be condescending to your opponents. I know it gets intense but make sure you maintain a level of civility. Actually answer questions in CX. Don’t just say things like “why not” in response to “why vote aff?” If you’re debating someone that is more traditional or much younger than you be nice and don’t spread at your top speed because that isn’t enjoyable for anyone involved. Other than that have fun!

For email chain: empireofme@gmail.com

currently teach and coach debate at Saint Mary's Hall in San Antonio.

experience:

high school 4 years cx/ld debate at laredo, tx united
college: 3 years policy at the university of texas at san antonio
coaching: 2 years coaching policy at the university of texas at san antonio, coached nine years as director of debate for reagan high school in san antonio, tx. 1.5 years as the director of speech and debate at San Marcos High School, 2.5 years as director of speech and debate at James Madison High School... currently the director of debate at Saint Mary's Hall.

former writer/ researcher for wisecrack: this does not help you.

***note: please don't call me Matt or Matthew, it is jarring and distracts me. If you must refer to me by name please call me reichle [rike-lee].

(updated sections are marked with a *)

*TOP SHELF COMMENT*

Please, please, please slow down a bit, stress clarity when speaking, and give me pen time during analytic/ theoretical arguments. I AM NOT FOLLOWING ALONG IN THE SPEECH DOCUMENT--I genuinely believe that debate is a communicative activity and I should not have to rely on the speech document to decipher the arguments you are making. If this sounds real grouchy and sounds like "get off my lawn" old man talk... fair enough.

What I mean is this: I like to think that I am working hard to listen and think during the debate and looking up from my flow makes me think about all sorts of things that are not helpful for the debate... (the posters in the room, fashion choices, the last few words of episode 12 of Andor, the amount of Hominy I should add to Pazole... etc.)... all sorts of things that are not helpful for your decision. So help me out a bit. Please.

***The Rest***

*Digital Debates:

Please consider the medium and slow down a bit/ be more purposeful or aware of clarity--the added noises of a house (animals, small children, sirens, etc.) make it a bit harder for me to hear sometimes.

Please try to not talk over one another in cross-examination: it hurts my head.

*proclamation:
I proclaim, that I am making a concerted effort to be "in the round" at all times from here on out (I suppose this is my jerry maguire manifesto/ mission statement moment) . I understand the amount of time that everyone puts in this activity and I am going to make a serious effort to concentrate as hard as possible on each debate round that I am lucky enough to judge. I am going to approach each round with the same enthusiasm, vigor, and responsibility that I afford members of a writing group--and as such I am going to treat the post round discussion with the same level of respect.

Ultimately debate is about the debaters, not about the ways in which I can inject my spirit back into the debate format. That being said there are a few things that you might want to know about me.

I debated for four years in the mid-to-late nineties in high school and three years at UTSA. I have debated ‘policy’ debates in several different formats. Because I ended my career on the ‘left’ of the debate spectrum is in no way an automatic endorsement for all out wackiness devoid of any content. That is not saying that I don’t enjoy the ‘critical’ turn in debate—quite the opposite, I like nothing better than a debate that effectively joins form in content.

*I prefer explanation and examples in debates, these make sense to me. The more depth and explanation the better.

*strategy is also something that I reward. I would like to know that you have either thought about your particular strategy in terms of winning the debate round--and I don't mind knowing that you accident-ed your way into a perfect 2nr/ar choice. Either way: the story of the round is important to me and I would like to know how the individual parts of a round fit together (how you understand them). I think this is part of effective communication and it's just helpful for me in case I am missing something. Illumination brought to me (by you) seems to be the crux of getting a decision that is favorable (to you) with me in the back of the room.


*I flow. I may not flow like you, but I keep a flow because my memory isn’t the best and because at some point I was trained to… it just kind of helps me. But I flow in a way that helps me arrange my thoughts and helps me to keep what is said in the debate limited to what is actually spoken by the debaters. I flow the entire round (including as much of the the text of the evidence as I can get) unless I know a piece of evidence that you are reading. That being said… If I can’t understand you (because of lack of clarity) I can’t flow you. also, some differentiation between tag, card, and the next piece of evidence would be great.

Topicality—I don't know why teams don't go for topicality more... it is a viable strategy (when done well in most rounds). In high school I went for T in the 2NR every round. In college I went for T (seriously) no times in the 2NR. While I give Aff’s lenience on reasonability—there is something hot about a block that just rolls with topicality.

*Counterplans/ disads. Sure. Why not. Win net benefits. Answer the perm. Make it competitive. Win your framework (if an alternate framework for evaluation is proposed by the aff). more and more i find the quality of the evidence read for most cp and da's to be shaky at best--not that there isn't great evidence on political capital and the role of popularity in certain aspects of the political economy as it pertains to pending legislation... i just find more and more that this evidence is either written by some rand-o with a blog or is great evidence that is under-hi-lighted. please read good evidence, not evidence that can be written by one of my children on the cartoon network forums section.

Performance/ The K/ the Crazy/Whatever you want to call it: Do what you have to do get your point across. If you need me to do something (see the way I flow) let me know—I will comply willingly. Just warrant your argument somehow. As before, this is in no way a full on endorsement of ridiculousness for the sake of ridiculousness. Win your framework/ impacts and you should have no problem. Please help me out with the role of the ballot. Please.

*theory: I need to flow. I can not flow a theory debate where the shell is read at the speed of a piece of evidence--tag line speed at the fastest for theory, please. Also if you have no differentiation between tag speed and card speed (good for you) but people are only pretending to flow what you are saying.


*paperless issues: prep time is up when the speaker's jump drive is out of their computer/ when you are ready to email your cards (not continue to write blocks as you 'send' your email). Completely understandable if you send the other team a few more cards than you are going to read but please do not jump the other team an entire file or seventy cards in random order. Learn to send evidence to a speech document.


It becomes harder every year for me to think of a way to encapsulate how I view debate in a way that somehow gives a useful suggestion to debaters. It seems that each philosophy follows a formula--assure everyone that you were a good debater up to and including past experience, make sure they know that you are either open or receptive to all types of argumentation while still harboring resentment to anything progressive and different from what is deemed acceptable by personal debate standards, which is then followed by a list of ways the judge hopes everyone debates.

While the formula will apply to some extent I would like to say that i am in every way honest when I say this: do what you do best and read the arguments that you prefer in the style that you prefer in front of me. Do this and I say unto you that it will do less harm than running around in circles in round for the sake of a paradigm. Be the debater that you are, not who you think I want you to be.

That being said; this is who I assume you should be: kind. Be kind to your opponent and avoid shadiness and we’ll have no problems. There is probably a list that defines shadiness but it follows the same rule as inappropriateness: if you have to ask if something is shady--it is.


have fun. have a nice year.

Email chain: richardsonmichael98@gmail.com

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

Stuff about me:

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

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

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

Some house-keeping items:

- Be Kind. Please.

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

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

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

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

Affs -- Read whatever you're comfortable with.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Framework/T-USFG -- Go for it.

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

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

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

LD Frameworks -- Do your thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Counterplans -- Explain to me what they actually do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In conclusion, some parting words.

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

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

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

I am a former CX competitor from the late 80s and early 90s from a small 3A district. To that end, my experience and preference falls within the traditional range and not progressive. While I can understand the nuances of it and appreciate its overall intent, it goes well outside of the traditional realm that I prefer. I want clear line by line, clash and impacts that are meaningful and arguments that are well fleshed out. I don't need theoretical situations and kritiks of the resolution. Debate what is given to you as the framers intended it to be debated. I would rather have one or two solid arguments that are carried through a round as opposed to superfluous argumentation that ends up being kicked out of anyway or that operates in a world that is far less meaningful than traditional argumentation.

When it comes to extemp, I am also a traditionalist and expect a speech that is well balanced and that answers the prompt a contestant has been given. (Attention Getter/Hook - Thesis - Points - Conclusion that wraps up). Source variety is as important to me as is the number of sources. Fluidity is the real key. Don't make the speech choppy and don't offer so much content that you are unable to go back and analyze what you've spoken about. This is particularly true when it comes to lots of stats and numbers; don't overload a speech with content on that level that there is no real understanding of how you have synthesized the information you've given. And if you are also a debater, please remember - this is a SPEAKING event, not a debate event.

For topics that err on the side of persuasive and controversial, I DO NOT have an issue with topics that you feel could be flash-points that you think bias will impact the outcome. As long as you can substantiate and articulate what you are talking about with credible information and good analysis, we'll be good and the ballot will be free of bias.

Add me to the email chain: pia.sen@utexas.edu

Did some coaching for Texas + judging through the NDT 2020-2021 season

Texas Debate 2016-2020

UT Dallas Debate 2015-2016

LASA Debate 2011-2015

Updated 09/16/2023

Online Debate:

Please go a bit slower (80% of normal speed) on tags and analytics to account for video lag. If you're willing, maybe put in analytics for the doc to mitigate tech issues.

Short of it:

Probably best for clash or K v. K debates - not super good for policy v. policy debates except for T (not an ideological thing, just lack of experience with those situations), but I will do my best to evaluate those as instructed. Please explain topic specific acronyms and jargon for now. I believe debate is more about combat than collaboration - there's a competitive incentive to win so though we do learn from each other and have important discussions, I don't feel super persuaded by claims about how we should all work together in a debate (yes, I am persuaded that debate is a game). My role as a judge is to evaluate the arguments in front of me unless given an alternative role.

I think debate is not about me (the judge) but about the debaters - college debate gave me my voice and so much more, helping me grow as a person. It is a game with implications that shape our lives, and I want you to debate the way you are drawn to and find those benefits in whatever form is most important for you. I will do my best to help make your time as fulfilling as possible. That being said, I have certain biases/ ways of seeing debate/ limitations which I will try to describe below - however, I can be persuaded otherwise.

Judge instruction is crucial. My most extensive involvement has been with NDT and CEDA college debate, so I will probably try to adhere to those norms when judging. Fine with framework arguments, fine with K's and K affs. Will probably not vote on theoretical objections to intrinsic or severance permutations. Do impact calculus. I will follow along with your ev. and read the cards as much as I can.

Judges I try to judge like: Brendon Bankey, Will Baker, Michael Barlow, Scott Harris, and David Kilpatrick.

Speaking:

If you spread through analytics with no warrants, I may miss something. I will say 'clear' twice then put down my pen. My flow is okay, but online debate has made that harder so take that as you will. I believe CX is speech time, and accordingly, you will be rewarded/penalized for good CX moments and smart questions. CX concessions and moments need to be brought up and explained/ impacted in speeches to be considered arguments on which I will cast my ballot.

My speaker point scale (I adjust to the tournament): I award speaker points for speaking style, strategy, CX, etc. I do tend to have a soft spot for clever strategic turns and CX moments so I think I probably tend to penalize speaking slips like "uh" or "um" less than most judges.

28.8 - average

28.9-29.3 - Quite good, I think you'll break even or be in early elims of the tournament

29.4 -29.6 - Probably top 15 speaker at whatever tournament (D3 regional)/ outrounds of a major

Case Debates:

Do it.

For policy affs - harder to get me to vote on presumption. For K affs, I am not afraid to pull the trigger on presumption - especially if you don't have a reason why the introduction of the aff into debate is a good idea, or why deliberation around it is good/ why the reading of the 1AC is insufficient to access the aff's educational project. If you just play music in the 1AC and claim that's the aff solvency mechanism, I need to know why this is a departure from the status quo or why the introduction of that pedagogy should be evaluated as something to be affirmed with the ballot. However, if you are going for presumption I would like to have an interpretation for what the aff should do to meet the burden of presumption (whether that be material change, or whatever).

Framework Debates:

I enjoy framework debates on both sides, and think they can be some of the most interesting debates when we discuss the value of debate and what education should be obtained from the deliberative process of the activity. Similarly, they can also be the most stale and least responsive regurgitation of blocks (on both sides).

I think fairness is just an internal link to education, but can be convinced otherwise.

If you go for CIs with framework (Aff teams):

While debate is probably just a game, the education produced is not neutral. I think that limits and clash as internal links to deliberation are persuasive when adjudicating a framework debate, so the aff should provide a counter-model of debate and what the debates that should occur within debate look like under the aff's model (what is the role of the aff? the neg?). Probably, there's a reason why the aff's introduction into debate is a good idea and why discussion over it is good- otherwise we wouldn't be here. Do that work to parse out your role of debate - I think it's best done through a model of competition. Additionally, do good work on the internal link turns to the neg's model of education (debates occurring under that model)

If you go for Impact turns vs. FW (Aff teams):

I'll vote on args like 'debate bad' but you need a reason why I should vote for you/ not vote on presumption/ what voting aff does.

For the negative reading FW:

Ground isn't really a great impact for framework debates in my opinion, because ground is sort of inevitable so going for a limits k2 deliberation impact is probably better.

Topicality Debates (other than T USFG):

T is fun! Do your impact work.

CP & DA Debates:

All good. Do what you need to do. I love Politics DAs and topic DAs. I don't feel super equipped when judging the theory components of consult or delay CP debates but I'll try. I love good advantage CPs.

Kritiks:

Contextualize the link and impact work to the aff you are debating, have a solid alt or a good framework explanation for why I don't need to vote on an alt for you to win the debate. I believe that debate is a question of scholarship production that shapes how we see the world, and so 'revise and resubmit' framework arguments are more persuasive to me than some. I think examples are awesome for contextualizing impacts and how the aff uniquely makes things worse, which is a question I need to be able to answer at the end of the debate to vote for you.

Please do your impact work in terms of the aff, and explain why those are relevant.

Misc:

Probably won't adjudicate based on things that happen outside of the round that I don't witness. Will evaluate in round impacts about performative aspects of the debate. Please no slurs for subject positions that you do not occupy. Decent judge for gendered/ableist/racist language arguments. You must impact out your theory arguments, and I will not vote on an argument that is not well explained with warrants.

Accessibility:

Let me know if there's anything I can do to help- feel free to email me or pull me aside if that is easier.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I do not judge this very often, will adjudicate it similar to a policy debate. Will probably not vote on cheap shot theory or "tricks" unless it is well explained.

Policy Debate for 4 Years at Reagan in San Antonio

2A for 3 years, 2N for 1 year

Add me to the email chain: hsiddi123@gmail.com

Debate is a game. I don't really have predispositions about certain types of arguments being better than others. It just happened that the environment I was taught debate in had a proclivity for k debate.

Tech over truth. That being said, I think spin control is immensely important in close debates, and I prefer clear warranted arguments that trace your evidence to its utility in round over loads of tagline extensions for the purpose of ink.

Making "framing issues" and filtering the rest of your offense through these is probably the most persuasive way to organize your rebuttals. In a perfect round, the first words of your rebuttal should be the top of my RFD.

Kritiks: I read a lot of structural criticisms about race and gender. Around 75% of my 2NR's were settler colonialism or afropessimism. I have exposure to a decent amount of critical literature. However, assuming I have been exposed to your's is not a good idea.

Framing and specificity are the most important parts of k debate. A ROB/ROJ/framing mechanism is essential and offense should be filtered through these. Contextualize links please. Also, I like it when you make turns case arguments in the link debate.

Aff framework against kritiks: I was mostly on the other side of these debates. However, good scenario planning and pluralism arguments are convincing. I generally believe that winning that in some way your simulation/presentation can be good and that in said simulation you can somewhat address the kritiks harms through a perm is the best move. This is necessary to winning you get to weigh the hypothetical implementation of the plan.

K Affs: In a strategic sense, your aff should probably do something and have some proximity to the resolution, but I'll evaluate whatever.

The farther you are from the resolution, the more sympathetic I’ll be to a T/framework argument. I appreciate creative impact turns to framework that pertain to the affirmative over generic indicts to gameplaying or roleplaying.

Against kritiks, explain what the perm does. Just because there are some areas of compatibility between your theories/methods doesn’t mean I will automatically grant you the permutation.

T-USFG against K Affs: Limits are important. Procedural fairness is a good impact. Whether or not it’s a yes/no question is up to the flow.

Often times, TVA's can somewhat address immediate impacts of the affirmative but are antithetical to the method. Should the affirmative point and impact that out, you would be in a tough spot. You should interact with the nuances of the affirmative's literature, particularly when crafting TVA's and answering impact turns.

That being said, filtering the debate through a good TVA will win you the debate.

Performance: Go for it. There should be a purpose to your performance. If you do not want me to flow certain portions of the debate, tell me.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations. Limits is the best standard. If T isn’t a big portion of the block, I’ll have sympathy for some new 2AR extrapolation.

Counterplans: I like nuanced internal net benefits. It's always better when the CP is both textually and functionally competitive, but it's not necessary. Burden is on the affirmative to prove it is.

I’ll leave it up to the debaters to determine which counterplans are cheating. Slow down on counterplan theory. In the event of an absolute tie, I generally would lean negative in most cases.

Disads: The top of your rebuttals should be impact overviews and turns case arguments.

Compare evidence. Disads generally rely on exaggerated doomsday scenarios and out of context/misquoted evidence. If you are debating against a disad that sounds like what I’m talking about, point it out.

Theory: I was not in a lot of these debates. However, the theory debates I ended up in had to do with conditionality, permutations, PICS, Floating PIKS, and vague alts. Do what you want with that information. Evaluating these debates becomes a question of the flow, so please slow down and make smart analytical arguments.

Remember to be nice and have fun!

I'm open to anything, but I am unsympathetic to research burden arguments and time suck arguments. And I'm sympathetic to arguments that theory was frivolous. I'm fine with speed.

It is extremely important to me that debaters are civil to each other.

experience:

high school cx 4 years

Email: asodders1156@gmail.com

I don't need to be on the email chain

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

Argument thoughts:

Kritiks

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

I'm good with whatever just do the thing.

K affs

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

Topicality

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

Disads/Counterplans

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

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

Theory

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

Good luck :)))

I like to say that I am tab and I do my best to judge the round via the flow, but I realize we all have biases of one degree or another. Therefore I will try to explain how I think to help you evaluate if you would like me to be the judge in the back of the room.

Some background. I attended Miller High School in Corpus Christi, TX. For those of you unfamiliar with Corpus Christi. In my day it was known as the "ghetto" school where the "hood" and "bario" intersect. I debated LD for 4 years in high school from 1987-1991. In 1991, I was the top speaker and quarterfinalist at TFA state.

Currently, I own a wealth management firm in Corpus Christi and have a radio show called "Fit to Retire". I have two sons that have participated in debate for the last 7 years mainly in policy. This is who I have voted for President; 1992 Bill Clinton, 1996 Bill Clinton, 2000 Al Gore, 2004 John Kerry, 2008 John McCain, 2012 Mitt Romney, 20016 Donald Trump. I tend to vote Republican, but consider my real political ideology to be libertarian.

LD philosophy

I like traditional value, criterion, contention level debate.

I like critical arguments. With this said, please know that I am strong believer in capitalism and freedom. However I have found that I often vote up critical arguments because the debaters running them have typically debated better.

I am not a fan of theory unless true abuse is occurring. I really do not like debates about debate. I think the appropriate place for changing norms in the space is the rules committee not the debate round. With that said I will vote for theory, but it has a higher burden. If a debater runs theory and has a claim, warrant and impact on the flow and blows it up in the rebuttal, I will probably vote on it.

I am fine with LARP, but I could be persuaded by theory that policy does not have a place in the world of LD.

I am fine with CP's, PIC's, and PIK's, but I want to know what the net benefit is.

Arguments = claim + warrant + impact

Cards do not equal warrants. Warrants justify the claim. Impacts tell me why and how the claim is important to the resolution and our world.

The easiest way to when a round in front of me is comparative worlds. Tell me what the world of the AFF and the world of the NEG look like. Tell me why I would prefer to live in the world that you are advocating for over the world of your opponent’s advocacy.

My kids have told me that I need to disclose how I flow. I typically do not flow tags. I flow warrants. I often find that the tag vs. how the card is cut is different. Therefore I am flowing the warrant coming out of the card instead of the tag that is being used.

I am not a fan of prewritten overviews. I would really prefer to see the time spent analyzing and impacting the arguments that are on the flow. I love contextualization in the round.

I do listen to CX. I love when CX is brought into the round. When you extend and argument, please do not just say extend the Butler 12 evidence against my opponents 3rd contention, But tell me what the 3rd contention is and why the Butler evidence refutes or turns your opponent's argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: Topic specific stuff: authoritarian something

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

-maybe don't use yemen as the neg probably

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My speaks range:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

add me to the email chain pls: gabrielasvaldez@gmail.com

Winston Churchill High School '20 UT '24

In high school, I primarily read K’s so I’m a better judge for k v. k and policy v. k debates. policy v. policy debates are great if that's what you do best!

Tell me how I should evaluate arguments/impacts

K v. K - These debates can get messy so make sure you have aff specific links. If you're going to go for the perm, explain why your two theories are compatible.

Policy v. K - Aff specific links are good and give you a much better chance of winning the debate. I’m familiar with some different K literature but make sure your arguments are clear and theories are well explained. The framework debate is extremely important, don’t forget about it.

K aff v. FW/T - Explain why your interp/counter interp is the best for debate. I have/will vote on FW/T.

Policy v. Policy - I engaged in these types of debates the least in high school but I know how to evaluate them. If this is what you're most comfortable with go for it.

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

LD Specific

I did policy in high school so I'm not super familiar with LD tricks/uncommon theory arguments. I've judged LD for the past few years on and off but I'm not the best for these types of arguments! Besides this, all the stuff above applies.

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

don’t make arguments/comments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc.

do what you do best

have fun

I am a parent judge with no children. Pref accordingly.

Just kidding - I debated LD for 4 years at McNeil High School.

Contact Info -

Email - p.vijayan@utexas.edu

Issues:

Speed - I don't mind. Please be articulate. Please don't use speed as a tool against people who don't want it.

Framework - I think it's a fun debate and I'm very comfortable judging it. I prefer it used to weigh impacts in the round, rather than the only thing being discussed.

Theory - Please don't read intentionally frivolous arguments to take away from substantive debate. It's difficult to get my vote if the interpretation is unreasonable or lacks a significant abuse story - for instance, this applies to interpretations which force debaters to specify minutia, such as "brackets for clarity". Please go slower on your interpretations and standards, especially when weighing - I don't want to miss anything important. I (personally) don't like disclosure theory but I will vote on it. I will not vote on absent some egregious violation however. I tend to discount actions taken outside of the round if the abuse story is reliant on that kind of evidence. I am partial to violations which marginalize/constrain debaters' capacity to respond to a substantive argument made in the round.

T - same views as theory. I default to no RVIs, but I'm sure you can convince me.

Policy Debate - I am comfortable judging this form of debate. I enjoy hearing articulate weighing debates about real-world issues.

Critiques - I am not particularly familiar with identity-based philosophy. Please articulate your positions clearly and weigh critiques against the 1ac/1nc properly.

I will reward debaters who demonstrate an understanding of the literature in its intended (academic) context, as opposed to a surface-level utilization of critical literature for debate purposes. I will penalize debaters who did not do their due diligence before constructing their argument or twist the intended meaning of the text for a cheap win.

Tricks - I will judge them, but do not expect me to be exceptionally liberal with speaker points.

I usually give good speaks. My range is 28-30 with comparatively more 30s than 27s.

I have a background in acting and usually coach/judge interp & public speaking. I am looking for those hallmarks that make a story complete. In extemp, even as a person who has no knowledge base of the topic should at the end of your speech have a firm grasp of its background and you argument in the matter. Informative speeches should be clear and should include creative visuals, interesting takeaways, and a concise train of thought. Oration should be a place to share experiences either personal or researched. The personal experience should be authentic and tied to the topic. Oratory should be a place to advocate for the things you believe to be important. Hi, Di, Duo, Duet, Poi, etc, should have a story that through the acting/blocking is easy to follow and enjoy. Contestants should always be courteous in the round and respectful of competitors and judges. Final interp ranks are factored between story, technical blocking, acting, and overall effect.

Did Public Forum throughout high school, also dabbled in LD and Policy. Currently do Parli debate at Texas State. Fine with all arguments, just don't be squirrely for the sake of being squirrely.

sophiewilczynski at gmail dot com for email chains & specific questions.

I debated for UT austin from 2014-17 & have remained tangentially affiliated with the program since. my degree is in rhetoric, and as a debater I read a lot of big structural critiques and weird impact turns.

***

tldr: I have been doing this for a while. I don't really care what you say as long as you engage it well. do what you do best, make meaningful distinctions, & don't be rude while you're at it!

clarity matters, esp in the age of virtual debate. as long as I can understand what you are saying I shouldn’t have trouble getting it down - that being said, debaters have an unfortunate tendency to overestimate their own clarity, so just something to keep in mind. slowing down on procedurals, cp/alt texts, & author names is very much appreciated.

topicality - fun if you're willing to do the work to develop them properly. I think evidence comparison is a super under-utilized resource in T debates, and a lot of good teams lose to crappy interps for this reason. as with anything else, you need to establish & justify the evaluatory framework by which you would like me to assess your impacts. have a debate, don't just blast through ur blocks

disads/CPs - fine & cool. i find that huge generic gnw/extinction scenarios often don't hold up to the scrutiny and rigor of more isolated regional scenarios. will vote on terminal defense if I have a good reason to do so. pics are usually good

K debates - make a decision about the level at which your impacts operate and stick to it. and talk about the aff. this applies to both sides. the neg should be critiquing the affirmative, not merely identifying a structure and breaking down the implications without thorough contextualization. the mechanics of the alternative & the context in which it operates have to be clearly articulated and comparatively contextualized to the mechanics of 1AC solvency. i think a lot of murky & convoluted perm debates could be avoided with greater consideration for this - impact heuristics matter a lot when establishing competition (or levels of competition). likewise, blasting through thousands of variants of "perm do x" with no warrants or comparative explanation does not mean you have made a permutation. will vote on links as case turns, but will be unhappy about it if it's done lazily.

framework - i think it's good when the aff engages the resolution, but i don't have any particularly strong feelings about how that should happen

theory - if you must

misc

case matters, use it effectively rather than reading your blocks in response to nothing

i find myself judging a lot of clash debates, which is usually cool

prep ends when doc is saved

be nice & have fun

Updated January 2024

About me:

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

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

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

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

TL;DR version:

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

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

Evidence Standards:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prep Time Standards:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argument-by-argument breakdown:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

My paradigm

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

Debaters should:

Speak slowly.

State the resolution, as that is what is being debated

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

Speak very slowly.

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

Be nice to each other.

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

Speak slowly.

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

Speakers should:

Be entertaining, thoughtful, logical, organized.

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

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

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

Interpers should:

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

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

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

I previously coached LD, PF, and CX at A&M Consolidated, and did LD at Northland Christian in high school. If you're here for PF, skip to the third paragraph.

Disclaimer: I have not judged many online rounds this year and would really appreciate it if tags were read slowly and if you prioritized clarity over speed! I'm sure a lot of my paradigm is dated (I wrote most of it a couple of years ago) so feel free to ask for clarification on anything :)

As a debater, I read a lot of plans, DAs, and CPs and so I like listening to them, but I'm cool with other off case positions, too. When it comes to Ks, I would really appreciate it if the position was clearly explained (especially in terms of ROB/ROJ and the layer of the debate it functions on) and cleanly extended throughout the round, since I may not be as familiar with some of the literature (especially if you're reading pomo type stuff). I won't vote on any argument that tries to justify unjustifiable things (the Holocaust, slavery, other forms of oppression). If you need clarification on what that means, feel free to ask. If you're reading a process CP I'll be more receptive to perms/theory against it.

I would prefer that you don't read frivolous theory in front of me. I know my definition of that is different than others, so feel free to ask for clarification before the round. I'm open to listening to T, but I'd honestly prefer to not have it become the only layer in the round/the only thing I have to vote off of. Same with RVIs. Also, I find myself voting for K's a lot more often in TvsK debates, so my threshold for "non-topical" affs is probably more forgiving than some. I default to reasonability if it's a situation of potential or frivolous theory but will go with competing interps if you justify it, which isn't hard to do, so please take the extra 15 or so seconds to do so if that's what you want to go with. Also, extend voters and drop the debater arguments please. Condo is fine when limited to one (or two in CX) positions, but feel free to take the time to explain otherwise in either direction. I think conditional K's can be kind of bad perceptually depending on what the pre-fiat impact is if there is one, or if there's a performative/different method-based aspect to it.

You'll get high speaker points if you speak clearly, extend arguments, and weigh, and you'll get low speaker points if you're rude and/or offensive to anyone in the room (I listen to CX, too, so be civil during that), especially if you're debating someone clearly out of their depth and you're obviously winning but you decide to go about it obnoxiously, or if you speak particularly unclearly. In more competitive rounds aka at bid tournaments, speaks will be more likely to be based off of strategy. If you go all in on T or theory when you don't need to, for example, there's a chance I'll dock speaks. When spreading, please just be clear. I'll ask you to be clearer a few times if necessary, but eventually I'll just have to try my best with guessing if you don't listen, and that isn't good for anyone. Also, for PF, the 2nd speaking team should cover part of the case in the rebuttal speech, terminal defense is fine to extend, and line by line is alright up until the summary, arguably the final focus. Don't go for everything and have solid issue selection since y'all don't get the best time constraints.

Feel free to ask for clarification on any of these points before the round, or ask any more questions that you think could apply to the debate. Thanks for reading this!

My email is zollomargarita@gmail.com, I would love to be added to the email chain!