I try to be as close to a Tab judge as possible. I will listen and vote on any argument or style of debate as long as it is well developed and given clear voters in your speeches.

Style and Presentation:

Maintaining a collegial atmosphere is very important to me. Try to keep hyperbolic and sarcastic comments to a minimum. Don’t expect me to disregard an argument because a debater says it’s stupid or wrong. Explain why it’s wrong and engage the warrant and evidence.

Speed is fine as long as it’s clear and consistent. The tags and analytical arguments NEED to be slower so they are easy to differentiate. I will say “CLEAR” if it gets too muddled.

Impact Calculus and Weighing will be a key factor in my decision-making. Debaters should state what they think the most important thing in the round is, why they think it’s important and why they think I should vote for it. I would also like debaters to include analysis of what the role of the ballot should be.

While overviews are sometimes useful, they are often overwrought and I ask that they be short and sweet. I would prefer most of the debate to occur on the line-by-line next to the evidence that makes the arguments to keep the flow tight and encourage clash.

I don’t like judge kicks. Debaters should have a clear and firm defense of the arguments they wish to the present in the rebuttals.

I don’t count flashing or e-mailing as prep but don’t steal prep please! If you’re talking, writing or typing, prep should be running. I do request to be on the e-mail chain if there is one. ( ben.achtsam@gmail.com ).

Tech vs. Truth – I would say that I am more for Tech over Truth. I try to allow the flow and the debaters to shape and lead the round in order to intervene as little as possible. Make sure to extend arguments to keep them on the flow. I don’t like whole advantages just showing back up in the 2AR after being absent since the 1AC. I will vote on weaker arguments if they were not properly answered in the constructive speeches but debaters should do extra work to build them up and explode on them in order to make them reasonable voting issues.

K – I am familiar with most common critical debate arguments and will vote on them. I greatly prefer specific links and love it when you take the time out to pick out in the evidence where it specifically talks about the opponents’ position. Debate is ultimately about education therefore don’t try to be squirrely when explaining the philosophical underpinning of your K. You should strive to give a straightforward and intellectually honest explanation that will help your opponents understand what your arguments mean. Explain what the alt does and tell me what the world of the alt looks like in comparison to the world of the aff and the status quo. I don’t like alts that are tagged simply as “Reject” because it doesn’t tell me anything about your advocacy.

Topicality & Theory – While I will vote on these arguments in a vacuum if they are properly argued and given independent voters, pointing out specific abuse in the round that relates to your violation is the best way to get me to vote on them. Don’t go crazy with a flurry of Ts or random theory args sprinkled through your speeches as time sucks.

CP – I prefer your counterplans to have an actual CP text that’s written down so it can be reviewed by both teams just as a plan text would be. PICs are fine as long as you can defend the theory and do well explaining why it gets a net-benefit against the aff’s specific plan.

Exp: I debated for four years at Winston Churchill High School in San Antonio, Texas between 2008-2012. I went to camps at UTNIF and GDI. And I've been judging since 2012. Needless to say policy debate and I go way back.

Overview: While I ended my debate career on the left side of argumentation, experimenting with form and critical theory, I would still bust out a strategic cp/D/A where strategy required. At this juncture I enjoy a great policy-oriented debate as much as I enjoy a well argued critical position. If your coach or buddy says they knew how I debated and high school and that you should do 'X' in front of me, disregard them. Be you. Do what you do best. Read the arguments you like to read, just take strategy into consideration.

How I Judge: I default to an offense/defense paradigm, regardless of whether critical or traditional arguments are being read. Given the nuanced uniqueness of the activity - that the rules can be debated while debating - I think it is important for debaters to establish their interpretations of what is acceptable through T, Theory, and Framework where it is applicable. It is on you to tell me how I should see the round, how I should evaluate the arguments within it and how I should vote. It's also on you to tell me what type of calculus to use when I vote (impact weighing, f/w, theory, etc). Should I be a utilitarian or should I look at the round in another way? What is the role of my ballot? Should an argument deemed theoretically objectionable in round be rejected or should the team that read it be voted down? You tell me.

Etiquette: Whether you think policy debate is a fun place to role play and prep for college or you think it is a revolutionary ground for X movement, above all this activity is two things: a student activity and an educational activity. As students, you are expected to interact on the spectrum between not rude and cordial. I understand that arguments can get heated, particularly those that a debater might have a personal connection with. Don't be afraid to express what you need to express and say what you need to say, but be mindful that stark disrespect and gratuitous foul language don't float in my boat. Be competitive, be authentic. As long as you are mindful of the line between competition and flat out aggression in terms of how you carry yourself, all should be well in my book.

Tech Considerations: Paperless debates tend to give me 1,001 headaches as a judge. A lack of proficiency amongst students causes rounds to drag on and reflects a lack of preparation. Ballpark estimate, I think 75% of you are bad at doing this in an efficient and effective manner. Don't be a statistic! Prep time ends when the flash drive is out or when the speech doc is sent.

I'm open to answering any specific questions pre-round.

Lampasas HS '18 (1A/2N)

She/Her

Top Level:

I consider myself tab really only because of framework. I consider framing very critical if it is presented in the round. However, if you don't normally read framing, don't feel pressured to do it now. Along with that, I believe reading framing off the 1AC or 1NC, but then never touching on it again, or until rebuttals, is nothing but a waste of time for your team. If you use it, use it offensively not just because you think I want to hear it. Aside from framing, I'm more of an offense/defense judge, and will evaluate the round based off of who holds the most offense in the room. Because of this, impact calculus done well and consistently throughout the round will be beneficial. Tell me how to vote and why.

Overall, I want you to run what you are most comfortable with, and at the speed you are most comfortable at. On the note of speed, spreading is not an issue with me and I will be able to flow it. However, if for some reason clarity becomes difficult, I will let you know by saying, "clear".

*** If there is an email chain, I prefer to be a part of it. brooke.branum@gmail.com ***

If you have questions, or need any clarification, please don’t hesitate to ask in round.

T/Theory:

I default to competing interp. This is probably my favorite argument, and I will not hesitate to vote neg on T. I highly prioritize the standard debate. In order to convince me that your standards outweigh, you need to do the work on it. So simply carrying a T into the 2NR just to spend 30 seconds on it, is far from good enough. You don't necessarily have to go 5 in on T, but if you decide not to kick out of it, it needs to be prioritized in the 2NR.

I really enjoy theory arguments as whole, as long as it's ran well. So if you have some crazy theory that you're wondering if you can run, I will absolutely evaluate it.

I also typically like to flow theory on a separate page, so if you are running any please let me know in the roadmap.

DA/CP:

I'm not a huge fan of CP's, however, if they are your thing please run it, I will vote on them. My issue usually stems from the neg not understanding their counterplan text. So, if you are able to contextualize it well and understand how you access the net benefit, I'm fine with them.

Generic links in DAs aren't a deal breaker with me unless the debate becomes centered there, and the aff convinces me otherwise. Aside from that, my primary focus on DA's are on the offense that you garner from them. Don't let the weight of the impacts get muddled throughout the round.

K:

The alt/impact of a K is where I usually vote. That is not to say I won't vote on a link argument made by the aff, but this usually only happens if it is an offensive argument, i.e. link turn. Don't get me wrong, making a no link argument is still very important, but I rarely vote solely on a no link.

Once you get out of the basic realm of Cap., Fem., Neo. Lib., etc., I probably don't have a lot of knowledge on the literature. I ask that in this situation, please slow down on the tags so I can get a full understanding of the story.

If you are running a K, I am making the assumption that you know it well. This means that you should show immense knowledge of what the world of the alt looks like, and be able to show that through how you impact it out. Basically, don't just choose a random K off of open evidence that you've never looked at before.

Former High School CX debater (Madison HS in San Antonio, 1999-2002), current coach at Incarnate Word High School in San Antonio.

As a CXer, I was always partial to Kritik debate over direct policy stuff or big scary disads with dubious logical linkage. But, I will vote on anything that rises to the top of the discourse and is won and given clear voters.

I love good, clear philosophical argumentation and am well read in philosophy (all time periods) and literature (especially post 1800).

I know absolute tabula rasa is impossible, but in terms of evaluating the substance of your arguments I will strive for it anyway. I will vote on what you win in the round, whether or not I agree with it in 'real life.' Along with this comes the burden (for debaters I am judging) of not expecting me to connect any dots or make any assumptions... Give clear and well-warranted voters. In an extreme way: if you need me to consider something important, then the flow should show a clearly developed explanation of why it is important.

I like speed. I'll let you know once in a round if I need you to speak more clearly.

It is important to me that competitors treat each other with kindness and consideration.

If you are emailing evidence to your opponent prior to and/or in-round, please include me: jncourtn@uiwtx.edu.

I like to see a variety of sources in extemp. Don't just throw it in there to have it, make sure it helps paint the picture.

I like to see some type of extemp walk to help me visualize the speech more.

Threads not the most important to have in extemp, but there should be some solid transitions going into each point.

Significance in all speech events are super important to me. I need to know why I should listen to you.

If using language it really needs to have it's purpose.

Debate:

Talk Pretty

I enjoy role of the ballot and role of the judge you tell me how to vote on the round.

Run whatever as long as you can explain. Key word is EXPLAIN.

Don't be rude to one another or you will lose speaker points.

Tabula Rasa / stock isssues

Voters need to be carried out throughout the round Same with Topicality standards

I want to see impact calcs unless your running utilitarianism

Not a fan of the “evidence card” debate unless it plays a significant role

I’ll allow kicks except for Theory/Kritik and Counterplans. No kicks in rebuttals and no significantly new arguments in 2NC

Anything goes as long as it’s a structured argument

Win or not Ill take off speaks if the openents are unnecessarily rude to each other in round

*Bolded information is for skimming if you're short on time.

**Online Tournament Notes: I'll unmute and let you know if you're having audio problems. Still comfortable with speed, but ask that we slow down a couple of notches from top speed to account for lag.

Round Info:

Feel free to just call me Kay; pronouns are she/her. I did policy for four years at North Lamar High School and graduated in 2017. I am currently a full-time social worker, so I don’t judge as much as I used to, which means that my topic-specific knowledge isn’t super high this year.

If you are using an email chain, my email is kay.edwards1027@gmail.com. If you are flashing, I don't want the flash and I'll ask if I need a specific piece of evidence post-round.

Attaching to the flash/email isn't prep unless it's excessive. If you're moving stuff between documents or around inside the document, that should be on the clock. If anything gets excessive, I'll let you know to start prep again.

Philosophy (all events):

Debate should be about the arguments you find "best" for you. I am comfortable and equally happy in well-warranted policy debates as I am in well-warranted kritikal or performance debates. When not given another framing mechanism, I tend to default to an offense/defense paradigm. My general answer to what "should" be allowed in a round is that theory read/answered by the debaters will parse that out.

[added on 2/23/2023] - For the sake of transparency, I want to add a few caveats to the above. The more I listen to it, the more I've discovered that I have a pretty high threshold for voting on disclosure theory. Just something to be aware of if you choose to read it in front of me.

Speaker Points (all events):

I assign speaker points on strategic decision-making and organization (including signposting and coherent line-by-line). I will dock speaker points for excessive rudeness, demeaning others in the debate, and intentionally making offensive/discriminatory arguments or comments in the debate.

Easy Routes to my Ballot (policy but also everything else really):

1. You should construct the narrative you want on my ballot. This means that I don't want to have to fill in internal links, test truth claims, or filter your offense through the framing that wins the debate.

2. Consistency across speeches is important. That means I'm not voting on 2NR/2AR arguments from the 1AC/1NC that aren't in the block or 1AR. I also have a pretty high threshold for buying arguments that are shadow extended through the block/1AR.

3. I prefer evidence analysis/extension over card dumps. I very seldom find dumping cards onto the flow in the 2NC/2AC compelling if I'm not getting some articulation of how the evidence functions in the round.

LD Paradigm:

I'm fine with everything from more traditional value/criterion debate to more policy-style debates, performance debates, etc. Have the debate you want and are most comfortable having. That being said, some of the less common LD arguments (skep, NIBs, etc.) are pretty out of my wheelhouse and will require some serious explanation for me to understand them enough to feel comfortable voting on them.

One other thing I like to add for LD'ers: winning framework (morality good, util good, etc.) isn't enough to win the debate if you aren't winning a piece of offense through your framing. I won't do the work of weighing your offense for you, either, so please show me how your offense connects to your framing.

PF Note (updated September 2020): I don't judge very much PF, but you all ask this question, so I'll go ahead and make it easy on you: defense isn't sticky. If you want me to vote on it, I need to be able to track the argument from speech to speech.

Feel free to email or talk to me in person before or after the round with any questions that come up!

Experience: 3 years of high school CX at Reagan HS in Texas. Debated APDA at NYU, currently attend Harvard Law. I mostly debated the K (poorly) as a 2N in high school.

Add me to the email chain: jgalaz1999@gmail.com

I think debate is a game that everyone should be allowed to participate in to the best of their ability. Please be mindful of this and remember that you opponent is a person just like you. Be nice.

This is your activity and I will adjust to whatever type of debate you want to do. Do what you are best at, not what you I think I want to hear. Without further ado, here are my specific thoughts on these arguments:

T- I default to competing interps unless told otherwise, but you need to be very convincing.

K- Assume I know none of your lit and be sure to contextualize links to the aff.

DA- I have a high threshold for generic link arguments. On the other hand, a well researched and specific link and DA are very hard to vote against.

CP- Read any Counterplan you want just explain how it’s competitive. It’s up to the aff to tell me why it’s unfair.

K Aff/Performance- Go for it.

Theory- Never debated it except for when answering it. Speak slowly and walk me through it. Don’t read it for the sake of reading it because I probably won’t vote on it unless it’s clear that there is in-round abuse.

Shoot me an email for any more specific questions you have about my paradigm and I’ll be sure to answer them to the best of my ability.

Extra notes:

I’m not the judge you want if you plan on going for an RVI or something specific to LD. I wish I was but I’m just not. I’m not up to date with the LD meta.

I flow on paper.

I will flow whatever I can understand from you and say clear as many times as I need to.

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible to you.

The more eloquent and convincing you are the higher your speaker points will be.

I will take whatever is thrown at me. I lean to more to critical forms of debate, but that's not what I will only vote on. I believe that policy debate and role playing have an important place in debate. Saying that do what you are best at if you are better at traditional policy debate do that instead of critical debate and vis versa, I will try my best to comprehend what you are saying.

Debate has evolved into fast reading and card over load, while this has its place I prefer less card dumping and more in depth analysis as the round goes on. Please do not just scream 483729 cards at me in the span of 8 minutes it hurts me ears and my hand cause i gotta flow all that.

The resolution is pretty important and I think teams should find creative ways to work under it, but you do not have to defend the usfg or read a PT. You just better be ready to read some framework as in why you (the aff team) have to take this position.

I prefer to see good internal link analysis if I have no idea what is going on then I will probably not vote on it, tell me a story with good impact calc at the end. Threshold for voting neg is that they have to prove why we have to reject the aff, rather than just a counter methodology or alternative. When it comes down to evaluating arguments I vote for the team that has some sort of framing that tells me the judge what to value in the round.

It is very hard for me to vote on theory, but better have a good violation with even better voters.

some side notes: I prefer email chain but flashing is fine, I do not count flashing as prep (as long as you don't take long to do so) Don't be mean in round it makes you look like a ass-hat have respect for your opponent and act professional in round. My name is Aaron I also go by AJ (he/him)

If you have any other questions about my paradigms here is my email: aaronjgarcia22@gmail.com

Harvard update (2/12/2024)

Not great for the K, except for maybe K's of language/rhetoric. In Policy v K rounds, I vote aff for the perm quite a bit. Not sure I have ever evaluated a K v K debate. In K aff v T-framework debates, I usually vote neg. Fairness and clash are pretty persuasive to me. I have voted for a non-topical aff a few times, but it's probably an uphill battle.

You should probably go slower than you would like in front of me, but I can usually keep up. If you really want me to keep up, I'd recommend leaving analytics in the doc.

I expect everyone to be nice and respectful to each other. Please be mindful of pronouns. Ask your opponents if you don't know.

I err neg on most counterplan theory questions, but I can definitely be persuaded that conditionality is a reason to reject a team, especially if there are more than 2 conditional worlds. Process CPs are kind of a gray area for me. I like them, but I could be convinced that they are bad.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain (davy.holmes@dsisdtx.us).

Some info about me:

Policy Debater from 1996-1998 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Assistant Policy Debate Coach from 1998-2002 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Debate Coach/Teacher at Sinton HS (Texas) from 2002-2003

Debate Coach/Teacher at Hebron HS (Texas) from 2003-2007

Debate Coach/Teacher at San Marcos HS (Texas) from 2014-2017

Debate Coach/Teacher at Dripping Springs HS (Texas) from 2017-present

Updated 1/3/2024

Top level observations for all debate events:

-You should not assume what your opponents' pronouns are. Ask if you don't know, and then make every effort to use them. When in doubt, referring to your opponents as "the aff" or "the neg" is probably a good idea.

-Slowing down and explaining things clearly is usually a good idea, especially in rebuttals.

-Perms that aren't explained aren't arguments.

-If a timer isn't running you shouldn't be prepping.

-I can't vote for something that I didn't flow or understand. I won't feel bad or embarrassed about saying I just didn't understand your argument.

Policy: My favorite event, but I am getting old. I am okay with speed, but clarity is important. I'm definitely more comfortable with plan-focused debate. If I was still a debater, I would probably be reading a small, soft-left aff, and my preferred 2NR would include a counterplan and the politics DA. For the most part, I think debate is a game. The negative should have access to predictable, topic-based ground. While fairness is likely an internal link to other impacts, it is also an impact in and of itself. Affirmatives that don't defend topical, hypothetical action by the resolutional actor will have a tough time getting me to vote for them. Neg kritiks require a lot of explanation and contextualization. I do not just assume that every K links. I have found that I am much more persuaded by links to a team's rhetoric or representations than other types of links. "They use the state and the state has always been bad in the past" won't usually beat a permutation. I am pretty bad for alts rooted in pessimism or alts that seemingly require an infinite amount of fiat. More than 2 conditional cps and/or alts dramatically increases the persuasiveness of condo theory.

Worlds: I tend to judge Worlds more than other debate events these days. I try to judge rounds holistically. My decision on who won the debate will be made before assigning points on my ballot. Line-by-line refutation is not an expectation. Debaters should focus on core topic arguments and major areas of clash. When appropriate, I enjoy detailed explanations and comparisons of models. Speakers 1-3 should take at least 1 POI.

LD: Even though I dislike this term as applied to debate, I am probably best for LARP and/or util frameworks. Not great for the K. Probably terrible for tricks or phil. Even though I think disclosure is good, there is less than a 1% chance that I'll vote on disclosure theory.

PF: I don't think PF judges should have paradigms. Unless your opponents are ignoring the resolution, I will not vote on theory in PF. #makepublicforumpublicagain

Congress: I pretty much never judge Congress. Students who expect to rank highly should make good arguments, clash with other representatives as much as possible, and participate fully throughout the session.

I’m an Ex-Churchill policy debater and an IR major at American University.

My main rule is to do what you know how to do and do it well. I’m generally cool with most arguments- (barring overt sexism/racism/ableism/etc).

I’m really not a fan of narrative debate as I feel like it turns into monologues on personal oppression rather than adding to clash and education. You can run a narrative, but I'll probably be pretty hard on it.

Yes, I will vote on T, but do not run T just to run T. That's lazy and I won't vote on it if I feel you threw in it without a real reason.

I do enjoy a well-executed K, but again it has to link well and follow through on the flow.

I’m cool with speed and prompting. Also if your opponents are okay with it you can open CX.

It's been a while since I was en-round, so please slow down on tags. As far as speaks go I average at 27 and go up and down as I see fit. If I can’t understand you I’ll call clear, and you’ll get a warning. I try not to be too stingy on clarity, and I’m more likely to deduct you for disorganization/offensive speech over just tripping over your words.

Also, my email is emily.r.malik@gmail.com add me to your email chain

I did policy debate for 4 years in the TFA, UIL, TOC, and NSDA circuits. I dabbled in LD, PF, and extemp enough to understand the events well, but CX was always my favorite. I am well versed in traditional and critical debate. In my senior year I ran a lot of AB, many different versions of queer theory, sett col, death k, ballot k, critiques of debate, fem, abolition, some language k's, you name it. I will listen to any argument, the only arg I have a bias against is psychoanalysis, use that info how you please. If you go for a CP or DA you need to have a solid understanding of those internal link chains and how they trigger the impacts. The CP needs to be competitive to the aff and its methods need to be well explained. If you go for procedural args you probably need in round proof of abuse or skew, as well as good analysis of the competitive impacts of the arg. Teams who go for Ks need good analysis of how the K is unique to the round/aff/resolution. You absolutely must win your framing for the critique and why its an apriori issue (root cause of X is generally not sufficient framing.) Unique alternatives with thorough explanations are the best.

Speed is fine. Debate is about the debaters so do what you want with the space. I'm tab, I will vote how you tell me to. If you don't tell me how to vote, I defer to whatever framing was presented in the round, if there is no framing I vote on an offense-defense paradigm. I have a high threshold for arg explanation and literature regurgitation will not serve you well. If you have any specific questions pls feel free to ask me before the round. It's okay to be fierce, but don't be a dick.

About Me:

NLHS Policy 2013-2017

UT 2017-2021 (just judging, no debate)

A&M Law 2021-

Top Level

Email for chain: steelemusgrove17@gmail.com

Email for contact: steelemusgrove@yahoo.com

The easiest thing I can tell you about my paradigm is that I am tab. I'll vote on anything, and I essentially ran anything while I was in high school, so you're not going to lose me in running any of your favorite arguments.

Further in-depth stuff (this is primarily for policy, but can be cross-applied to LD (or PF I guess)):

When I say I'm tab that means that I will vote in any framework you give me, don't mistake that for if you win the framework you win the round (this is especially true in traditional LD). I have voted for teams that lose the framework debate, but still had better offense under the opposing framing. Therefore, you need to both win your framework and meet that framework better than the opponent to win the round. However, if you don't run a framework I default to an offense-defense paradigm where I vote on whichever team has managed to generate the most offense.

If you're baffled by a decision it is because you did not warrant. I am a stickler for warranting, especially in extensions, and if you don't extend a warrant, even over a dropped argument, then I'm not doing that work.

Kritiks

Like I said, I'm tab, so naturally I'm fine with/a fan of Ks. I am NOT a fan of 2NC/2NR overviews of kritikal buzzwords that do nothing to advance debate in the round. I'm not 100% read on all K literature, so if you're going to use technical terminology - define them, tell me how they relate to your alt, to the link debate, and to the aff. Line-by-line is generally much easier for me to flow and understand a K debate.

That being said, I would avoid reading one-off K in front of me. I won't vote down one-off K on face, but I find that it's not terribly strategic, and doubly so if you're the type to concede all of case by going for the one K. All of the eggs in one basket just isn't good strategy, and it's super boring to listen to.

People will talk about how you need a specific link - I'm not that type. If the aff has a good reason that you need a specific link then you should be able to provide one, but a good generic link to the topic, state, or debate will suffice without aff contest.

Presentation

Stylistically I don't really care what you do. I can handle your spreading if you can handle your spreading. If you're unclear then don't spread. Furthermore, signposting is an absolute must between flows and cards. That can be as a simple as saying "next off" or "onto the K," and between cards inserting an "and." If I miss a card or argument that you didn't signpost clearly where I should've flowed it will not be evaluated, and that's on you.

Offensiveness in round is always bad, and I'll penalize any aggression appropriately depending on severity of the aggression. There are instances where you might just be ignorant which will only result in a minor speak penalty and a stern reprimanding in RFD. Above all, be polite to your opponents. You can be competitive, but don't be rude, especially in CX.

Redundancy isn't great. That means reading a bunch of repetitive cards, putting an explanation under a card that explains the card you just read, or just saying the same thing over and over. I get tired of this quickly and it does harm speaks. Card dumps seriously aren't persuasive or strategic about half the time. If you're card dumping like five new impacts onto a undercovered disad in the 2NC that's chill, but just reading like 5 uniqueness cards that all say the same thing isn't.

I evaluate speaks through strategy, not presentation. A 30 happens through really good decisions, time allocation, unique argumentation, etc. I can't tell you what exactly gets a 30, nor will I attempt to define it further decisively here, but I know it when I see it.

Theory

I don't err anything on any argument before a debate, so all theoretical objections are up for dispute. That being said, I've seen a lot of debates where people read two shells at each other (such as states bad v. good) and don't have any actual clash. If that is the ONLY sort of argumentation being put down on a theory flow before the 2NR/2AR, do not try to convince me to vote for theory because it'll end up being a wash, and I'll vote on presumption.

Speaking of presumption; I tend to vote it on it a lot because many people end up not winning anything. So in the case that there doesn’t seem to be any offense for any team I default to presumption. Most of the time for me that means neg, but if there’s an alternative advocacy on the flow then it goes aff. If you have a different model of presumption in mind - make it an argument, but otherwise that's how I vote.

Note about disclosure: I have an impressively high threshold for voting on disclosure, and there are a number of ways that debaters articulate disclosure that I find objectionable. Please do not make arguments for disclosure based on the capabilities of small/rural schools (especially if you are from a (sub)urban/large school). Moreover, please do not read interpretations that mandate your opponent post any sort of contact information on the wiki - I will not vote on this interp no matter how hard you're winning the flow.

T

I wouldn't say that I have a high threshold for T, I will vote on T if you win it, but you need to win each part of the T: interp, violation, standards, and voters. (Theoretically you could get me to vote on a T with just an interp, violation, and standards if you win that a stock FW is good)

The "all three branches T" is really popular right now. I'll vote on it, but it's the worst T argument. Nothing uses all three branches because that's not how government works.

Disads/CPs

I don't think you absolutely have to have either of these in the 1NC to win; if you like em, go for em, and if you don't, don't. I'm not a person who's super convinced that things have to be super specific or anything like that - generic links are fine, just try to contextualize to the aff or give a good scenario analysis.

Misc.

Please, god, do not sit at the door weirdly if I'm in the room waiting for my queue to give you agency. Just walk in. I'm the judge; you are ALLOWED to come in if I'm in here.

I don't care where you sit. I don't want to shake your hand before or after the round (especially true as of March 2020).

“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer, and if you use it it’s minus 1 speak.

Same thing goes for asking questions that are prefaced with "in your own words."

I am timing, my time is the time. You should still time yourself. I do not give signals during speeches, CX, or prep.

This is specifically for UIL tournaments: there's no such thing as "UIL style" and most "UIL rules" aren't actually rules. Any appeal to the UIL that aren't in any UIL handbook will not be flowed and is again, -1 speak.

PF Debate:

- I don't judge this event nearly at all, but please just select sides in such a way that pro always speaks first. I get confused when it's reversed.

- Also, there's nothing I hate more than the PF convention of sharing evidence. Please just flash entire cases.

I vote for the team that wins. The following are things that I believe:

1) 2nr with only framework is an aff ballot. You still need a reason to reject the aff policy or advocacy.

2) a kritik needs an alternative. Reject the aff is not an alternative. If you do not have a competition advocacy I cannot vote for your non-unique disadvantage.

3) the affirmative must be topical.

4) debate should be fun. We're not here to strangle each other. Be nice, enjoy yourself, and let your opponents enjoy themselves too.

I am a former High School Debate Coach and UT Debater. As a competitor my background was in CX Debate.

I view the round entirely through offense/defense. The debater with the most offense at the end of the round wins.

Plans - I'm happy to view the round through a moral framework or as a policy maker depending on who wins the way the round ought to be viewed on the framework debate.

Critiques - These are great to read in front of me. I am very proficient with most critical authors and arguments. Links that focus on "You don't talk about X issue enough" tend to have problems in front of me because I don't understand why "permutation do both" does not resolve them.

Theory - Some LD theory arguments don't make sense to me. I view the impacts to theory as fairness and education, make it clear for why your opponents violation restricts those. Also impact why this violation is big enough to reject the debater and not just the argument. Necessary But Insufficient Burdens and RVIs are examples of some theory arguments that can be very difficult to win in front of me. If you can clearly impact the arguments then I can still vote for them.

Speed - Feel free to go as fast as you like, I can probably follow you. If I have trouble I'll let you know.

Overall: I am a policy maker who is mainly concerned with how impacts weigh at the end of the round. If no other framework is given, I will default to utilitarianism. I will utilize other frameworks, if you win the argument and if you do a good job explaining what that means for me as the judge. Either way, make sure that you are spending an adequate amount of time fleshing out and comparatively weighing impacts from ALL of your arguments, and getting to that earlier rather than later in the round.

Speed and Style:

I have been out for a while so I am a little rusty listening to high speed debate, so I would prefer you to err more on the moderate side of speed. I will say “clear” if you are going too fast for me or not enunciating enough, though. Definitely slow down for taglines, authors, and any analytics.

***Label where we are on the flow when you are giving responses and when moving on to the next argument. I have a low tolerance for a disorganized speech or flow and it will be reflected in your speaks**

I have very little tolerance for rudeness towards either myself or your competitors.

I am not interested in hearing morally reprehensible arguments (sexism, homophobia, racism, etc.)

Prep:

If you end prep, you had better be ready to give your speech. Flash or email your document before or right as you end prep time.

T:

Good, well utilized T arguments are what I dream of at night. Slow down on your interp, your standards and any analytics you have or they will not be flown properly. I default competing interpretations. Treat your voters on T like you would impacts off of anything else and actually utilize them in your impact calculus.

Case: Make sure you are extending your case. You don't have to do a lot of work on the parts that have not been attacked, but if the neg has words on the flow, make sure those are addressed adequately, or else you really don't have any room for a generic extension.

DA: They aren't 100% necessary but I would prefer to see at least one. I prefer specific links, but if you can build a story in the impact calc using a generic DA, you do you.

CP: Again I prefer case specific, but I can't always get what I want. Slow down during plan text expecially if there are multiple planks. Make sure you win your net benefit, or your CP is dead in the water as far as I'm concerned. I will listen to theory, but I am not super well read on CP theory anymore so make sure you are adequately explaining everything.

K: I will listen to these. While I am familiar with some Ks and authors, it is probably better that you assume that I am not, since most of my debating and judging experience is from UIL tournaments that are light on anything other than super normie Ks like fem and cap.

Email Chain? Sure. scheller.ally@gmail.com

**If you need clarification, please ask before the round**

I am a stock issues judge. I will also weigh Ks and C/Ps. K and C/P args. must have necessary elements and presenter must understand and be able to clearly explain same. Being stock issues you do not have to argue that they are voters. They are. That being said, the “D” subpoint on T is unnecessary. You can present it, but you are losing time. At the end of the day, T is a voter and never a reverse voter. T should not be used as a time suck by the neg. Speed - you MUST remain clear and understandable. I will not be on your email chain. The rules discourage judges from reading evidence except in specific circumstances. This helps preserve debate as an oral activity and it is and should be the speakers responsibility to present the evidence in an understandable manner. It is your responsibility to deliver what I need to know in an understandable fashion. Do not speed up and slip and slide through the evidence. As with the rest of your speech, if I cannot understand it, you didn’t say it. Weigh case vs. DAs. If you don’t you leave it to me.

LD - See the CX comments on speed. Please heed. Everything needs to be argued, but realize that V/C are of importance. That is how the resolution is proven true or negated. Watch your drops. I realize that LD is less evidence based, but do not make unreasonable assertions. For example, don’t tell me a President died and his wife took over (yes, it has happened). If you claim something is or is not in the Constitution, please be correct. I know the Constitution. While V/C is what you ultimately want to achieve, do not neglect the contentions. That is how it all happens.

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