Experience in CX, LD and PF with preference for LD.  Regarding LD, prefer a more traditional style of debate focusing on value and philosophy.  Policy arguments are usually a nonstarter and unlikely to sway.

Debated for Caddo Magnet 2014-2018

Assistant Coach @ Caddo Magnet

Law Student at LSU Paul M. Hebert Law Center

General

Email chain: nathan.jagot@gmail.com

Prep ends when the speech doc is saved/flashed.

Don't take too long while you're "sending the doc over" and still typing.

Don't clip.

Evidence quality > evidence quantity.

Tech v. Truth is very much over-debated and over-theorized and I'm not sure why it is. If your evidence is correct/accurate about how things operate and your internal links are logical, then you're in the clear. Truth claims warrant a certain amount of technical skills to be won, just as technical arguments need a good deal of truth in reality to be won.

Debate's stressful. Be kind.

Play smart. Be scrappy.

A few of my debate coaches and people who helped shape how I approach everything: Neill Normand, Kasi & Jonathan McCartney, Sam Gustavson, Ian Dill, Darius White, Calen Martin, Cole Allen, Ethan Courtman, and Jake Crusan.

Frame your arguments:

If you can tell me what the central points of the debate are in the final rebuttals, make effective arguments and prove why you're winning, you will most likely win the debate. I think line by line is good, but that you also need to keep in mind the big picture/nexus question for the debate. Being wax poetic is especially good (but not necessary), but tell me what's most important and why, and explain it. "Even if" statements are also really useful in this situation, and be sure to use competing claims and why making the decision for you should be easy even if you're not winning the other/most important parts of the debate.

Be strategic:

Embedded clash is important. For argument extensions, make sure you have a claim, warrant, and an impact. Make sure you use this to your advantage and point out interactions between different arguments, be smart in pointing out double turns, etc.

Clarity > speed:

I'd rather hear a very engaging 4-5 off debate that has a variety of winning 2NRs against a certain aff, rather than a team who reads 8-10 off just to scare the other team. I'm not as inclined to the "throw 9 off at the wall to see what sticks" strategies. Not to be frank, but if you know you can beat an aff without going all out, do just that and make each component of the debate that much more convincing.

Slow down on blocks and analytics, because they're going to be the point in the debate where I really start paying attention to the arguments at hand and seeing how they function (also the point in the debate where you should explain them as such). Being efficient and prepared rather than fast and blippy until the 2NR is better than not.

Line by line is important:

This is very important and I think some debaters sadly forget about. Answer arguments in the order in which they appear - if "they say (x), but (x)" statements are helpful in this instance. Clean flows = good flows = organized debates = good debates.

CX:

CX should be treated as another speech. Write down your questions beforehand and have a strategy. Some judges flow CX, I tend to stray away of that, but I may star an argument a team mentions something multiple times or if an argument seemed to be critical for any particular side during CX. If an important argument is an effective turning point for the debate in CX, point it out in later speeches. Use your time wisely.

Critical Affirmatives:

I'm finding myself frustrated with a lot of these types of affirmatives. The 1AC should ground itself with a foundational disagreement with resolutional action (depending on the way the topic is worded) - meaning a solid, specific topic link - and go from there about debating it. Not doing so will likely result to me just voting negative on T. Debates where the affirmative identifies a problem with resolutional action and uses that as offense against framework/T-USfg are much more interesting than stale debates that recycle old K-affs that change 1-2 cards to fit the topic.

***I think for topics where the resolution mandates the USfg reduces something negative it does (like restrict immigration or reduce arms sales), reading an aff with a plan is much more legitimate than not reading a plan.

***Please ask questions about this. But, if I were debating and reading this paradigm, I'd stick with a plan.

T-USfg:

I think this is the most legitimate strategy against planless affs. Though it's a legitimate claim that the aff not using the USfg as an agent is unfair, you need to explain why in terms of why it's bad for normative debate practices and why it's bad that you can't engage with the aff as well as you could with one that had a specific policy proposal.

Fairness is an impact in itself, but that should be explained in terms of what unfairness is, how the affirmative makes it worse, and then funnel into discussion of other "greatest hits" impacts on the flow.

Make sure your TVA is logical and at accesses the affirmative's offense, and the aff answers need to be logical and established in order for me to not vote on it.

Well-thought out aff impact turns to T/Framework are convincing to me if executed effectively.

Framework should also be debated in the context of every aff - don't just read the same overview you do for every K aff. Specific overviews + reasons to reject the aff = higher speaks and more of a chance I'll vote for you.

Case:

You NEED to engage case. Smart analytics on case are just as good as impact turns/no solvency arguments. Make sure to utilize it, it's there for a reason. Interact with it, don't forget it. Scrap the 2-3 card DA that you won't extend past the 1NC and put some of that time and effort on case.

Good case debates about the warrants of the aff, internal link strength, sensibility, etc. are good. Debating case makes you better.

I like impact turns. I like it when teams read impact turns specific to the aff.

Spark = silly. I won't even bother telling you how silly it is---I'll give you my professors' emails and let you take it up with them.

Topicality:

Caselists = good.

Don't get bogged down in the non-essential details.

Competing interps when actually competitive = good.

Reasonability against arbitrary/asinine interps that are semi-ridiculous = 100% will vote on it.

Counterplans:

Long text = slow down.

Specific PICs are good, I like them. Debate them well.

Consult and conditions counterplans are fine as long as you defend them as you're supposed to practically and theoretically. Don't get too carried away.

Make sure it's actually competitive---this means it needs to access not only the impacts of the advantage, but the rest of the advantage itself.

Disadvantages:

The DA should have specific links to what the aff is talking about, or at least a claim that what the aff is fiating will cause what you say it will because it's that large of a policy.

Your block work on the DA should be thorough explanation, as well as lots of cards that prove your argument(s). Specific links/analysis to the aff are highly appreciated.

Lots of cards + lots of analysis = extra good.

Kritiks:

Being from a relatively small school, I understand their strategic value. If you think there may be a risk that I don't know what you mean, don't use buzz-words and be sure to explain your args well.

Couple of K things I value:

Link Contextualization---You absolutely need to win a link to the affirmative. Generic links rarely grab my attention, unless the aff just mishandles it completely. A K 1NC that has mechanism and content links to the aff (links to the aff's process, either K-based or state-based, depending on the type of aff) is better than a K 1NC that has the link arguments "state + scenario analysis bad," without mentioning the aff's advantages. A smart 2NR will go all-in on 1 or 2 solid links with clear impacts. Links should be able to turn case without winning the alternative (even though you should still win your alt), and should each have an impact-level claim that are distinct from the other links and that can independently win you the debate. But, you need to win the alternative to win the debate, tell my why it resolves your links specific to the aff and any other link you may read - this is where the links that fit the aff best come in. I'd rather hear the 2NR go for 2 solid links rather than 3-4 not-so-good links.

Framework---a decisive win on framework will make me much more likely to vote for you, regardless if you're aff or neg.

Theory:

I'll consider theory only if it is severely mishandled/conceded by the other team. I think having it as your A-game strategy isn't as strategic, but don't be discouraged and think you can't go for it in front of me, just remember there are certain times and places for those debates.

Conditionality is bad if an absurd number of advocacies are in the 1NC (more than 4 is questionable, but I'm open to a debate on whether or not that is true), but make sure to contextualize your theory blocks to the debate at hand and tell me why what they did in round is bad and incentivizes worse debates for everyone else. Tell me more of a story about what they did, why they should lose, and what your model of debate looks like under a certain interpretation (that isn't just repeating your interpretation you read in the 2AC/2NC).

Final rebuttals:

These should be used to write my ballot. Easy ways to do this are to do the "final review of the debate" at the top of the 2NR/2AR and then get into the substance/nuance of individual arguments you're winning on the flow.

If Debating In Louisiana:

You're on the clock. You can thank me after the round, don't use your speech time for it.

Explain your arguments well. Answer your opponents' arguments well. I judge LD sometimes in-state because of tab-based restraints and something I've noticed is a severe lack of clash in these debates, and I think forcing yourself to interact with the other team's arguments is generally a good thing in debate.

Good luck and have fun!

Caddo Magnet ‘21

Kentucky '25

I want to be on the email chain, austinkiihnl@gmail.com.

Conflicts

Caddo Magnet

Niles North

Top Level

The most important thing I have to say is that I will do my absolute best to judge every debate in the least interventionist way possible, besides a few non-negotiables I'll list below. I will vote on an argument that I profoundly disagree with if I think that it was won. However, evidence quality influences technical debating and I value good evidence highly, even though I don't usually read a ton of cards in high school debates because I don't feel like I need to.

I've found that even though I have a ton of opinions about what I think debate should look like, those preferences pretty much entirely go away when judging. I don't care much at all about what arguments debaters are making and really only care about how it's debated. I've been in a lot of debates and have seen many people go for many different arguments, so I should be able to understand yours. However, I will say that I have a fairly strong preference for organized, and technical debating, and not debating in this way will probably make it harder than you'd like for me to give a satisfying decision.

I'll do my best to default to as few things as possible and adapt to the debate at hand. If you want me to view the debate a certain way, tell me how I should so I don't have to substitute my preferences for your debating.

Inequality Topic

I judged a lot of debates on the topic as a lab leader in a Michigan Classic lab this summer, so I have a basic understanding of what the topic looks like, but I'm not super involved in researching the high school topic, so you may want to unpack some particularly technical topic concepts/acronyms.

General Thoughts

I think of debate as a game, which filters a lot of these thoughts, but you can easily win that debate is not a game or is more than just a game. (Almost) everything is debatable.

It's generally better to make bold choices and only go for a few pieces of offense in the final rebuttals to explain them well than to go for a lot of things and not explain them as thoroughly.

I default to evaluating arguments probabilistically. That goes away if questioned.

Line by line is good.

Judge instruction is good.

Justify new arguments. Just because another team says you don't get new arguments doesn't mean it's true, especially if they're reading cards on an argument you dropped.

If you're going for a K of reps, you probably need case defense unless it was grossly mishandled. I see going for reps links while not answering the case as a bit like a link turn with no UQ. If you disagree, explain why and you'll be all good.

It'll help you to start the debate on judge kick early.

Good for T arguments with good evidence. I generally prefer predictability over debatability, but that's not absolute and shouldn't affect how I evaluate debates.

Good for competition debates. Send perm texts if it's anything besides do both, do the CP, or some variation of the plan and certain planks.

Good for politics. Read a lot of cards.

Good for impact turns and theory. Not because I think the arguments are true, I just think of them like any other argument and a lot of teams are bad at answering them. I don't really see why going for theory if you're winning is more "cowardly" than going for other arguments that you're winning that are technical TKOs, but that doesn't mean it's always or even often the best strategy.

Good for Ks that are impact turns/solvency takeouts to the case. Good for Ks that have alts that solve the case and links that are DAs to the plan. Probably best for Ks that are just Framework and say the aff shouldn't get to weigh the plan.

Good for extinction outweighs vs. the K. Also fine for the perm and link turns.

Good for clash and fairness. Fine for other impacts to FW. Good for a counter-interp or impact turn strategy against FW, just make sure you pick one.

Generally don't love K affs that identify truisms and say that's a reason to vote for them. Pointing out bad things does nothing for you if you don't have a means of solving them. Of course, you can also get unique offense based on what the neg says, but you need to explain what voting aff does, whether it changes debate practices, rejects unethical ones in just this debate, forwards a desirable political strategy, etc.

Fairly bad for frivolous theory arguments when they aren't based on resolutional language. For example, if the 2AC drops ASPEC, the neg often didn't have enough of an argument to extend it in the 2NC without making new arguments, so the 1AR gets to justify new arguments too. That doesn't mean I won't vote on bad theory arguments (I have), or that new 1AR arguments are automatically justified, but it does mean that I have a pretty high bar for winning them.

Bad for analogizing T to actual violence (genocide, drone strikes, etc.). That's not to say that you can't problematize reading T, but arguments comparing it to literal violence are wildly unpersuasive.

I think role of the ballot arguments are usually pretty silly.

Not the biggest fan of many soft left affs. I think lots of aff framing arguments are kinda silly but so are lots of other arguments, so I don’t actually care too much. I obviously prefer aff-specific framing arguments but if generic, I prefer risk assessment (existential risks overestimated, probability outweighs, conjunctive fallacy, butterfly effect, etc.) type aff framing arguments instead of "X comes first," "extinction is non-unique," and asserting that a DA is low risk without actual defense, but that seems to be out of vogue.

If you're going to say that plan text in a vacuum, functional and/or textual competition, utilitarianism, probability first, etc. are bad, you need to provide an alternative to those things. Otherwise, it's the equivalent of reading offense against a T interp when you don't have a counter-interp to solve any offense. The fact that those things have problems doesn't necessarily mean that alternatives are better.

LD

I judge this a little bit and there's not much that I have to say about it specifically. All of the stuff above applies equally to LD. I've only ever debated in policy and usually only judge policy so I'm probably best for you if you just act like this is a one-person policy debate.

Never really had a debate where "value criterions" became important, but if you're gonna do that, just explain why offense in favor of yours outweighs offense in favor of theirs and you'll be fine.

Not a fan of frivolous theory arguments.

PF

I've only judged this a few times. It would probably also help you to act like this was a policy debate because of my lack of familiarity with PF specifically. Really, you just need to win that your offense outweighs your opponent's.

Please don't paraphrase articles when first reading them. That's bordering on an academic integrity violation. Just read what your cards actually say, then you can obviously explain and paraphrase them in later speeches.

Non-negotiables

Both teams get 8 minutes for constructives, 5 minutes for rebuttals, and however many minutes of prep time the tournament invitation says/everyone in the round agrees to. I won't flow anything you say after the timer goes off.

CX is binding.

There is one winner and one loser.

I will flow both teams unless requested not to. If you request me not to flow and the other team would like me to, then I just won't flow you, which will almost certainly end up worse for you and make the debate harder for me to decide.

I won't vote on anything that did not occur in the round/I didn't see (personal attacks, prefs, disclosure, etc.). I think a judge's role is to determine who won the debate at hand, not who is a better person outside of it, and there's often no way to verify out-of-round claims. If someone makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, I will assist you in going to tab/whoever you'd feel most comfortable with so they can create a solution, but I don't view that as something that the judge should decide a debate upon, especially for high schoolers.

If a team initiates an ethics challenge, the debate stops and if it's found to be legitimate, the offending team will lose and will get the lowest speaks I can give. If it's not found to be legitimate, the team that initiated the challenge will lose.

It'll be hard to offend me but don't say any slurs or engage in harmful behavior against anyone else in the debate including racism, sexism, homophobia, intentionally misgendering someone, etc. I see pretty much all arguments as fair game but when that becomes personally harmful for other people in the debate, or is something indefensible like racism good, then it's crossed a line. I've thankfully never seen something like this happen in a debate that I've been in but it'd be naive to act like it's never happened. The line for what is and is not personally harmful to someone is obviously arbitrary but that applies to almost all things in debate, so I think it's fair to say that it's also up to the judge's discretion to determine when the line has been crossed.

Misc

I'm pretty expressive but I try not to be. I don't want to influence how the debate plays out but if I'm confused, think an argument is funny, or think an argument is bad, I might unintentionally show it.

I'll boost your speaks if you're reading a substantial number of cards that you cut if they're good. I've been seeing a lot of old, bad cards in docs that could very easily be replaced in an afternoon, so I'll reward people that I see putting in the work. I'll be ecstatic if most of your cards, especially in the 1AC and 1NC, are from 2021 or newer.

I've noticed lots of debaters being pretty quiet when they're speaking which has made it hard to understand and flow. It seems like a result of online debate, so I'll cut some slack, but it's generally better to be too loud than too quiet.

Call me Austin, not "judge."

I like when people are funny. Lighten up the debate and make some (good) jokes if that's your thing.

Feel free to post-round. You won't offend me.

Sarah Lawrence '25, Caddo Magnet High '21, she/her, yes I want to be on the email chain-- ejarlawrence@gmail.com

Top-Level: I prefer a fast, technical debate and default to evaluating debates as a policymaker, but can be persuaded otherwise. Don't overadapt - debate is a game, and winning your arguments is what matters. I like to reward good evidence, but I won't be reading every card after the round unless it is flagged or a close debate and good evidence is not an excuse for unwarranted debating/little explanation.

T vs policy affs: I don't enjoy close definitions debates. T debates where the interpretation becomes clear only in CX of the 2NC or later will be very hard to reward with my ballot. I understand that good T debates happen (T-LPR on immigration comes to mind) but if the topic doesnt have easily understandable, legally precise definitions based in government literature (CJR comes to mind) I'm going to err towards reasonability more than anyone I know. Plan text in a vaccum probably sucks, but if you can't articulate a clear alternative you probably can't win. Predictability probably outweighs debatability.

T vs K affs: Debate is probably a game, but probably also more than that, and neither team's offense is likely truly reliant on winning this anyway. Fairness is probably an impact, but it is frequently pretty small. Neg teams that clearly explain what the aff's interpretation justifies (ie. internal link debating) and why that's bad are more likely to win my ballot. Aff teams that come up with a counter-interp that attempts to solve for some limits/predictability seem more instinctively reasonable to me than those who try to impact turn things I think are probably good like predictability, but either strategy is fine.

Counterplans/Theory: Theory other than conditionality/perfcon is probably not a voter. On a truth level, I think being neg in a world without massive conditionality and theoretical abuse is impossible on lots of hs topics. Given that, I'm actually fairly familiar with and interested in hearing good condo debating- competing interps means if you have something explainable and not arbitrary (infinite condo, infinite dispo, no condo) and can articulate some standards I won't hack for anyone. Default to judge kick, but can be convinced not to, counterplans should probably be textually and functionally competitive, I'd love to hear a real debate on positional competition but I'm not optimistic.

Disads: Uniqueness matters, and determines offense on the link level, but win the link too. No politics disad is true, but some politics disads are more true than others. These were my favorite arguments to cut and go for, and interesting scenarios that are closer to the truth or strategic will be rewarded with speaks. I'm of the somewhat controversial opinion they make for good education and the less controversial one lots of topics are unworkable for the neg without them, so don't go for intrinsicness/floortime DAs bad theory.

Impact Turns: Nothing much to say here, other than a reassurance I will not check out on something I find unpersuasive in real life (any of the war good debates, spark, wipeout). If you can't beat it, update your blocks.

Impact Framing/Soft Left Impacts: I default to utilitarian consequentialism, and have a strong bias in favor of that as a way to evaluate impacts. If you want to present another way to evaluate impacts, PLEASE tell me what it means for my ballot and how I evaluate it. "Overweight probability" is fine for the 1AC, but by the 1AR I should know if that means I ONLY evaluate probability/disregard probabilities under 1%/don't evaluate magnitudes of infinity. Anything else means you're going to get my super arbitrary and probably fairly utilitarian impulse. I would love if whoever's advocating for ex risks would do the same, but I have a better handle on what your deal means for the ballot, so I don't need as much help. "Util Bad" without an alternative is very unpersuasive - BUT a fleshed out alternative can be very strategic.

K vs Policy Affs: I vote neg most often in these debates when the neg can lose framework but win case takeouts or an impact to the K that outweighs and turns the aff. I vote neg somewhat often in these debates when the aff does a bad job explaining the internal links of their FW interp or answering negative impacts (which is still pretty often). For security type Ks, it seems like some people think they can convince me sweeping IR theories or other impacts are false with all the knowledge of a high schooler. Read a card, or I will assume the aff's 3 cards on China Revisionist/cyber war real are true and the K is false.

Brief tangent ahead: If you think the above statement re: the security K does not apply to you because you have a fun way to get around this by saying "it doesn't matter if the K is false because we shouldn't just use Truth to determine whether statements are good to say", I think you're probably wrong. You're critiquing a theory of how we should evaluate the merits of Saying Stuff (traditionally Truth, for whatever value we can determine it) without providing an alternative. So, provide an alternative way for me to determine the merits of Saying Stuff or you're liable to get my frustration and fairly arbitrary decisionmaking on whether you've met the very high burden required to win this. I've judged like four debates now which revolved around this specific issue and enjoyed evaluating none of them. Aff teams when faced with this should ask a basic question like "how do we determine what statements are good outside of their ability to explain the world" please. First person I see do this will get very good speaker points. TLDR: treat your epistemological debates like util good/bad debates and I will enjoy listening to them. Don't and face the consequences.

K vs K affs: I've now judged a few of these debates, and have found when the aff goes for the perm they're very likely to get my ballot absent basically losing the thesis of the affirmative (which has happened). This means I don't think "the aff doesn't get perms in a method debate" is a nonstarter. Other than that, my background in the literature is not strong, so if your link relies on a nuanced debate in the literature, I'm going to need a lot of explanation.

Miscellaneous: These are unsorted feelings I have about debate somewhere between the preferences expressed above and non-negotiables below.

For online debate: Debaters should endeavor to keep their cameras on for their speeches as much as possible. I find that I'm able to pay much more attention to cx and give better speaker comments. Judging online is hard and staring at four blank screens makes it harder.

I am becoming somewhat annoyed with CX of the 1NC/2AC that starts with "did you read X" or "what cards from the doc did you not read" and will minorly (.1, .2 if it's egregious) reduce your speaks if you do this. I am MORE annoyed if you try to make this happen outside of speech or prep time. 2As, have your 1A flow the 1NC to catch these things. 2Ns, same for your 1Ns. If the speaker is particularly unclear or the doc is particularly disorganized, this goes away.

At my baseline, I think about the world in a more truth over tech way. My judging strategy and process is optimized to eliminate this bias, as I think its not a good way to evaluate debate rounds, but I am not perfect. You have been warned.

I am gay. I am not a good judge for queerness arguments. This isn't a "you read it you lose/i will deck speaks" situation, but you have been warned its a harder sell than anything else mentioned

For LD/PF: I have judged very little of either of these events; I have knowledge of the content of the topic but not any of its conventions. I understand the burden for warranted arguments (especially theory) is lower in LD than in policy - I'm reluctant to make debaters entirely transform their style, so I won't necessarily apply my standard for argument depth, but if the one team argues another has insufficiently extended an argument, I will be very receptive to that.

Non-negotiables:

In high school policy debate, both teams get 8 minutes for constructives, 5 minutes for rebuttals, 3 minutes for CX, and however many minutes of prep time the tournament invitation says. CX is binding. There is one winner and one loser. I will flow. I won't vote on anything that did not occur in the round (personal attacks, prefs, disclosure, etc.). I think a judge's role is to determine who won the debate at hand, not who is a better person outside of it. If someone makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, I will assist you in going to tab so that they can create a solution, but I don't view that as something that the judge should decide a debate on.

You have to read rehighlightings, you can't just insert them. If I or the other team notice you clipping or engaging in another ethics violation prohibited by tournament rules and it is found to be legitimate, it's an auto-loss and I will give the lowest speaks that I can give.

It'll be hard to offend me but don't say any slurs or engage in harmful behavior against anyone else including racism, sexism, homophobia, intentionally misgendering someone, etc. I see pretty much all arguments as fair game but when that becomes personally harmful for other people, then it's crossed a line. I've thankfully never seen something like this happen in a debate that I've been in but it'd be naive to act like it's never happened. The line for what is and is not personally harmful to someone is obviously very arbitrary but that applies to almost all things in debate, so I think it's fair to say that it is also up to the judge's discretion for when the line has been crossed.

I am a former policy debate from Parkway High School in Bossier City, Louisiana. I am currently a coach for Parkway High School in Bossier City, Louisiana.

I am more likely to vote for a policy option than a Kritik or Kritikal Affirmative.

I have always liked a good Topicality debate as well as traditional disad/counterplan combos.

Ok with open cx, I want to be in on the e-mail chain because I cannot flow spreading as I once could. I will ask you to slow down or be clearer if I cannot hear/understand what you are saying.

I also do not tolerate post-rounding. If you would like feedback, you should listen respectfully and ask appropriate questions. Otherwise, your speaker points and ranks will be consequently impacted.

Current Debate Coach at Caddo Magnet HS

LHSSL Executive Secretary

email: Kasi.mccartney@gmail.com

Please show up on time. Have email chains, stands and other needs set up before the start time of the round.

I generally look to the fastest and easiest way to resolve the debate. In order to win you should make clear impact calculus throughout the debate and provide a specific path for round resolution in the 2NR/2AR. First tell me how you win the round, then tell me why even if I buy into some of the other team's arguments you should still win. This is how you win my ballot.

I default to a policy maker framework. I will vote for non-policy strategies but they MUST present a clean structure for their impacts. I prefer the affirmative to have a plan text. I do not consider myself an activist or that my role is to balance forces within the debate community.

Identity Politics - You should probably not pref me. You MUST have a link to the aff or specific in round actions for me to vote on this. I understand and sympathize with the issues in round, but this is not my preferred argument. It will take a lot of convincing to get me to vote on a strategy that is outside the resolutional bounds. I ultimately believe that traditional forms of debate have value.

Theory – I think theory is definitely a voting issue, but there needs to be some form of in round abuse for me to truly buy that it is a reason alone to reject one team or the other. I do not think that simply kicking a CP in block is a time skew that is truly worth voting against a neg team unless there are other circumstances. I don't like CP's with lots of planks. I think that it makes the debate too messy.

Case - I must say I have a hard time being persuaded that the negative has enough weight on their side to win with only case defense and a DA. What can I say, I'm a product of the late 90's. I much prefer to have a CP/K in there to give the flexibility, especially with a topic that allows for affirmatives to have heavy military impacts. Please be careful and make sure that if you takea case only route that you attack each advantage with offense and have a very very weighty DA on your side.

Kritiks- Not my bread and butter, although I do understand their strategic benefit, having come from an underfunded public school. It is my preference that K’s have a clear order and structure. I will vote on the K if you win that your impacts outweigh the impacts of the plan and that there is a true need for action, but I would not be the judge to introduce an extremely loose and unstructured argument to. I understand and buy into threat construction and realism claims, but in the end, I much prefer a well executed CP and politics debate to a poorly executed critical strategy. You will need to a have link specific to the plan. Links based off of the SQ will not be enough for me.

Framework - I default to the framework that the aff can weight the impacts of their plan versus the impacts of the neg.

Impacts – I believe that impact analysis is at the heart of a judging decision. You are an advocate for your arguments and as such you should provide insight and analysis as to why your specific impacts are the greatest in the round, how they should be evaluated by the judge and how they change the evaluation of the impacts to the other team’s case. Without this assessment I feel like you leave too much wiggle room for the judge to pick their personal preference of impact.

T - normally I like T. I default to competing interpretations. I think CX checks for ASPEC. I dont buy RVI's. I like for there to be a robust discussion of specific ground loss and the impact that it would have on debate as a whole.

Speaker points- Speed can be an advantage in the round and should be encouraged, but always with the intent of being clear first. My ability to clearly understand your arguments is crucial to getting them evaluated at the end of the round. The ability to provide analytics and analysis in the round will get you much further with me. As far as CX is concerned, I simply ask that the person who is supposed to be asking/answering the questions, gets the first shot at speaking. If they ask for help that’s perfectly fine, but don’t overwhelm your partner’s ability to conduct their own cx. Baseline speaks for me is 28.5 and you move up or down from there. I hardly ever give above a 29.5

The biggest thing you need to understand about me to win the round is that I am lazy. I am going to choose the easiest ballot possible, don't make me do any work plz.

This paradigm is written largely for policy debate although most of it should be applicable to LD as well. One quick tidbit for the LDers, I view LD as single person policy debate, the only rules are speech times / speech order, anything else is based on what you tell me in the round.

Email: wponder01@gmail.com

Background: I'm currently employed at CenturyLink as a corporate strategy specialist, I have an undergraduate degree in finance from Louisiana Tech University, and will complete an MBA there this fall. I did LD at Ruston High School from 2012-2016, and since then I have judged / coached periodically.

Speed: You can go as fast as you want on the internals so long as you are clear. The only thing I ask is that you slow down on the tags in cites. Say your tags / cites like you are speaking to your grandparents (not literally, but you get what I mean.)

Speaker Points: These are super arbitrary to me. I start at a 28, and if I think you did good enough for me to want you to make it to out rounds I'll go higher, and vice versa for lower. Things that will increase your speaker points include, but are not limited to:

- being a decent human being

- making me laugh

- making the round interesting to judge (not just arguing the most generic positions)

K's: If you run a K you need to win the alt. I do not like reject alts. I want to see some kind of policy alternative or at the very least something grounded in reality that could actually happen. I'll vote for pretty much anything, reading a reject alt isn't an automatic loss, but I tend to like policy alts better.

T / Theory: Don't run it unless you are willing to go for it in the 2NR. I fully understand that sometimes you are losing T / Theory and other args are better, but if you are winning it, or its your best chance of winning you better go for it. Also if you want me to vote for T / Theory it better be the only thing you go for in the last speech.

Other Misc. Things:

- I evaluate off util unless told otherwise.

- I don't like new off case positions in the 2NC, or add-ons in the 2AC. I think its because it's just because I did LD, and we only had one constructive speech each, but unless you are reading theory, or some kind of K based on something they did in their second speech I'd prefer you not.

- Creating a speech doc is prep time, getting set up to speak is prep time, the only thing I don't count is when you are literally passing the flash drive / sending the email. In a perfect world, I would let you guys do infinite prep, but I really hate when tournaments go late, and debaters tend to move really slowly if I don't do this.

- I don't like the thing where your partner speaks during your speech and tells you what to say. I understand sometimes an interjection can be necessary, and I'm not going to tell you not to, but if it's excessive I will probably dock speaks.

I am a parent of debaters, and I would be considered a lay judge. Please do not spread. Speak slowly and clearly, and please do not use any debate jargon. Thank you.