Debate Events:

I graduated from Plano West in 2018 and competed in my Junior and Senior years in PF and IX. I approve of wearing fedoras in round.

I'm not the picky type, so I'll just be going over some general things.

Treat me like a more lay judge, meaning you will need to explain things as if I have never been anywhere near debate in my life, and will need to be clear. Spreading should be minimal as if I can't understand, I will not be able flow it, and that certainly won't be helping your case. With that in mind, be loud as well. That tends to help with clarity.

Speaks: I'll be lenient for the most part, so expect high points, within the 28-30 range. Unless you're being uncivil, in which case, expect something lower.

As for things within the round itself, the usual will apply. Have warrants, don't fire off as many cards as you can without purpose, have warrants again and make sure you weigh your arguments.

Most importantly, BE CIVIL. Especially in crossfire, or you'll lose speaker points and potentially more.

Congress:

Direct me to the exit, because I probably wandered in by accident and am definitely lost and in the wrong room.

LD: In general, please make sure to clearly and explicitly state your V, VC, contentions, etc. The clearer you make your case, the easier it will be for me to follow. That being said, please do not spread! Please treat each other with kindness and respect, especially during cross-examination.

Interp: I enjoy dynamic performances with varied emotion, tone, and volume. Please make sure content is appropriate.

If you have any further questions about paradigms or anything else, don't hesitate to ask- I will do my best to answer!

Tab but lean policy maker - who's got the best plan to put forth / best to implement in squo (BUT IM STILL OPEN FOR ALL ARGUMENTS)

I do have a HIGH threshold for Ks, CPs however

Need you to tell me WHY I need to vote for you; give me impact calc or some easy mechanism to weigh the round

Want good clash in round, otherwise I'll tend to vote for the person who said the most impactful thing last

Speed is fine but need clear tags, I'm not going to do the work to follow along

Consider myself a tab judge, but lean more towards policy making style.

Fine with all arguments presented, but find that Kritiks/CPs can be easily lost in the round if you don't do enough work explaining/proving your case. As a result I have a high threshold for these (Ks and CPs)

Please slow down on tags/authors/dates

Fine with speed, but be careful that it doesn't hinder communication. If I miss a tag because you're going too fast it won't make it to my flow.

**For LD Debate, would appreciate slower speed (don't want to miss criterion/values/etc)**

Impact Calc/Framework goes a long way; if you're not telling me how to vote I will end up choosing based on my preferences of the round.

If you have anymore questions, please do not hesitate to ask in round before beginning.

I graduated from Princeton High School in 2006, where I competed in Humorous, Poetry, Duo, Original Oratory, and One Act Play. I competed for one year, my senior year, and double qualified to the 2006 NFL National tournament in Humorous and Duo Interp. I have been judging since Fall 2006, and have pretty much seen it all (except CX).

I'm primarily an interp judge, so first and foremost I want to make sure I can understand what you're saying. Are you speaking too fast to understand? Are you slurring your words? Are you dropping the ends of words, or expelling all your breath at the beginning of the sentence, and finishing flat? This may seem like it shouldn't apply to debate events, but think of it this way: it doesn't matter how good your case is if I can't understand what you're saying.

I do not disclose results or provide verbal critiques. Everything I have to say about a round will be found on your ballot. :)

PREFS SHORTCUT (1-4):

K/Untopical Affs- 1

Larp- 1

FW/T- 1

Theory- 1-2 (depending on density)

Phil- 2

Tricks/ Unnecessary Theory- 4 or better yet a strike

PERSONAL

Debated for Melissa HS on the national circuits/ NSDA/ TFA/ UIL/ etc. I did policy and LD. I specialized in soft left larp, phil, and primarily untopical gender/ fem.

Please call me Anna. She/her pronouns. Let me know what pronouns you would like me to use when addressing you.

Please use trigger warnings, at the very least put them at the top of the doc.

If there is an email chain, please add me to it: annagressett@gmail.com

PARADIGM

I will try to be objective, but I am biased.

Weighing- Do the proper impact calculus.

Case- I see contentions as advantages. I view advantages as analogous to disads. Not a huge fan of dropping a ton of spikes/ theory/ aprioris/ independent voters in the Underview but I understand the purpose and I did it to an extent. I enjoy nontraditional case structures (when they are creative or innovative, not when they are poorly organized).

K/Untopical Affs- Method debates are my favorite when they’re fully realized. The more creative the case the better. On the neg, I would love to see 1 off and case. I also prefer it when untopical affs make turns on framework. I don’t have as much experience with performance affs as I would like, but please go for it.

Impact Turns- So underutilized, with obvious exceptions (see the how to lose section).

Larp- Very familiar, especially with soft left strategy. I’ve read a lot of pics. Don’t hesitate to go for one good disad and case, I prefer quality over quantity. I don’t think agent counterplans are strategic.

FW/T/Theory- Very familiar. Defend your impacts. Specify ground loss. Go slower through these. Do the internal link work (connect your standards to your impacts). I’m always down for a good clash of civs debate. I don’t enjoy counterplan theory. I usually find 1AR theory baiting to be annoying, but obviously go for it when there’s a real violation.

Phil- Familiar with most phil, but always explain. The more complex, the more you should unpack.

Tricks- Not a fan. I largely find them to be uneducational. Please explain in detail what you are saying. Unless you are just wiping the floor with the other debater, I will hesitate in voting.

Dumb Theory- I hate when theory is blippy, unwarranted, unnecessary, etc.

PRESUMPTIONS

If nobody discusses these topics, this is how I lean.

If an argument isn’t here, assume no preference:

Aff RVIs good

Neg RVIs bad

Disclosure/ Open Source good

Quality>Quantity

Tech>Truth

Signposting good

presume aff

SPEED

Fine until I say clear, after that if I don’t catch what you’re saying then that is on you. Generally beneficial to slow on tags, interps, or anything you want me to flow verbatim. Making clear extensions helps a lot. For example, say “Extend _____.”

SPEAKER POINTS

I’ll do my best to adjust to the tournaments, but I usually start at a 27.5 and bump up from there. You can bump your speaks by:

-being strategic (most important)

-being funny

-good cx

-levity (enjoying what you are doing, seriously, some of y'all seem miserable)

-being nice (esp. to novices)

-being creative

NOTE: if there's anything I can do to make the round more comfortable for you I'll do it

NOTE: I’m not one of those judges who will give you points for referencing things I like (anime, memes, lyrics, funny current events, etc.) but they will make me like you more which doesn't hurt.

HOW TO LOSE

Being or reading arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, ableist, xenophobic, bigoted, etc.

Clipping/skipping/cutting evidence.

Being a dick in CX.

Being a dick in general.

(^ all of this will be reflected in speaker points)

SPECIFIC OPINIONS

Disclosure- if someone discloses open source and you read disclosure……………. If you read disclosure but didn’t reach out to your opponent before the round……… if you read disclosure but didn’t disclose………. Stop.

Presumption- if you say “presumption flows ___” please make sure you explain presumption for WHAT and HOW this should affect my ballot, otherwise I might misconstrue what you are saying

I tend to lean more traditional and prefer debaters stick to stock issues. I'm ok with speed, but I don't have the best hearing, so try to be clear and loud. Make sure you slow down and emphasize taglines. I'm fine with you debating K's as long as you fully explain the kritik.

PF/LD: I will normally judge based off of the round. Okay with speed. Prefer it if you don't run theory arguments.

Interp: I will take piece selection into account. Prefer more versatile pieces that display a wider range of skill and talent.

Speaking Events: I will count evidence and fluency breaks. I will also keep track of how evenly your time is distributed. I would also appreciate some humor - more in Original Oratory, less in extemporaneous speaking events.

I debated at Princeton, TX and I'm a CXer by trade, though I've been judging often for the last five years since I've graduated so I know my way around all the other formats. I am a "games" judge so I accept anything and everything so long as I've been given proper reasoning. If nothing fancy goes on I default to a policymaker position. "Conservative" and "Progressive" styles are equally valid in my book.

My three top level principles:

• Framework is King: I cannot evaluate something like American Hegemony vs Human Rights without being given a philosophical underpinning on what's a higher concern. Framework is not an end unto itself, but to be used as a tool for establishing priority of impacts. I highly recommend both sides run something on this.
• Competition over Truth: As a judge, I want to intervene with my own knowledge and logic as minimally as possible because that's your job as the debater. As long as you get the technical performance down 80% I can be flexible on the remaining part.
• Evidence Quality over Quantity: I'm less interested in the number of cards read and more in the reasoning of how they come up with the conclusion in the tagline. I'll only intervene here when there is disagreement on what's written. I understand there are cases when a good argument for the situation cannot be prepared in a card so I accept analytics within reasonability. On areas of significant clash I give it to the side that delves deeper into the warrants. When the competing claims slide over each other, I may end up evaluating it as a wash.

One more request: when you invoke innovation, please elaborate what you mean by that. It's the biggest, most annoying buzzword in all of speech and debate.

Onto the line by line:

Speed - I can accept it as long as it's intelligible. If you get to the point where you're wheezing substantially I'll tell you to clear up. Slow down on taglines and authors. If you spread on analysis and they aren't written down on the file, then I can't guarantee I'll have them down on the flow.

Topicality - I take a layman interpretation on what ought to be topical so my threshold is rather high. That said, the affirmative must still have a good technical performance in their answer.

Theory - It's okay with me, though I think it's of a lower priority than material issues and mostly evaluate it as a tiebreaker.

Turns - Link turns, impact turns, and case turns are all very powerful, but please substantiate what's going on materially. There's nothing more confusing than when both sides claim they subsume the other.

Counterplans - The viability of a CP lies in the net benefit that's established. Mutually exclusive plans are the clearest for clash and competition. I accept PICs but there better be a good reason that the aff can't perm. Unless otherwise specified or kicked, I view CPs as part of the negative's world advocacy that can be held against them. Running multiple CPs or CP and K may obfuscate the neg's advocacy, but it's up to the aff to point that out.

Case - If offense is lacking or well defended I often let the affirmative access the try or die argument. I'm not strict on case architecture on either side, but stock issues will always be fundamental and we can't forget that.

Disadvantages - On economic related impacts, the way to break beyond surface level claims is to actually tangle with competing economic theories. Is the Keynesian, Neoclassical, or the Marxist school most accurate on the scenario regarding recessions? I don't know, you tell me. On politics, I think you're obligated to read political capital theory or else it's easy to defuse with thumpers, but I don't accept that you can fiat out of it. Generally I value strong and specific links when it comes to the impact calc.

Kritiks - I can follow along with the theory, though if you start using buzzwords and jargon you'd better be able to elaborate on that. If you run a K you should understand it well on a conceptual level. Like disads, specific links and contextualization to the aff are very important. On the aff side, I'm willing to follow along with K's bad theory, counter-kritiks, and really all bets are off here.

Send the email chain to yashkhaleque2@gmail.com, I'm also available for questions and case advice.

About Me:

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Policy in HS 4 years; Melissa High School. Broke @ TFA State and broke @ bid tourneys(UT Austin;UH Houston)

Former coaches: Brenden Dimmig and Kyle Brenner <3

Paradigm Thesis: TAB

Refer to me as "Alex" instead of "judge", sweeet

I want to be on the email chain: alexisindebate@gmail.com

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

TL;DR

Tab.

Speed is fine. Don't be crazy tho

Performance/methods cool.

I don't have "high thresholds" for anything (T;disad links;alts;theory)

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

General:

My paradigm should not restrict the debaters from choosing one thing over the other. Use this as a guide, not as the rules. Everything is up for debate! Do what you're comfortable with.

Thesis: I will listen to whatever you read in front of me (unless otherwise derogatory) and will try my best to evaluate each position fairly -- I do consider myself tab. I feel a lot of times judges say this but just want to look cool/not get striked or whatever and end up screwing teams over. I want to stray as far away from that and will live up to my paradigm! Do whatever you're comfortable with and just be cognitive of me following along with your arguments. Have fun! :)

- Tell me how/where/why to vote

- Truth over tech WITH warrants to uphold your truth claim(s)

- The winning framework, impacts or theoretical, has priority. Default policymaker if no framework is given

- Impact scenarios are pretty, especially in the 2nr, but internal links are more important

- Split the neg block correctly and please collapse the debate down to 1, maybe 2, positions

- ^^^that includes disad standards on topicality in the 2nr

- I'd rather you not read new in the 2nc

- Give trigger warnings/ disclosure is educational and will help you

Stylistic Things:

Speed: I'm fine with it! omg please slow down on overviews/underviews (especially for the method)

Speaker Points: For specific tournaments, I will adjust my speaker point range for sure — ask me if you have any specs. for speaks

Card clipping: Noopppppeeee. Not cool. Don't cheat

Etiquette: I will absolutely not tolerate any racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, xenophobic, derogatory, etc. commentary in the round. Just be kind pls. Let her talk

Appearance: I could care less about how you dress or look. Misogynistic and gendered norms are really ugly. Also, I don't care if you sit down during cross-ex. Just make sure I can hear/see you. Whatever makes you comfortable

Last couple of things: I flow on paper and sometimes on my computer. Every contention/advantage will be its own sheet and every off will be its own sheet. I will flow everything you say unless I have no idea what you're saying. I don't necessarily count flashing as prep unless it becomes excessive, duhhh

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

Policy/CX Debate:

Topicality:

- The standards are disadvantages. Please provide a case list as to what you loose/why that's important

- I love contextualization and/or grammar arguments. Term of art pls. Saying, "look at the plan through a vacuum" doesn't really do anything for me - do that full analysis

- Competing interps or reasonability? Tell me which one to prefer. If there is no telling here, I will most likely default to competing interps

- Reasonability is the test of the AFF's counter-interpretation, not the AFF

Framework:

- I treat framework in similar regards to topicality. Explain how/why this sets a precedent

- A topical version of the aff is probably your best way to win here

Theory:

- I think I could vote on any type of theory given its correctly debated/ ask me otherwise

Disadvantages:

- I don't need a case-specific link on the disad in order to vote on it, that is if the aff doesn't do a good job analyzing this. A good disad has a line in the link evidence that exclusively mentions the aff- obviously

- An awesome 2ac has smart analytical arguments more than cards answering each level of the disad

- Tell me why the disad outweighs/turns case

- If you are losing uniqueness, it's going to be really hard for you to win the disad debate unless it's a linear disad. You have to win the link in order to win the disad

- Straight turning needs both a non-unique and link turn. If you do this, make sure the impact framework on the disad doesn't contradict the aff framework you're going to go for in the 2ar

Counterplans:

- External and internal net benefits are super-duper important. Don't contradict your case arguments with the counterplan

- Both aff and neg explain to me how the counterplan can/cannot solve 100% of the aff- with impacts to those arguments

- Perm debate is super important, obviously. Make disads to the perm(s) with impacts and make net benefits for the perm(s) too

Kritiks & Performance:

- Line by line is great. The overview can get messy when you try to cross apply/answer arguments here. Just be strategic here

- Make sure, of course, you are solving the linear disad and winning the root cause debate

- As you've heard a thousand times I'm sure, don't assume that I know your author. Give me that accessible explanation y'know?

- If you want to make framework the contesting issue here then so be it

- I think the method debate starts at the level of the alternative and goes up from there. Reject alts are fine but more substantive alts will probably get you farther

Case debate:

- If you're going for the disad, you should probably have some defense here

- Please utilize the comparative analysis on their evidence/ taking down their internal links here would be strategic

- Impact turning the aff- teams are like "Omg, who is she? We don't know her". Please utilize this more and make sure to impact it out and don't contradict yourself of course

- Reading your generic circumvention/block arguments here get really boring- having case-specific arguments are dope and will help your speaks for sure

Aff Performance/K Affirmatives:

- I'm good with this. Not super experienced with it tho. Just make sure to tell me what my ballot does (explain the method)

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

LD Debate

I did policy in HS so just keep that in mind. I view this as an important weighing of offense/defense in conjunction with framework of course. I think the information from the policy section will serve the same purpose for you here

Framework:

- Tell me to vote and/or view the round in a specific framework, that's fine. Explain to me why your lens is better/more important/ solves better or whatever you defend

- Internal link turning your opponents framework is super cool. Here make sure you are explaining why your criterion/standard better resolves your opponets value in some better way

Value/Criterion:

- I don't have any predispositions about what values are better/tangental or of that sorts to the resolution

- Just do a good job building link chains to whatever framing you want to go for

Observations:

- Yah they're fine

Contention:

- I view and treat these as advantages to the case like in policy debate. Just make sure it links back into your framework clearly

Plans & Performance

- All dope. Give me solvency on plans of course

CP's/Disad's/Kritik's:

- Great. These most likely need to be tangent with the aff- like their plan or their method

- Refer to the policy section

Case debate/Contentions:

- I'll view these as advantages in policy debate but of course tangent to LD

- Attacking your opponent's evidence is sweet - internal link chains for their value too

(PF + I.E events + additional):
Ask for further questions! peace out

CX:

I consider myself a tab judge, but you need to give me good FW to tell me how to weigh the round. If there's no framing I'll default to policymaker.

Argument preferences - I will listen to any arguments but I do have a high threshold on topicality. It's going to take more for me to vote on a topicality (blatantly untopical, in round abuse) and I have only decided one ballot on just T. I'm fine with you running Ks but it should be clear, have a legitimate alt, and you should explain what you mean. Don't expect me to know all the buzzwords. DAs are good, CPs are fine but should be mutually exclusive and not be topical. New in the 2NC is fine with me if it's case arguments. If you want to run new off in the 2 go for it, but give me some theory on why it’s okay. I struggle more with weighing critical affs, but if you run it well and can defend the legitimacy of running it, go for it. Impact out the arguments you're going for through the end of the round. Don't just pull across cards and say you've won because you've pulled them. Tell me the warrants and why the warrants of your cards are important to the round. Affs need to show clear solvency.

LD: I prefer quality of arguments over quantity of arguments. This means it's fine if you choose to use speed to get through your case, but when it comes down to I'm more interested in hearing and understanding the substance of the argument. I am more comfortable with the traditional value/criterion/contention format for LD cases because I think it's a clean format for best supporting your argument, but I'm open to other case formats and will listen to what you choose to present.

General:

Speed - Going fast is okay as long as you are clear. I won't give you verbal signals if I can't understand you; you should make sure the speed you use is clear and understandable. I believe speed should not be a barrier other teams have to overcome. I prefer quality of well run arguments over quantity of arguments so it's better to take a little more time with an argument than to word vomit and get a lot on the flow. Slow down for authors and dates if you're using them to pull cards across the flow, but I would prefer you to pull cards across by warrants, as mentioned above.

In high school I did 3 years CX, 3 years interp, 1 year extemp, and 1 year congress. I started judging my first year of undergrad and this is my 6th year judging/contract coaching

I believe debate should be educational and in order for that to be true competitors must understand the cards they are reading and the arguments they are making.

Flashing/emailing isn't prep, so don't prep while your partner is sharing evidence. If it starts to be a problem or it's taking too long we'll talk about running more prep time.

Accessibility - I understand standing for a speech or cross can be a barrier to some people. I think debate should be as accessible as possible so I don't care if you sit or stand while speaking. If you can't stand or just don't want to stand I don't mind. No questions, just do what is best for you.

If you choose to run arguments that are potentially triggering you need to provide a TW before the argument, preferably at the start of the round. This is especially true for narratives that include explicit details that could be triggering.

If there's anything else you need for the round to be more accessible let me know before the round starts and we can see what we can do.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask me in round!

rebekaheurban@gmail.com

I am basically a TAB judge, but I lean toward traditional UIL. I like to see philosophy. I am always looking for the clash. Find the area where you feel you are strong in your case and hammer those points with strong emphasis on impacts. I also love to see voters. I can't tell you how many times I have been torn on my decision until one side delivered strong voters and turned the decision in their favor. Overall, show me a strong clash with a well formed framework, and you will do well...unless, you know...the other side did it better.