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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

1. I rarely read evidence after debates.
2. Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
3. Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
4. Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

1. I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
2. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
3. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

Coach at Heights High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, Woodlands SP
Judging at TOC for: Heights EP, Heritage WT

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me. The 1AC should be sent before the scheduled start time, and the 1AC should be ready to start their speech by the start time.

If I'm judging you in Policy: heightsdocs.policy@gmail.com
If I'm judging you in LD: heightsdocs.ld@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, am currently a teacher at Heights, and predominately coach policy and LD: my program competes through the Houston Urban Debate League and the Texas Forensic Association.

Pref Shortcuts

• Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2
• Kritik (identity): 2
• Kritik (pomo): 3
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

• Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
• Tech > Truth
• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
• It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
• I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

• Given that I predominately coach policy debate, I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs.
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
• Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters does not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or someone who is genuinely unaware of the wiki.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

• I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
• I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of k-aff v fw debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I don't disclose speaks.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

Update: TOC '24 - congratulations! Making it here is a huge achievement. Be proud of yourselves - I'm proud of you. Also, please putdamiendebate47@gmail.com as well aspleaselearntoflow@gmail.com on the chains. Thanks!

0. tl;dr - read this before rounds

"takes his job seriously, but not himself." i judge an extremely large volume of debates every year. these days, it's mostly an even mix of very dense disad, case, and counterplan debates and the more technical side of K debates, but in years past i would likely have best been described as a professional clash judge. i get substantially fewer performance debates and LD "phil" rounds, so i lack comparative experience in those areas, but i am still probably better for them than an average judge, and i enjoy them when executed well. i read policy strategies in high school and the K in college, so i enjoy judging both and am loyal to voting for neither. i evaluate debates as offense/defense, but risk calculus still matters a lot to me and i am (semi-)willing to pull the trigger on zero risk. i try to be very flow-centric and value "technical" execution and direct refutation above "truth", but i don't think that means bad arguments aren't still bad. i don't flow off the doc, so you can go as fast as you want but i will be unforgiving of low clarity. while i did most of our aff writing in college, i am, at my core, a die-hard 2N. that probably tells you more useful info about my debate views than anything else in this paradigm, but you can scroll down to the specifics section regarding arguments in the round you're expecting to have - most of the meat of this paradigm is here for doing prefs. i'm very expressive, but probably overall a bit grumpy for reasons unrelated to you. Wheaton's law is axiomatic, so please be kind, and show me you're having fun. please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir" - patrick, pat, fox, or p.fox are fine."act like you've been here."

I. operating procedure + non-negotiables

1. he/him/his - you should not misgender people.

2. pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com -

a. I strongly prefer email chains. Please have the doc sent before start time. If the round starts at 2:00, I expect the 1AC email at 1:58 so we can start at start time. Every minute the chain is late after start time is -0.1 speaks for the 1A – things are getting ridiculous. You should avoid any risk of any of this by just setting up the email chain when you do disclosure at the pairing. Format subject lines for email chains as "Tournament Round - Aff Entry vs Neg Entry" (e.g: "NDT 2019 Octos - Wake EF vs Bing AY").

b. Prep ends when the doc is sent. It is 2023, you should know how to compile and send a speech document efficiently, stop stealing prep. If you are having difficulty, I suggest Verbatim drills. No, that is not a joke.

3. I flow on my laptop. I have hearing damage in my left ear, so ideally I am positioned to the right of whoever is speaking. I sometimes get sensory overload issues, so I may close my eyes/put my head down/stare off into the distance during speeches - I promise I'm not sleeping or zoned out, and even if not looking at my screen, I will definitely still be flowing.

4. i will make minimal eye contact during any given debate, and will likely have a resting grumpy face, so don’t worry much about those specific things. That said, I'm comically expressive. It's not on purpose, and I've tried to stop it with no luck - I just have a truly terrible poker face. I shake my head and scowl at nonsense, I grin and nod when I think you're doing the right thing, I shrug when I am lukewarm on an argument, I cock my head and raise my eyebrows if I am confused, and I chuckle if you make reference to any of these reactions in the speech (which I am fine with).

5. the safety of students is my utmost concern above the content of any debate. crossing this line is the only way you can legitimately piss me off. Avoid it. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. will not be tolerated under any circumstances, and I am more willing to act on this on my own accord than most judges you have had (i.e: I have submitted a ballot mid-1AR before due to egregious misconduct). You should not attempt to toe this line.

6. entirely uninterested in adjudicating the character of minors i don't know. there are channels for these issues and mechanisms to resolve them, but debates and ballots are not among them. if you have genuine concerns about safety regarding the person you are debating, i am happy to be an advocate for you and get you in touch with the appropriate tournament tab staff to resolve the issue. if you genuinely feel this way, please take me up on this offer - just let me know discreetly via email, messenger, etc. keep in mind, as an employee of a state institution, i am a mandatory reporter.

- people seem to think they're smart in saying that this means "you can't vote on disclosure" - this is false for two reasons: a. i can vote on anything i want, and b. round starts at the pairing, not just the 1AC.

II. core principles

1. debate is a competitive activity centered around research and persuasion, one winner and loser, no outside participation, nothing worse than PG13, the usual.

2. debated for Kealing, Jack C Hays, and University of Houston. if i were to describe my career with a word, it would be "unremarkable". if i get five words, i'd add "irrelevant to this paradigm". i coach HS policy at Dulles, HSLD at a few different places, and help out Houston. former coaches include J.D. Sanford, Richard Garner, Rob Glass, James Allan, and Michael Wimsatt. favorite judges included Alex McVey, DML, Devane Murphy, Scott Harris, Kris Wright, and David Kilpatrick. colleagues (and former students) i likely align with include Eric Schwerdtfeger, David Bernstein, Ali Abdulla, Sean Wallace, Luna Schultz, Avery Wilson. of all these people, i align particularly closely with Garner, Bernstein, Abdulla, and Avery.

3. i think the ethos of judging is best distilled by Yao Yao: "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck". That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster. The most important factor in my own growth as a debater and the most helpful info as a coach has always been well-thought judge feedback, and I think – especially during and post-eDebate – the attention span and work ethic of the average judge has massively declined. I refuse to contribute to what I find to be an alarming trend in many people shirking their responsibility to the community to adjudicate even "boring" or "low-level" debates to the best of their ability. I fundamentally believe no debate is any less or more important than any other, so expect me to judge NCX R1 as if it was TOC finals. i judge a lot - in for ~100 debates a season - for three reasons: a. I think judging is a skill, and requires practice to maintain, b. judging makes me better at coaching and strategically benefits my students, and c. I love debate. some judges seem to have lost the zeal by now, but i still get excited about novel critical affs, interesting disads and turn case arguments, and dense competition debates. I am at a tournament almost every weekend, so I am reasonably aware of community norms and have decent experience with the techne of judging. Just focus on executing, and don't be afraid to take risks.

4. i get my core ideology for judging from Richard Garner: "I try to evaluate the round via the concepts the debaters in the round deploy (immanent construction) and I try to check my personal beliefs at the door (impersonality). These principles structure all other positions herein." "non-interventionist" is silly, because intervention is inevitable. everyone has a different threshold on "too new", "unpredictable cross-applications", "good evidence", because we all resolve implicit questions differently due to prior knowledge and personal affinities. if debaters instruct us to resolve those questions explicitly, it saves me the effort of doing my own evaluations, which means less work for me, which is indicative of better debating by you. I care much less about ideological alignment than a consistent threshold of quality at the level of form (clear claim, sufficient warrant, complete implication). overall, i try to be a good judge for any research-heavy strategy, and I think the best rounds are small, vertically dense debates over a stable controversy. i have voted on "killing all white people good", heg good, "Kant's humanist ethics solves all of racism", death good, the Tetlock counterplan, and condo bad (twice, wholly dropped). each of these arguments is worse than the last, but i voted on all of them. take this as you will.

5. even with the above, probably not a true blank slate – I would consider myself a worse judge than average for theory arguments as reasons to drop the debater, "tricks", counterplans that fiat actors not used by the 1AC or lack germane net benefits, "clash" impacts, the "ballot PIK", the politics disad, condo bad, "RVIs", and “1% risk of extinction”, and much better for skills impacts and fairness, critical affirmatives that counterdefine words, “uniqueness controls the link”, counterplanning in/out of offense and general “negative terrorism”, presumption against critical affs, framework arguments that “delete the plan”, and extra-topical plans. I tend to have a high threshold for a warrant, a low threshold to punish bad-faith practices, and I value quality evidence highly. This is not exhaustive, and may indicate my inclinations to reward or penalize with speaker points. However, if any of these views kick in during my decision, the debating at play was either very lacking or absolutely perfect. Short of a few very baseline things (offense/defense, flowing, decision times, Toulmin model, etc), any of these predispositions can be reversed. if i were coaching someone to win in front of me, my principal advice would be to be as explicit about how I should piece the debate together as humanly possible, so as to minimize the risk of any of my predispositions coming into play.

III. topic thoughts

1. Policy 2023-24 - fiscal redistribution

a. taught at the UTNIF, coach a team, and do moderate card cutting, but judging less policy this year than last year – consider topic knowledge high, but meta knowledge medium. I can hang for debates over dense economic concepts, but worth slowing down and explaining current trends and relevant debate shorthand.

b. so far, extremely reliable single-issue voter, with the single issue being business confidence. it is likely a bad argument, but the cards are excellent and nobody is making the good arguments against it. overlap between K and policy debates is that it all requires a dense operating knowledge of economic concepts, which makes me like this topic. most turns case/link arguments and most link turn/solvency arguments will be operating on different levels/mechanisms, and teams should contextualize why their offense matters more, e.g: if aff increases consumer spending but dumps tons of government spending to do so, how do these interact with overall purchasing power and business confidence?

c. T - Taxes seems to be the only take people care much about - probably lean aff, but only slightly. dont have strong takes on ground bc taxes don't seem impossible to defend, but also unsure how much neg ground actually relies on them. i just think neg literature seems to lack intent to exclude.

2. LD JanFeb '24 - WANA presence

a. T - "presence" is the defining battle of our times. inclined to place a much higher premium on good evidence defining presence as a term of art. probably more willing to exclude things like aid than some judges. can see myself voting aff on reasonability a lot because otherwise the topic becomes unbearably small.

b. most affs are well built to bead disads and Ks, but lose to well-executed straight turns and advantage counterplan. defining issues for these rounds often come down to a. uniqueness for neg offense, although this can be counterplanned in and might not be wholly necessary with sufficiently comparative evidence, and b. the ability to explain and unpack IR concepts through evidence properly. would consider myself extremely comfortable evaluating even the densest versions of these rounds, but threshold for good execution will likely be high. irresponsibly high speaks to a 2NR that is just turning the case if done well, though. it's a lost art.

c. assurances disad is busted. more teams should impact turn prolif.

IV. specifics

1. disads + case

a. evidence: this applies to everything, but putting it in this section since it's first. generally agree with Dallas Perkins: “if you can’t find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me.” how i conclude on the quality of evidence relates to its production (authors, methodologies), its context (specificity, recency), and it's presentation (highlighting/cutting, spin). lots of old heads are signaling concerns about the third lately, which i enthusiastically co-sign - i am unsure why debater getting faster than ever correlates to cards being highlighted to say less, not more, but i would like it to stop. also agree very much with David Bernstein: “Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue.” I try to restrain my natural ev hack tendencies, but will take any opportunity given to exercise them - this means that while i will reward good and punish bad evidence, the onus is on the debaters to tell me what lens i should read cards through.

b. most of what i judge these days and read in high school lives here. “turns case/disad” usually path to victory. dense engagement with internal links and close readings of evidence usually path to “turns case/disad”. ideally, these args are carded, but maybe not necessary if straightforward. good debating is comparative here, i.e: impact calc isn't "yes/no impact" but "higher/lower risk bc..." - anything else is fundamentally inconsistent with the basis of offense/defense.

c. uq probably controls link, but care less about this in the abstract and more when debated relative to specific scenarios – large enough link might overwhelm small uq (econ disad), but maybe uq/link are just yes no (agenda politics).

d. straight turning the case likely all-time favorite thing to judge. uniqueness good, might not be necessary with sufficiently comparative evidence.

e. politics disad legitimacy negatively correlates to stupidness of arg. agenda or court capital kinda dumb but probably allowed, but rider disad = total non-starter. can conceivably vote aff on intrinsicness/theory vs agenda politics, but unsure theory is worth effort vs just beating them, they're bad args. teams should include args in 2ACs to elections about the fact that American voters are often dumber than rocks.

f. inserting rehighlighting fine for “concludes neg”, “concedes thumpers”, etc, but offensive/new arguments should probably be read aloud. debaters likely need to put ink on this for me to disregard insertions of the latter kind, but particularly egregious instances may warrant intervention on my part. i think a lot of old heads' gripes with this practice is that debaters tend to not actually debate rehighlightings as evidence and explain what they mean, they just use them as a "gotcha" and never implicate it, which encourages laziness. don't do this.

2. counterplans

a. comfortable. i think about these debates for fun the most. state of counterplan (and plan) texts + solvency advocates is an atrocity. this should implicate more debates than it does. my favorite debates to judge are likely old-school advantage counterplan debates, but i am not a priori bad for process/competition strategies.

b. most modern process counterplans have large disconnects between solvency and impact evidence for the net benefit and, if thought about for all of three seconds, are patently insane ideas that would likely collapse basic principles of government and be perceived as such by anyone watching (this is a subtweet of uncooperative federalism). both of these issues should be the primary basis of 2AC deficits and defense.

c. competition is fully yes/no, because it's a procedural question. other than that, offense/defense - 2N/ARs should frame my ballot in terms of the impact to the risk of a deficit vs the risk of a net benefit. i care a lot about arguments like sufficiency framing, uniqueness, and try-or-die here.

d. more 2ARs should go for perm shields link/counterplan links to net benefit. most counterplans are kind of stupid and fiat more sweeping things than solvency advocates actually assume (i.e: states, concon). teams seem to be scared of having these debates absent evidence, but shouldn't be.

e. “do both” and “do counterplan” are not arguments, they are taglines. if said with no further analysis, they will be evaluated as such. permutations other than "do both" or "do counterplan" require precise texts (inserting it in the doc is fine, but function should be explained fully during the speech).

f. functional competition is good, important in real-world decisions, and i am comfortable with these debates. textual competition bad, largely irrelevant, and has never made sense to me. positional competition induces feelings in me too dark and evil to name here. "normal means" is just the most likely process by which the mandate of the plan brings about its effects. quality of evidence for both definitions and normal means determines ability to win counterplan competition/legitimacy.

g. unsure why debaters seem to think "certainty" or "immediacy" are key to neg ground/legitimate basis for competition, when zero neg literature ever assumes either because that's not how real world policy works. also unsure why the mandate of the plan being immediate/certain means the effects must also be. more aff teams should point both these things out in competition debates.

h. default no judge kick. can be compelled to do so, but have yet to judge a single debate in my many years where me kicking the counterplan has helped the negative. probably more worth it to just actually pick a 2NR and either go all in on the counterplan or case.

3. kritik

a. familiar (understatement). most of what i coach and read in college lives here. best advice for neg debaters is for the love of god, delete your overview. just start on the line by line, your speeches will be so much better. best advice for aff debaters is use the aff more, and probably read fewer cards. i care substantially less about a2 afropessimism card #9 compared to evidence or explanations about how 1AC internal links interact with/disprove the K. while i personally agree with the K's politics more of the time, in my heart and soul i think about debate like a policy 2N - in my mind, the best versions of these debates play out as aggressive, detailed disagreements about the value of the aff backed by lots of cards. as such, i tend to vote neg when the K team precludes the 2AR on "case o/w" through some combination of framework, turning the case, detailed alternative debating, and having a real impact, and i vote aff when the policy team has robustly defended their aff and internal links as both a counterexample to and offense against the K through some combination of framework, impact or link turns, serious objections to the alternative, and impact comparison. the less that one side does this (i.e: the fiat K, brute forcing heg with the card dump and nothing else, etc) the more i start thinking about voting the other way.

b. framework debating often frustratingly shallow. often unsure what win conditions are under neg models of debate or how winning it actually changes how i evaluate the round. often unsure what terminal to aff offense is and how it interacts with neg args about scholarship. refuse to do the “middle ground” thing if nobody tells me to, though, and generally think you’re better off just saying “delete the plan” or “plan focus” anyways. compromise is cowardly in these debates.

c. K 2NRs tend to be too wide and not deep. extend fewer arguments, do more analysis and answer more aff args. link/impact turns case is good, but framework or alt solves case might make it unnecessary, so why do all three?

d. aff teams link turn and impact turn in the 2AC and pretend it’s coherent. Neg teams should punish this more. aff teams should defend what their aff is equipped to defend and not pretend it can or will do anything else. permutations are overrated. Case outweighs + deficit + framework usually easier and better. most perms are just do both wearing different silly hats and glasses. perm double bind stupid argument.

e. “extinction first” can be a great asset, but it’s not the end all be all, and most teams forget that even if extinction isn’t automatically first, their impact is still probably bad. similarly, care less about “extinction focus bad” than “the way the aff deploys extinction in their scenario is bad bc”. “alt can’t solve case” is usually true, but not relevant if they win turns case/K o/w. “alt can’t solve links/impacts” is much more interesting and persuasive. Root cause args are often stupid.

4. critical affirmatives/framework

ADDENDUM - February '24: i find myself voting affirmative in framework debates more often than i used to. i am not worse for framework - i still think debates are likely on-balance better when the aff is constrained by a plan (despite my reputation for thinking otherwise), so i suspect this is due to two reasons: a. neg teams are getting sloppier at actually line-by-lining or responding to aff arguments (bad), while aff teams are getting more technical and comparative (good), and b. neg teams are not answering case or extending an external impact, they're just rambling about "clash" and have no offense beyond a vague turns case arg without uniqueness. I suspect this is caused by teams being so terrified by the word "subjectivity" that they are unwilling to actually say "yes, debate changes you, and we think the way our model changes you is good and outweighs the aff's offense". this is both unstrategic and cowardly, and the 2AC is going to say that stuff anyways, even if you try to dodge the link.

So, I think there are two solutions to this problem:

1. Make neg teams read real impacts again. Big skills impacts with cards are valuable because they are always external to the case and usually much larger, and give you access to the same genre of turns case arguments as "clash", but also let you have something that outweighs the aff.
   
2. Debate case more. Neg teams need to directly answer 1AC thesis arguments about things like affect/desire/ontology/scholarship/etc to preclude the 2AR from (smartly) weaponizing conceded thesis args as uniqueness/solvency for their offense.
   

if you extended the econ disad against the econ aff, but forgot to extend a uniqueness argument or answer aff internal links, you would not be surprised when you lost. Unsure why people are surprised in this context when it's the exact same issue.tl;dr - "clash" is stupid, read a real skills impact, preferably with cards. rant end.

a. good for both sides of clash debates, but i have judged (too) many, so lots of things about them annoy me. on balance, i am inclined to think debate is a game, and like any game it's benefits and incentives are inevitably structured to reward playing for keeps, but it should probably be worth playing for more than it's own sake, and can be played in more than one way. i am not a priori bad for planless affs, but i think a model of debate that doesn't force some constraints on aff creativity and some degree of side-switching seems to lack both competitive viability and intellectual interest.full disclosure: i am likely to give lower speaks in framework debates than other debates of similar quality, due to constant déjà vu robbing any joy from the content. speaks go back up when debaters stay organized and do deep engagement instead of just dueling with blocks.

b. neg teams historically win my ballot in framework debates more because they tend to do more judge instruction and stay organized.aff pet peeves are 1ACs that say and do nothing, very amenable to presumption. aff teams also tend to grandstand too much in rebuttals and not give organized speeches - don't do that. neg pet peeves are taking begged questions as self-evident, usually makes link to aff offense better. neg teams tend to not contextualize arguments to 1AC theories and also forget to explain an impact - do that stuff. i think both 2N/ARs would be better served doing more work with the language of impact calculus, i.e: "turns case/turns framework", "outweighs", "uniqueness controls direction of offense", etc - teams are generally okay at warranting their impact but bad at implicating it.

c. debates are cleaner the earlier the neg picks one single impact and sits on it. "clash" is kind of fake and never amounts to more than a case turn, skills arguments are criminally underrated, and nobody seems to explain fairness particularly well. ssd and tva are often overprioritized over smarter defense to aff args, but also underutilized as offensive arguments in their own right - i actually think the most interesting part of debate is the way being aff or neg on a given topic force you to apply research and theories to the specifics of a topical advocacy or a link argument, and tend to think models that don't make debaters do these things end up robbing debate of most of it's intellectual rigor.

d. people forget K affs are affs. this means normal arguments about functional competition probably apply to silly PICs ("frame subtraction"), and also means solvency and impact debates are fair game. if evenly debated, i think turning the case is likely always harder to answer and more interesting to judge than framework, given that the aff has way more practice. seems weird we all agree topicality against every policy aff would be an insane neg prep regimen, even if it's occasionally strategic, but we do this for K affs. the 2N in me truly thinks there's always a best answer to every aff, and while sometimes that answer is indeed topicality, it's not nearly the answer as often as round reports would lead you to believe.

e. idk why the neg gets counterplans if the aff doesn’t read a plan. if the basis of neg fiat is that counterplans present an opportunity cost, the only non-arbitrary actor the negative gets to fiat is the aff one, which means if the aff doesn’t fiat government policy, seems weird we think the neg gets to just because. makes more sense to read “policy engagement good, k2 check populism/’cede the political’/etc” as a disad or alternative argument vs these affs.

f. i would very much like to judge more critical affs with plans. i think most neg teams are much worse at justifying utilitarianism and liberal policy-making than they should be, and would consider myself to be extremely good for teams that contest extinction first, consequentialism, and the like. a team that executed this well in front of me would get speaker points bordering on stupidly high.

g. K v K debates live and die by the quality of negative link args and net benefits for the permutation. i always went for the cap K in these debates in college because i found most 2ACs to it to be sloppy and easily answered by a robust knowledge of marxism and history, and think this also applies to most other Ks you can read in these debates, but lots of these debates suck because 2Ns explain links and alternatives badly, which lets the 2AR get away with murder. lots of these rounds collapse into who can shout "root cause" louder, but i usually care much more about impact calculus and the direction of turns case and solvency (and these args are usually much truer anyways). 2A/NC framework arguments are usually missing and missed in these debates. i definitely live on the more technical side of K debate, but i'm not anti-performance-y stuff at all, and enjoy those debates a lot when i get them.

5. topicality

a. better than average for it, most likely. evidence matters a lot – i would say inasmuch as i am an "ev hack", it's most likely to matter in these debates. in the absence of good evidence on either side (most debates these days), i will likely lean affirmative, but few things are of such beauty as sniping an aff on a well-carded T violation that has clearly been thought through. predictability and topic controversies matter much more to me than limits as an intrinsic good, which makes me worse but gettable for args about "its", "in", etc, and probably bad for args solely about grammar.

b. lots of negative evidence is abhorrent in terms of actually establishing a violation (i.e: intent to exclude), lots of aff evidence is trash at actually defining things how the aff claims (i.e: intent to include). reubttals should make this matter more, either to make we-meets/violations more compelling or magnify links to precision/limits.

c. PTIV is possibly not the greatest model, but alternatives are usually badly explained in ways that devolve into positional competition which is godless.

d. violations are yes/no, and so we meets do not require external offense or defense. other than that, offense/defense means i value impact calculus and comparative analysis (caselists, etc) highly. reasonability is a question of the aff interpretation, and not just the specific 1AC. it can be extremely powerful and very viable, but has to be framed offensively beyond just "you get politics, we promise".

6. theory

a. generally, very neg leaning, but neg teams need to answer warranted arguments. very good for “negative terrorism”. condo good most likely my strongest personal conviction, followed by RVIs being nonsense. fine for counterplanning out of straight turns, fine for lots of kickable planks, don’t care about “performative contradictions”, anything is a "PIC" or can "result in the aff", etc. “infinite prep time + only neg burden is rejoinder + arbitrary” is mostly unbeatable vs these flavor of objections.

b. counterpoint is that i'm also great for affirmative counter-terror. big fan of intrinsic perms and theory against suspect counterplans, etc. reasonability is powerful when framed offensively. if evenly debated, i will likely never conclude the states counterplan (or any counterplan that fiats a different actor) is legitimate (but also likely not a reason to reject the team). neg theory args usually amount to pure laziness and are solved by “make 2Ns work for it”.

c. restating for emphasis: condo good, RVIs bad. unless truly and wholly conceded when properly warranted at first introduction, consider these arguments unworkable with me. Most 2ACs are blips that lack warrants, which often makes it moot when conceded anyways.

d. would be very interested to see theory arguments impacted out beyond drop the arg/debater. if states counterplan fiats uniformity, might be reasonable to say aff should get to fiat out of circumvention args about sub-federal actors. if aff fiats through an enforcement question, neg might get to fiat out of related deficits, etc. nobody's done this yet, but seems very worth exploring.

7. LD things

a. better than you'd think for phil, but likely not your best pref. hand-holding is likely required for anything more complicated than kant, but i vote for these positions more often than you’d expect and am familiar with them in a non-debate context. the blippier and less cohesive the framework, the more likely you are to lose me. i am barely old enough to remember when phil and tricks debate weren't synonymous, and miss it. i actually think phil affs are insanely strategic against lots of Ks, so these interactions interest me the most.

b. lots of policy judges tend to cop out and use modesty or other things by default to avoid having to actually judge phil debates - i promise to not do this, as i think it encourages debaters to just be bad at answering phil. that being said, i'm bad for truth testing - it's never made sense to me, offense/defense is kind of just fundamental to how i was taught debate and these arguments contradict a few fundamental assumptions i have about how debate works. it is likely difficult to get me to vote solely on skep, permissibility, etc. as these just kind of seem like purely defensive arguments.

c. bad pref for tricks. consider this both a plea and a warning.

V. misc

- If I want a card doc, I'll ask, usually for the relevant cards by name. Otherwise, assume I'm good.

- COVID things: I am vaccinated and boosted, and I take COVID tests before traveling to any given tournament. Put on masks if asked. I will have extra. not negotiable conduct.

- CX is a speech, my favorite part of the debate when done well, and a lost art. i flow it (albeit not as closely), its probably binding, and it impacts evaluation of the debate and speaker points. one debater from each team should be the primary speaker in each CX - some interjections, elaborations, or clarifications are obviously fine, but while excessive tag teaming will not be disallowed, it may impact speaks and perception negatively.

- flowing is good, and "flow clarification" is not a timeslot in the debate - questions such as "did you read X card/arg in the doc" are for CX. If you ask this and you haven't started a timer for it yet, i will start one for you. if you ask "can you send a doc without all the cards you didn't read", the other team does not have to do that, because that is not what a marked doc is. if you answer arguments that were not read, but were in the doc, you are getting a 27.5.

- Ethics challenges/cheating – this one is longer because people seem to care more about this these days. I have a high bar for voting on it. I do not think power-tagging evidence, cutting an article that concludes the other way later on, etc. are voting issues - you should simply say "this card is bad/concludes neg" as an argument. If you are making the accusation that your opponent has fabricated, miscut, or improperly cited evidence, I will evaluate it with the presumption of good-faith error by the accused. I do not think skipping portions of tags or analytics counts as clipping. Those things are not evidence, so I do not know why they require being held to the standard of evidence ethics. If you are accusing the other team of clipping the highlighted text of evidence, you need a recording to prove it - I will never notice this myself because I will not have docs open during speeches, and I think that if the debate comes down to this debaters have a right to some proof. I will also apply the same standard of good-faith error. This means barring something particularly egregious as to reasonably suggest the criminal negligence if not malicious intent, I will probably err towards not punishing debaters, as I think anything else incentivizes cheap shot wins on dead links in citations, leaving out the last word of a paragraph that was OCR'd badly, or skipping two words in a card on accident. If you read any of these things as a theory argument, I will not flow it, and I will ask after the speech if you are staking the debate on it - if not, I will happily inform your opponent they do not need to answer it. I am open to being asked if I consider certain accusations to meet the threshold of ending the debate on it - my answers will not be negotiable, but they will be honest. I am also willing (I would actually encourage it) to entertain debaters negotiating proportional responses to violations outside of me ending the debate, as I think my role as educator ideally precedes my role as a referee - I'd much rather we all agree to scratch a card that can't be accessed online anymore or that was accidentally clipped than just not have a debate. Otherwise, the party found to be at fault (either the guilty or an incorrect accuser) will receive a loss and the lowest speaks allowed. The other party will get a win and a 28.5/6. All of this goes out the window if the tabroom tells me to do a different thing than what I've outlined above, as their authority obviously supersedes mine.

- speaks are largely arbitrary, but I try to start at 28.4 for a team I'd expect to go 3-3, and i try and keep it relative to the tournament pool. below 28 and I think you are in the wrong division, below 27.5 and you have likely done something bad in a moral sense. I tend to reward quality evidence and good argument choice, well-organized speeches, smart strategic choices, and debating with character. I tend to penalize unnecessary meanness, bad arguments and cowardice, and sloppy debating. i am, at my core, white trash, so i tend to enjoy some friendly trash talk more than the average judge - i stop enjoying it when it strays from the topic of debate and/or becomes overly mean spirited. Not a big believer in low-point wins - if the 2NR makes a dumb decision, but the 2AR doesn't capitalize on it, the 2AR is probably dumber for fumbling a bag. I will not "disclose speaks".

- i tend to give long RFDs because i think most decisions have a tendency to hand-wave details and i'd rather be thorough. that said, there's a point of diminishing returns and i usually overshoot it. will not be offended if you just pack up and dip while i'm yapping. i welcome post-round questions

Good luck, thanks for letting me judge, and see you in round!

- pat

Short version

Put me on the email chain: j.galang.0819@gmail.com

Conflicts: Klein HS, Seven Lakes HS, McMillen NG, Jack C. Hays HB, Village AI

Pref shortcut

K (high theory): 1

LARP: 1 or 2

Phil: 2

Theory: 3

K (identity politics): 3

Tricks: 4

5 minutes before the round

I will evaluate any argument that:

a. Has a warrant

b. Does not render debate unsafe

It would be helpful if you do these things:

1. Pop tags, author names, and pause at the end of cards or when switching between sheets. It makes speeches so much easier to follow.

2. Slow down on interps, standard/role of the ballot texts, and advocacy texts. I don't think anyone will but if you do I'll appreciate it a lot and might bump speaks a tiny bit.

3. Give me a ballot story at the end of the round.

Long version

Background

I debated for Klein from 2014 to 2018, starting with PF in freshman year and switching to LD halfway through sophomore year. I qualified to the TOC my senior year and octofinaled at TFA.

I went for a few different styles of arguments, primarily high-theory kritiks, social contract theory, and soft-left policy affirmatives.

General

Explain and over-explain your arguments. If you give me contextual, comparative analysis and weighing, it'll make it easier for me to understand your arguments (and it will probably help your speaks).

If something doesn't make it onto my flow, I won't evaluate it. I don't look at speech docs during the round. This doesn't mean every word has to be crystal-clear or that you can't make fast arguments, it just means that if you are going to make blippy arguments, delineate between them well enough that I can catch a warrant in the few seconds you spend making each argument.

Tech > truth unless you say something that's outright false.

LARP/Policy arguments Plan + Advantage(s)

This was my a-strat most of senior year. I mostly read soft-left affs, but if you want to go for three extinction scenarios then do your thing.

Develop a ballot story for the plan. Explain how the plan resolves the specific harms raised in the advantage(s) and collapse to/expand upon specific warrants in later speeches.

Good solvency wins ballots. If you have good empirical solvency with well-explained reasons why your evidence is contextual to the topic and solves the advantage(s), you'll have a good time.

DA/CP

I'm good with this. Please don't go for everything in the 2NR. Give a good explanation of the overall DA story and how it turns/outweighs/interacts with the case. Similarly, give a good 2NR explanation of how the CP solves the case especially if the advocacy is some obscure policy.

Since my background is in LD, I will evaluate CP theory to a far greater degree than a lot of people with policy backgrounds. I'll evaluate things like one condo CP bad, one dispo CP bad, etc.

Kritiks

This is what I did most often in high school. I read mostly high-theory kritiks and also some stock kritiks like cap. The authors I'm most familiar with are Deleuze and Guattari, Baudrillard, Weheliye, and Bataille (a little bit). I'm not as fond of identity politics and it was never what I read during high school, but I think there can be excellent rounds on identity politics.

I like any and all K debate done well. By extension, bad K debate will make me really sad. Don't read a K just because it's what I like. I would much rather see you read something you like and read it well than read the K poorly.

If the 2NR has a really long overview with a ton of embedded clash, don't be surprised if you're not happy with how I resolve the debate. Do the work on the line-by-line and implicate arguments on specific sheets to resolve clash instead of reading a 4-minute overview that your coach wrote for you.

Explain what your author says. Don't rely on my prior knowledge of your author to substitute for your explanation. Don't expect me to examine speech docs to try and piece together what your argument was saying after the round. I need to understand your version of the argument.

Phil

I did a decent amount of this my senior year. Some phil debate, especially all-analytic frameworks, is really hard to flow. Try to delineate between arguments clearly and give me time to catch up when you're blazing through analytics.

Similar to what I wrote on K debate, don't assume I know what your author says and give your own explanation of the argument.

Theory

Theory is fine. I don't care whether you use theory to check abuse or if you just use it as a strategic tool.

Give a clear abuse story. Unified analysis in terms of how you approach answering the counter-interp and developing offense on the interp will make evaluating the round way easier.

I don't think I should ever have to have "defaults" on theory because you should be implicating everything in the shell. But I'll default to competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the debater.

Delineate between arguments to make them easier to follow. Theory debates are really fast so please try to minimize how blippy you are.

If you're extemping theory, you should pre-write your interp.

Weigh early with theory, especially since you often have fewer speeches on theory (i.e. if it gets introduced in the 1AR). Make them count and make sure that I know how different standards interact as quickly as possible.

Disclosure

I think that disclosure is probably good in general. If you're from a big school or you have bids, you basically have no excuse for not disclosing.

I'm sympathetic to small schools not disclosing. I was the only LDer from my school and I disclosed, but I get why not everyone would want to.

Tricks

Be honest about your arguments. I don't like the sketchy kind of tricks debate that happens where people are super evasive in CX. If you want to go for presumption/permissibility triggers that's fine, but don't intentionally make arguments unclear in order to gain an advantage. If you do, you will probably be unhappy with how I render my decision.

Misc

If you make me laugh I'll probably bump your speaks. Don't be mean pls

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

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

Doc Sharing

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

Speed

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

General Principle

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

Speaker Points

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

Policy

Theory

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

Kritiks

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

Performance/Pre-Fiat

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

Competition

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

Condo

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

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

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

Disads/CPs/NCs

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

Philosophy/Framework Debate

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

Public Forum

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

1. Debate

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

2. Speech

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

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

Theory

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

Framework

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

Finally Word for All

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

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

I'd prefer that you not use profanity in round.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.



To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

Coach for the University of Houston, Langham Creek High School, and Memorial High School

A couple of thoughts before I address specific arguments

for Wake/UT - I haven't judged very much this year and don't know what the norms/args are yet

If it’s important say it more than once, I don’t necessarily mean that you should just repeat yourself, but make the argument in more than one place with more than one application.

Highlighting should be able to be read - I think that your evidence should be highlighted in a way that makes at least some grammatical sense - this is kind of subjective but if its a true abomination of words slapped together I won't read around your highlighting to understand what you're trying to say.

please time yourselves

I would like to be on the email chain, clarkjohnson821@gmail.com

CX

T debates (and theory debates) are already very blippy, if you want me to evaluate it, slow down. I like it when teams use T strategically in other areas of the debate.

DA's: good spin > sepcific ev > generic ev. I like intuitive turns case arguments and I love when you can implicate the aff’s internal links and solvency using other parts of the disad. I think that

CP's: These are fine, if you want to know my thoughts on judge kick see Rob Glass's paradigm.

K’s: As long as you approach the debate assuming I won’t understand your version of baudrillard we’ll probably be fine. 2nr (and 2nc to some extent) explanation of what the alt world would look like, how the alt solves the links to the aff, and how the alt solves the impacts are important to me, I find myself to be much more persuaded by neg teams that can do this well.

K affs v fw: I think your aff should in some way be related to the topic, that's not to say that you have to be, just that it will make it easier for you to win those debates.

K affs v k's: this is by far the debate that I have the least experience with, something that's really important to me in these debates is clarity of how the alt/aff functions and how it interacts with the links to your opponent's argument, I tend to find myself being persuaded by detailed alt analysis.

if you’ve noticed a common theme here, it’s that I think the alt debate is important

Theory: Default neg and reject the argument, you should give me reasons to do otherwise, don't expect me to vote on it if you don't slow down and explain your argument, most debaters spread blippy blocks that make it difficult to flow and evaluate, if the 2nr or 2ar want to go for theory in some form or fashion you're going to have to do a modicum of work, saying severance perms bad for 10 seconds at the top of your 2nr is not enough to get me to vote on it as long as the 2ar makes any sort of response.

Counterplans bad is probably not a reason to vote aff

LD

I don’t judge this event as often so I may lack a more nuanced understanding of how things function in LD compared to policy, but with that being said I’m open to however you want to do it, be it traditional or progressive. Your phil and theory debates are a little alien to me coming from how we approach similar arguments in policy, so if that’s what you think you’ll be going for in your 2ar or nr be super clear. Most of my thoughts about args in cx will color my analysis of the arguments you make in LD.

PF

I dont consider the time it takes for your opponents to provide you their evidence as prep time, and I don't think you need to take cx time for it either. If you can’t tell, I am primarily a policy judge and as such I probably have a higher standard for evidence quality and access than your average judge.

other than that I don't have strong opinions when it comes to what arguments you want to read as long as you justify them (read: impacts matter!)

im not familiar with pf norms when it comes to whether you should or shouldn’t answer opponents args in summary or 2nd constructive. And sometimes I feel like I’m inconsistent in trying to figure out and apply what they are in my rounds judging it. As such I will treat it as I would a cx round unless you tell me otherwise - new args can be made in first two speeches, summary should not be new args (but can if they are answering a new argument, ie 1st speaking team makes an argument that directly answers a new arg made by 2nd speakers in the last constructive speech) in terms of extensions through to ff I don't think that saying something in grand is enough for me to weigh it at the end of the debate if you dont extend it through your last speech.

I will probably call for evidence. If you paraphrase, expect me to not treat your evidence with the same level of veracity as someone citing specific parts of their cards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other things that affect your speaks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a simple judge

GENERAL

1. I will say clear or slow-But please don't make me- slow on tags and evidence

2. If I don't have the doc don't plan on spreading

3. I don't have a preference to what you run K's, LARP etc. as long as you can defend your case clearly. If you are spreading make sure you slow down on tag lines.

4. I love smart CX, and I pay close attention to it.

5. Be Eloquent as I do pay attention to that as well

AFF

1.Let Weighing live in LD, I don't want a blitz of back file answers without leveraging the AC- then whats the point besides wasting 6 minuets?

2. I know there is a skew! Please don't waste more time complaining about it, it is an acceptable standard in a counter interp or just argument but shouldn't be the the main point of the 1AR, the more time you spend, the less i'll buy it.

3. Not super familiar w/ performance/Non t affs but please go for it- just break it down and you'll be fine

Neg

1. I won't vote you down but i'll kill your speaks if you run more than 5 off that are all condo, it always leads to bad debate- I'm generally good with condo but 5 or more off is just abusive

2. I expect clear articulation of what operates on the highest layer, K or Theory- If they go for one and you don't kick the other i'll assume risk of offense so for your benefit be clear

Please Note: I don't disclose. when you see it you will see critique clearly showing what and why.

email the doc to gskindra@yahoo.com

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

[current/past affiliations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 things to know:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm the current assistant coach at Coppell High School where I also have the lovely opportunity to teach Speech & Debate to great students. I did LD, Policy, and Worlds in High School (Newark Science '15) and a bit of Policy while I was in college (Stanford '19). I'm by no means "old" but I've been around long enough to appreciate different types of debate arguments at this point. As long as you're having fun, I can feel it and will probably have fun listening to you, too!

WSD

This is now my main event nowadays. Given my LD/Policy background, I do rely very heavily on my flow. That doesn't mean you have to be very techy--you should and can group arguments and do weighing--but I try my best to not just ignore concessions. Framing matters a lot to me because it helps me filter what impacts I should care about most by the end of the debate.

If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask.

Also follow @worldofwordsinstitute on Instagram or check out www.worldofworldsinstitute.com for quality WSD content :)

LD/Policy

I'd love to be on the email chain. My email is sunhee.simon@gmail.com

Pref shortcut for those of you who like those:

LARP: 1-2

K: 1-2

Phil: 1-2

Tricks: 5/strike

Theory (if it's your PRIMARY strat - otherwise I can be preffed higher): 3

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

Credentials that people seem to care about: senior (BA + MA candidate) at Stanford, Director of LD at the Victory Briefs Institute, did LD, policy, and worlds schools debate in high school, won/got to late elims in all of those events, double qualled to TOC in LD and Policy. Did well my freshman year in college in CX but didn't pursue it much after that. Now I coach and judge a bunch.

LD + Policy

Literally read whatever you want. If I don't like what you've read, I'll dock your speaks but I won't really intervene in the debate. Don't be sexist, ableist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, or a classist jerk in the round. Don't make arguments that can translate to marginalized folks not mattering (this will cloud my judgement and make me upset). I've also been mostly coaching and judging World Schools debate the past two years so you're going to need to slow down for me for sure. As the tournament goes on my ear adjusts but it's likely I'll say "slow" to get you to slow down. After 3 times, I won't do it anymore and will just stop listening.

Otherwise have fun and enjoy the activity for the 45 or 90 mins we're spending together! More info on specific things below:

Stock/Traditional Arguments

Makes sense.

Ks

I get this. The role of the ballots/framing is really helpful for me and usually where I look first.

T

I understand this. If reading against a K team I'd encourage you to make argument about how fairness/education relates to the theory of power/epistemology of the K. Would make all of our lives better and more interesting.

Theory

I also understand this. But don't abuse the privilege. I am not a friv theory fan so don't read it if you can (or else I might miss things as you blip through things).

Plans/CP/DAs

I understand this too. Slow down when the cards are shorter so I catch the tags.

I don't default to anything necessarily however I do know my experiences and understandings of debate were shaped by me coming from a low income school that specialized in traditional and critical debate. I've been around as a student and a coach (I think) long enough to know my defaults are subject to change and its the debaters' job to make it clear why theory comes first or case can be weighed against the K or RVIs are good or the K can be leveraged against theory. I learn so much from you all every time I judge. Teach me. Lead me to the ballot. This is a collaborative space so even if I have the power of the ballot, I still need you to tell me things. Otherwise, you might get a decision that was outside of your control and that's never fun.

On that note, let it be known that if you're white and/or a non-black POC reading afropessimism or black nihilism, you won't get higher than a 28.5 from me. The more it sounds like you did this specifically for me and don't know the literature, the lower your speaks will go. If you win the argument, I will give you the round though so either a) go for it if this is something you actually care about and know you know it well or b) let it go and surprise me in other ways. If you have a problem with this, I'd love to hear your reasons why but it probably won't change my mind. I can also refer other authors you can read to the best of my ability if I'm up to it that day.

Last thing, please make sure I can understand you! I understand spreading but some of y'all think judges are robots. I don't look at speech docs during the round (and try not to after the round unless I really need to) so keep that in mind when you spread. Pay attention to see if I'm flowing. I'll make sure to say clear if I can't understand you. I'll appreciate it a lot if you keep this in mind and boost your speaks!

Contact Info:

Email: nevilletom1@gmail.com

Facebook: Neville Tom

Basic Info:

Hi! My name’s Neville. I debated for four years at Strake Jesuit (got a few bid rounds during my career if that makes any difference), and I’m currently a freshman at UH. I’m still kinda working out the whole judging thing, so there’ll probably be some edits to this as time goes on. As such, please feel free to ask me any questions prior to round if you need any clarification about my judging style or my paradigm.

How to Win (the TL;DR version):

You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

- Weigh: Do it. A lot. As much as you POSSIBLY can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate.

- Crystallize: Don't go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take time to provide me a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as we're winning this/these argument(s), we should win the round."

- Use Overviews: I find that debaters who use overviews effectively tend to win more rounds. It will definitely help me evaluate if you start off your rebuttal speeches with an overview, so... *shrug*. A good overview will have these three components: (1) explain which issues matter most in the debate, (2) explain why those issues matter most (why I should care about them most), (3) why you're winning those issues. After that, feel free to go to the line-by-line to do the grunt work. This will help clarify the round and will help me to focus on the issues that matter.

- Warrant your Arguments: When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them for the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you.

- Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any disambiguities that might affect my decision.

- Creatively Interpret Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit on first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. For example, if you win a Hobbesian framework and claim that the sovereign should settle ethical dilemmas, then feel free to make the implication that theory is illegitimate because it is not a rule that the sovereign has proposed.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Losing & Lower Speaks (Borrowed from Chris Castillo's paradigm):
1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too).
2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand, so don't just read some dense phil or K and expect me to understand it.
3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters.
4. Don't steal prep.
5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip. If I get conclusive evidence that you are purposely clipping, then I will down you.

Speed:

I’m fine with it – make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism (This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. Tags

5. Author Names

6. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

7. Analytics (in rebuttals)

**NOTE: I'm not asking to talk at a snail's pace when making analytical responses to arguments. However, if you blitz out ten 1-sentence analytics in the space of 5 seconds, I will not be able to catch all of them, so it would be to your betterment to slow down a bit. Additionally, it would help me flow analytics if you provide a verbal short 2-word tag prior to making your argument. For example, "A-point, no warrant: (insert argument here). B-point, missing internal link: (insert argument here). C-point, turn: (insert argument here). D-point, turn (insert argument) here." etc., etc. Feel free to be creative with your tags.

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategical decisions in round, but sounding pretty doesn’t hurt. I’ll start at a 28 and go up or down based on how you do.

Explicit Argument Preferences:

- LARP:

Read what you want. I'm cool with plans, CPs, DAs, PICs etc, as I tended to run them quite a lot as a debater. Just run them well.

Things that I would like to see in LARP rounds:

1. Rigorous Evidence Comparison. In my opinion, this skill is the key to being a good LARPer. It is much more compelling to me if you read one card about climate change being false and winning why your evidence is better than your opponents compared to your opponent spreading 18 cards on climate change being real.

2. Weigh. Do it as often as possible and make sure to do comparative weighing between your arguments and your opponent's. Prove to me why your arguments matter more than your opponent's. The earlier this debate starts, the better.

3. Advocacy Texts/CP Texts. I need to know what I'm endorsing.

4. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Case Debate is Amazing. People don’t do it enough. A 1N that isolates every internal link to solvency on the aff and line by lines the warrants + reads weighing and comparison for their turns vs aff solvency links / 2NR that collapses to the case debate and just gives a really good ballot story and explains all the interaction will really impress me. Similarly, a 1AR that deals with a heavy 1N press well and explains/weighs their own ballot story will impress me.

5. Small Plan Affs/PICs. These really interest me. Don't lose on the case debate as (a) if your aff/PIC is really a small one, they really shouldn't have any good answers to the aff/PIC and (b) it will indicate to me that you weren't all that prepared to defend your position to begin with, which will not be good for your speaks. Also, be sure to be prepared for the theory debate as I tend to err towards the abuse story of the interp, especially if they provide round-specific abuse stories.

- Kritiks

Again, read what you want. While I was definitely fascinated by critical literature and knew how to read and go for one, I admittedly didn't read Ks all too often, and so may not know/be aware of all the nuances of this style of debate. I have a decent understanding of some critical literature, including (but not limited to): Wilderson, Deleuze & Guattari, Edelman, Puar, Lacan, Agamben, Baudrillard, Tuck and Yang, etc.

I tend to view debates as an issue of testing the truth and falsity of the res (but this can easily be changed). Unless convinced otherwise, I view Ks similar to frameworks: to me, Ks filter what offense matters. As such, I view ROBs and FWs to function on the same level (you can convince me to think otherwise in round, but that's my view).

Things that I would like to see in K Rounds:

1. A Clear Link. I need to know explicitly what the K is criticizing. It doesn't matter whether it is the method, the reps, the discourse, or whatever. Just make clear to me that the aff has done something wrong and what exactly that is.

2. A Cohesive and Comprehensive Explanation of the Alt. Make sure to spend a decent chunk of time in the 2N explaining the alt. Explain to me (1) what the world of the alt looks like, (2) why this is net preferable to the aff, (3) why the alt solves the impact, and (4) why the alt is mutually exclusive. If you can explain all of these very clearly to me, I will be much more inclined to vote for you and will definitely boost your speaks.

3. Normatively Justify your ROBs. While not ABSOLUTELY necessary, I find completely impact-justified ROB somewhat uncompelling. Providing a conclusive ethical theory (this doesn't necessarily have to be justified by analytic phil - it can be justified by your critical author of choice) that provides a framework for your ROB will provide more nuanced discussion and will definitely give you a leg up in justifying your ROB as the framing mechanism. If done well, I'll give you speaks a big boost.

4. Make your K Accessible. Show me that you understand your K. Explain it to me (especially in the 2N) in easy-to-understand language. Also, even if you're using generic literature, use your K to provide a very close, nuanced analysis of the aff and paint a very detailed picture of the world of the aff vs that of the alt. This will help me to learn and understand more about the K and garner you good speaks.

5. Provide an Explicit and Unambiguous ROB Text. Give me an explicit metric through which I should view the round and adjudicate. If I can not make heads or tails of how to weigh using your ROB, I will use an alternate weighing mechanism. If the ROB is ambiguous and doesn't provide a clear way to weigh arguments, I will be much more compelled by a Colt Peacemaker-type shell that has a contextual story to the round, should it be read.

6. Notes for Non-T Affs. I have no problem with them. If that's your style, then go for it; just do it well and tell me why I should vote for you. However, if T-FWK/T-Defend the Topic becomes an issue, then be sure to: (a) provide good justifications for why you could not have been topical as I tend to be compelled by nuanced TVAs, (b) provide ample well-justified reasons for why the aff/your voters come prior to fairness and any impacts to it, (c) depict a clear picture of what your model of debate looks like and why it's net preferable to that of the interp, and (d) (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm), generate impact turns based on your aff, not just random impact turn cards like Delgado. I’ll vote on these external criticisms, but it’s much much less compelling and persuasive than your specific arguments about the aff.

7. Notes for Aff v.s. K. (a) PERM THE ALT. I will listen (and evaluate) any type of perm that you come up with, even "silly" ones like judge choice or method severance. (b) Go for "Case Outweighs", ESPECIALLY if the alt is very vague: I have not heard many great responses to this argument. (c) If your opponent's alt is vague, point this out: if I think you're correct in your assessment, I will be much more lenient in your responses to the K as a whole.

8. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Performances are fine, but it ends after your speech. If you try to play music during your opponent’s speech, for example, I will drop you. Believe it or not, I need to hear your opponent’s 1NC to evaluate the debate.

9. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Personal attacks in a debate round are unacceptable. I will not vote on an argument requiring someone lose for something that happened out of the round or out of their control, such as an attack on someone for their school/coach/affiliations. This is not limited to the K debate, but it is where I have seen it happen most.

- Phil/FW

As a debater, I loved the framework debate as I found the literature super engaging and the style super strategic. Unfortunately, the style seems to be falling out of fashion (#bringbackfwdebate), and so I am definitely down to judge this kind of debate. I'm decently well-versed with a lot of philosophies, such as: Util (duh), Kant (and Neo-Kantianism), Hobbes, Deleuze, Innoperative Community, Agamben, Particularism, Virtue Ethics, Derrida, Existentialism, Testimony, Levinas, Butler, etc.

Things that I would like to see in FW-heavy rounds:

1. Have a Meta-Ethic. Not only is this super strategic in excluding other frameworks (and thus, offense), but it also provides a great starting point to any framework.

2. Provide a Syllogistic-Framework. Explain why each premise (following your starting point) is necessarily the only possible derivation from the former proposition. This will make your framework (a) a lot harder to attack, (b) a lot easier to understand, and (c) a lot easier to defend, which is a definite win-win. It's a lot more compelling than random blips about "preclusion" or impact-justified frameworks. Also (especially if you're aff), draw out implications from your premises so that you can apply it to different scenarios. For example, if you've justified that there is an intent-foresight distinction (i.e. all that matters in judging the morality of an action is the intention behind it), feel free to draw out the implication that this means that you should not lose on theory because you did not intend to violate the shell. If you do this, I will definitely give your speaks a boost.

3. Use Skep. Do not be afraid to justify why skepticism is true as long as you justify why your framework resolves the problem. Use it to justify why your theory is better than others. If necessary, feel free to trigger skep in round for your strategic necessity - I feel that this is a legitimate strategy and that the onus is on your opponent to prove why it is not, should they have a problem with it.

4. Provide a Explicit Framing Mechanism. Be able to explain in simple terms (a) what your normative starting point is, (b) why your framework is the only one that can be drawn from this point, and (c) what actions your framework cares about. In other words, be clear about your view of what ethics is. Be sure that you provide a clear weighing mechanism that explains how I should evaluate arguments.

5. Don't be Sketchy. Make it clear to everyone what offense links and doesn't link. if in CX you do not provide a clear answer to your opponent about the offense that links to your framework, chances are that I won't know how to use your framework. As such, I will be very lenient to new reinterpretations of your opponent's arguments and will be much more like persuaded by a theory argument about vague weighing mechanisms.

6. TJFs/AFC are great. Read them if that's what you want. I will definitely be impressed if you manage to have decent nuanced theoretical reasons to prefer frameworks that aren't Util as I feel that this is an area that is (as of yet) unexplored by the debate community.

7. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Framework hijacks are super strategic. Well explained and executed strats based around hijacks will get you high speaks. If you are able to provide good clash in defending your framework against a hijack, that will also garner you high speaks.

- Theory/T

This style of argumentation was one that I initially struggled a lot with. Later in my career though, I grew to love and implement it in a lot of my round strategies. If you are able to run theory and debate it well, I believe you will definitely go far in your debate career as it definitely improved my winrate and my capacity to generate arguments quickly as well as my critical thinking skills.

Things that I would like to see in Theory Rounds:

1. WEIGH and CRYSTALLIZE. Theory has a bad rep of being super blippy and unaccessible and I can't say I blame the people that feel this way. The theory debate tends to collapse down to who blitzed out the shortest analytic responses which tends to result in very, very messy and hard to adjudicate debates. Doing this can make you a "good" theory debater. However, in order to really get to a higher level in this style of debate, you have to master the essential skills of weighing and crystallizing, which are generally seen in the later speeches. These speeches on the theory debate should be less and less blippy and focused on the essential issues of that debate. In front of me, you should (a) provide an overview where you isolate how I should evaluate the theory debate and what offense matters under this framing, (b) explain your offense really well, (c) prove that your offense comes prior to your opponent's, and (d) clearly indicate why this offense links back to a voter. If you do this successfully, I will definitely give you high speaks.

2. Do Comparative Analysis between the World of the Interp and the World of the Counter-Interp. Use this framework to explain what the net benefit is in terms of the interp/counter-interp. Don't be afraid to explicitly say, "Under the world of the interp, there is (some net benefit). The counter-interp can't resolve this issue, and as such, you should reject it."

3. Default Theory Paradigms. I do not like to default to any specific issue in this style of debate, as I believe that it is your job to justify them. However, if there comes a situation in which I need to default, then here they are:

(a) Theory > K/ROB

(b) Fairness > Education/Other Voters

**NOTE: I will only default to these if these voters are read. If you do not read voters on your shell, then I will not evaluate the shell - the onus is on you to provide a framework through which I should evaluate the debate.

(c) Competing Interps > Reasonability

**NOTE: if you're going for reasonability, PLEASE provide an actual brightline that tells me conclusively what counts or doesn't count as reasonable. If you tell me to gutcheck the shell or something along the lines of "you know this shell is silly", I will simply evaluate the line-by-line of the theory debate to determine the winner.)

(d) No RVIs > RVIs

(e) Meta-Theory > T/Theory

(f) T > Theory

(g) Semantics > Pragmatics

(h) Text of the Interp > Spirit of the Interp

**NOTE: If you go for spirit of the interp, provide some sort of metric through which I can understand the "spirit" of the shell, as (a) I dislike gutchecking as it can lead to arbitrary decisions and (b) I'm rather compelled by the argument that the text is the only objective metric as I cannot truly know what the spirit of the interp is.

(i) Drop the Argument (DTA) v.s. Drop the Debater (DTD): I do not have a default on the implication of the shell. The onus is on you to read them.

**NOTE: Conceded paradigm issues do not need to be extended. For example, if Competing Interps and No RVIs are conceded, you do not need to extend them again. If you need to refer to them again for whatever reason, feel free.

4. Be Creative. This style of debate really rewards those who like to go off-script and try new things. As such, I encourage you to try new ideas with theory in front of me. For example, use creative independent voters and argue why said voter comes prior to other voters.Just be sure to explain how to evaluate the argument and why it means that you are winning.

5. Be Nuanced. Make your shells as contextual as possible to the specific round. Feel free to extemp your shell (just be sure to provide either a written or digital copy of the actual interp before your speech so that I have something to hold you to). This will not only boost your speaks, but is also much more strategic as it becomes more difficult to respond to.

6. Policy on Frivolous Theory: To be perfectly honest, I've never quite understood what frivolous theory is. If you can provide a definition that conclusively defines what differentiates frivolous theory from a "normal" theory shell and why it's bad, then I won't evaluate the shell. In other words, use theory however you want.

- Tricks

I got introduced to this style of debate late in my career, but I really developed a liking to it as I found justifying and running meme-y arguments very entertaining. If done well, it can be a really fun round to both watch and adjudicate; if not, though, it can be near-impossible to judge.

Things that I would like to see in Tricks Rounds:

1. Be Upfront. I like debaters being tricky by reading tricky arguments (like NIBs or burdens). However, this does not give you free license to be shifty. In other words, be open with the implication of your tricks and how they function. That being said, I am okay with you providing slightly ambiguous answers. However, I heavily discourage you from providing responses like "I'm not sure, it COULD be a trick," or "I have no idea what you're talking about," or "What's an a priori/spike/NIB?", or just blatantly lying and later doing a complete 180. I will dock your speaks heavily if you do this, will significantly lower the burden of rejoinder for your opponent, and will want to vote for a theory argument indicting your practice, should it be read..

2. I'm not a huge fan of a prioris. I will vote on them provided you do a good job both (a) warranting why they should be my foremost concern under a truth-testing paradigm (if necessary, win that truth-testing is true and should be the framing mechanism first) and (b) provide a well-warranted reason why the a priori tautologically proves the resolution true/false. I will hold you to a higher threshold on proving these issues. If you do this well, then I will not dock your speaks and will likely pick you up if I deem that you won the argument. If you do not do it well, then I will likely dock your speaks and adjudicate the rest of the debate. Other than a prioris, I'm perfectly fine with every other trick, including, but not limited to: NIBs, Burden Structures, Triggers (i.e. Skep, Trivialism, etc.), Contingent Standards, Theory Spikes, etc.

3. Be Creative with your Tricks. Try not to default to recycled tricks like the Action Theory NC or a recycled Distinctions Aff from yesteryear with a slightly changed up burden. Creative tricks will be rewarded with higher speaks.

4. Weigh. Win why your winning of the trick is a prior question to adjudicating the rest of the debate. This can be done via making some claim towards fairness or education, for example. Admittedly, this can be tricky in a trick v.s. trick debate. In this case, attempt to provide unique reasons for why your trick is more true/comes first, and also have an additional out if that debate becomes too messy.

Random Notes:

- Tech > Truth: Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

- Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts. In order to avoid any mishaps, please provide a trigger warning prior to reading any (possibly) sensitive issue. If you are doubtful on whether you should give a trigger warning, then provide one anyway to be safe.

- Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste, however; there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong".

- Disclosure is probably good: I find myself compelled by the argument. This does not mean that I will auto-hack for Disclosure Good or any of its variants - I believe that it is a legitimate debate to be had and if you conclusively win that disclosure is bad, then I will vote for you. That being said, do NOT run it on someone that is clearly novice level/just started circuit debate. If you win the argument, I will vote for you, but I will not be giving you higher speaks.

- Strength of link is a great weighing argument. Use it.

- People I Share Similar Judge Philosophies With: Chris Castillo, Matthew Chen, Tom Evnen, Erik Legried, Etc.

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

*Edit - Here’s my wikis from senior year so that you can get an idea of the type of debater that I was:

Aff: Senior Year Aff Wiki

Neg: Senior Year Neg Wiki

Background/experience: I debated for 3 years at Montgomery High school competing two years in policy and my senior year in ld. As far as other events go, I competed in extemp, congress, and even World Schools on occasion. I qualified to TFA state every year in policy and ld respectively. I also qualified to the TOC my senior year in ld.

General Paradigm: I really think debate has become an activity involving strategy over anything else in policy and ld especially. Therefore, I will tend to be more perceptive to strategy over grandstanding on your critiques. Additionally, I felt like during my career that judges tended to put their own personal beliefs about debate and the issues being debated on a pedastool making them biased toward certain arguments like Ks over theory or theory over Ks. My goal is to be a complete blank slate as far as that goes. I believe things like frivolous theory can be a strategy even though some judges are biased against it. That's not to say I'm a theory hack because I'm probably the opposite, but I am receptive to it just as I am to a DA or K. Also don't say racist stuff or I probably won't like you.

Specifics:

K: I read Ks throughout most of high school and am well read in most of the literature. That being said, I am not a K hack. I am probably going to know if you don't understand what you're reading or talking about. Most of the critiques I read were high theory involving authors such as baudrillard, deleuze, bataille, Heidegger, etc. I'm not going to grandstand about how you have to explain Ks thoroughly. They should have some explanation in the 2nr but some of this stuff can't be simplified down to a third grade level so I don't expect that to occur. I feel like the debate community has allowed some kids to get away with little explanation and say they are a great debater while other times judges use it as a cop out to not give an RFD. Just know what you're talking about and I'm cool with it. Also k affs are great and strategic.

LARP: I read policy affs and DAs throughout my policy career and somewhat as an LDer. I really like these arguments because they allow debaters to be strategic with turns and usually allow me to learn some cool stuff too. Have fun! I love DAs, CPs, plans, etc.

Theory: I never really read theory unless I was forced to. That's not because I didn't like it but I thought some judges would hesitate to vote on frivilous theory. I am happy to say that I am not one of those judges. Read frivilous theory all you want. Just remember that usually there are simple intuitive responses that are effective. Also I default competing interns but I don't have a specific leaning toward reasonability or competing interps one way or another. And yes! Reasonability is something I will vote on if you are winning that I should use it. I also don't have any presuppositions as far as rvis and drop the debater vs drop the argument. Tell me which I should use and if you don't I'll probably default to drop the argument if applicable and no rvis. Lastly, definitely weigh standards and impacts or you won't like my decision.

Phil: I didn't read Phil whatsoever until my senior year. I still am not read on the literature. That being said, I think Phil arguments are great and I will do my best to evaluate them just as I would a k. Just be prepared to explain it to me and how it interacts with offense in the round. If you like reading Phil, go for it.

Speaks:

I will say clear twice, then deduct speaks. If you are clear, then the main thing that I use to evaluate them is strategy. I will also adjust my speaks depending on the caliber of tournament. I will give a regular debater around a 28.8, a poor debater 28.5 and a good debater 29+

My goal is to be the most tab judge you have ever had, so read anything you want, be strategic, and have fun.

*****IF MY CAMERA IS NOT ON I AM NOT THERE******

I have a philosophy degree from Loyola and last debated for GSU (2n). I have a background in coaching, judging, and debating LD, PF, and Policy and I have been working at camps for 6 years (GDS, UNT, Hdc, and Snfi). Currently coaching for CKM. I will listen to most arguments as long as I do not find them offensive. I prefer clarity over speed- that being said I am perfectly fine with speed. If I have to call clear more than three times I will stop flowing. I will listen to pretty much any arg pending heinous claims. However, I typically only like to vote on theory arguments in which the violation can actually be resolved by the ballot. Can go either way on tricks, but I don't hate creative attempts at securing the ballot. Please for the love of everything... do not run a tva arg in front of me because we are both gonna be upset. My threshold for granting the tva is incredibly high and this is probably the only argument I really dont love hearing. It is unlikely I will vote on T. Definitely K leaning in terms of what I am most familiar with.

tldr; pref me as a k judge

Online:

My connection is not the best- please include your analytics in your speech doc and make my life a lot easier. Reduce your speed by 10-15%.

My email is: williams.aurelia@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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