Debate Events:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress:

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

Framework clashing is good. Also, please don't spread!

I have competed in high school speech events, Congress, LD and PF experience, as well as some coaching and judging experience. I am currently an active Toastmaster where I achieved my Distinguished Toastmaster educational award.

Things about my style:
- I need to be able to follow your case (i.e. Roadmaps are important, signposting with spreading)
- Don’t just pick a case for the sake of confusing your opponent, it needs to be pretty much topical
- Speed is fine, but I need to be able to understand you
- Viewing your opponent’s case doesn’t substitute for flowing
- Don’t take your cards out of context, if the idea behind the card doesn’t support your case, then it’s probably not a good idea to use it, even if you can make a sentence work for you (while I won’t necessarily pick this out myself, if your opponent points it out, I will know and remember)
- Extending arguments require you to give a reason with evidence/warrants (i.e. "non-unique" by itself isn't good enough)
- Be polite (i.e. if you know that you are winning don't destroy your opponent, offensive language should add value if used)
- I weigh arguments against each other, so keep track of important points that your opponent has presented a valid argument that counters it
- I don't take CX into account (other than to give you pointers for next time) unless you bring it up in your speeches
- I would rather see a few well-covered points than a bunch of poorly covered points
- I'm big picture (key points matter more than defending and defeating every point/contention)
- I like voters, they weigh heavily on my decision, and they should be your major arguments (you should pick your still standing, strong points)
- I’m not a big fan of theoretical debates, I prefer debates with substantiated arguments.

- if your opponent can’t instantly bring up the source, if doesn’t automatically discount it, especially in CX. If they don’t bring it up later.

I like a good debate and am generally very nice with speaker points to both sides when I see one.

Congress:

- Ask questions during questioning. (When there’s extended questioning periods, I take that into consideration because of the limited number of questioners. At least try to get questioning time.)

- At least look like you're paying attention.

- Be prepared to give a speech. (In some states, you only count for numbers if you give a speech and it's beneficial for you. After all, you're in the event for a reason.)

- The longer the breaks are that you take the less time you have to speak. (5 minutes is enough time for the judges to do what they need to do, and you can always ask for a "point of personal privilege" to use the restroom or come back late.)

Speech Events (IEs & Extemp):

- The grace period (available in some states) is there for a reason, so that you don't automatically get last place for going over. You really shouldn't be using the majority of it.

- You should know your prepared speech's time and not need time signals. (Non-prepared events, such as Extemp and Impromptu, are exempt. I will give up to a 5 down with a 30 second warning to time, not including grace.)

- I'd rather see 1 or 2 well covered points than 3 points that lack coverage.

I did PF at James Bowie HS in Austin, TX for 3 yrs

Please be sure to clearly weigh in both speeches! Don't just throw around buzzwords with no actual weighing. Any offense that you want me to vote on must be extended in both speeches. I will usually vote off of the clearest link chain in the round. Cards should have quality warrants (less paraphrasing please). Quality over quantity.

I would prefer if offense (and maybe defense if possible, but not necessary) is frontlined in the second rebuttal, and that both teams collapse throughout the round. Do not try to go for too much.

Extend terminal defense in summary.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear.

I never ran any K's, theory, Cps, but will do my best following if ran.

Please be nice to each other!

qzpbellman@gmail.com

I mainly did Congress and DX during high school.

PF:

I am fairly traditional for pf. I won't automatically vote you down if you run more progressive tactics like theory or CP, but don't expect me to be able to follow along unless you're really willing to explain it.

I value weighing and explanation a lot. If you card is solid but you don't explain mechanisms or how it works, I'm not going to be convinced.

Tell me how to weigh the round.

KEY NOTE TO CONGRESSIONAL DEBATERS (can apply to any event really)

I'm seeing too many points where the tagline is pretty much "russia bad" or "china bad." That is not an argument. If you just say doing x will help China or Russia without clearly extending your impact beyond that, I'm not going to take the point seriously and your ranks will suffer. I understand that current rhetoric has made China out to be an adversary and you are reflecting that as reps and senators, but I expect more developed arguments here.

School Affiliation: Coach at Lovejoy High School

Debate Experience: Coaching and judging LD and CX since 2013, PF since 2016

Email: jakecosio123@gmail.com

On CX and LD:

Speed - I don’t mind speed. Please clearly signal that you are transitioning from cards to tags. Slow down for your tags (especially if they are super long) and cites. If you could number or in some way signal me on analytics to help me get my flow to match yours it would be much appreciated. In summation, the more explicit you are with organization the better I will be able to flow. Additionally, I will say “clear” if your words are slurred or say “slow down” if you are simply outpacing my ability to flow accurately.

Theory - I like theory when it is necessary, but dislike the use of blippy theory. If you have any theory (or any other format of arg) that says using specific words is bad, just tell everyone before the round what is preferable. If they bait it after that then I’m all ears, but will have a really high threshold on this otherwise (as in you will have to prove to me why it wasn’t important enough to disclose before the round but is important enough for me to vote on). On other issues, I’m really looking for good internal links to your voting issues. Absent debate, I tend to prefer single actor CP’s to multi-actor and dispositionality to condo.

Topicality - I default to competing interpretations. In round abuse is preferable, but I will listen to potential abuse if well developed and defined. Make sure to clearly link and establish your impact(s) to your standards. I am generally not inclined to vote on T as an RVI.

Kritiks - Being completely honest, I am not the best at evaluating K debate. I prefer strategies going for a mix of DA/CP/T/Case and am much more comfortable evaluating these. I would say you're running the K at your own risk. If you are a K debater, that’s fine, but please take the time to explain your K to me without assuming that I have read your authors and/or have intimate knowledge of their content. To be clear, speak in plain English when explaining everything (even your tags).

Speaks - I generally reward organization, clarity, and efficiency. In essence, the easier you make it for me to flow (without boring me to death) the better your speaks will be. On the other hand, I penalize rudeness and unprofessionalism. I expect a fairly high level of decorum (stand while speaking, don’t use offensive/vulgar language, etc.).

On CX specifically:

To categorize myself neatly in some distinct category isn’t fair for anyone, but the closest approximation that I can make is to place me on the policy maker side of tab with a few caveats (as outlined above).

In cross-examination I have a preference for the speakers traditionally assigned to a certain cross-x to be the people that are active during this time. If your partner is answering a significant portion of the questions asked of you, you will be penalized in speaker points. One or two questions isn’t a big deal to me, but 50+ percent of them would see a small penalty.

On LD specifically:

Keep in mind that I am not necessarily expecting (or even wanting) you to run policy args. A good framework with well established advantages of affirming/negating is a completely acceptable strategy to me.

On PF:

Speed - a fast conversational seems best suited to PF for me.

Format of Summary Speeches - I would prefer a line by line, but if grouping is necessary for efficiency I am ok with it.

Role of the Final Focus - Weighing and voters

Topicality - Run it if it is necessary, but I am most likely just going to default to reasonability and gut check it before anything else on the flow.

Plans - I think all offense should be linked directly to the resolution, but you can characterize how the resolution would be implemented. In the instance of Con speaking first, I will not allow the Pro to no link all of the Con offense simply because they present a plan.

Kritiks - I'm really bad at them. Probably not a good idea (see above).

Flowing/note-taking - I will judge based on my flow.

Argument vs style - my ballot will be based on the arguments. Style will not weigh in much to my decision (as long as style does not interfere with my ability to understand you).

A few questions you may want answers to:

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, it should be extended.

Do I vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No

Anything else:

Feel free to ask me questions before the round if you can be reasonably specific.

I am TABULA RASA !!! BLANK SLATE...FAIR.

I am fine with anything but in terms of what I weigh with each individual argumenT.

K - If you run a K I want to know the SPECIFIC ROLE

T - Standards and voters in terms of the real world are how I vote on topicality. The topicality has to be strong obvi.

REALLY VAGUE LINKS ARE NOT GOOD

CP - I need a flushed out method on why the Net Benefit of the CP should outweigh the case.

LONG TERM IMPACTS ARE IMPORTANT

Speed - I am fine with speed, however I much prefer quality arguments that resound your point. In life, you're going to be a more effective advocate when you can in depth explain and strike the opposition rather than just saying nonsense you dont understand. I will let you know in round if speed is an issue. Dont let me throw you of

CLASH CLASH CLASH!

1. Quality over quantity

2. Frame clearly

3. Respect your opponent

4. Prioritize your time

5. Not all arguments are equal

6. Not all evidence is equal

7. Make your case clearly

8. Make my vote easy

None. Good with all arguments and speed.

I've judged at the invitational, district, and regional levels since 2007 in the Southeast Texas region and for the Dallas-Fort Worth circuits. I prefer LD, PF, and Congress, but don't mind judging novice CX.

I consider myself a relatively laid-back judge that is adaptable to style based on region/competition. I can buy most arguments, no matter how crazy!

Speed/Spreading- I believe that speech and debate competitions are designed to develop your communication, critical thinking, and argumentation skills; therefore, I don't believe speeding and spreading are appropriate. Your goal is to deliver clear and concise arguments with good documentation and well-thought-out points. If you do this, there is no need to speed.

How do you know if you are speeding? If you are gasping for air, you are going too fast! If I can't take notes, you are going too fast. I usually do not partake in email chains, so it is your job to make sure I am able to flow based on your speech.

Timing- You are more than welcome to time yourself. I actually prefer it.

Sit vs Stand- You are welcome to do whatever is comfortable for you based on the classroom setup.

Prep Time- Use it! That's what it is there for.

CX- Ask clarifying questions that could help set up your arguments. Don't debate during CX.

Email Chains- Please exchange information and get this process done quickly and efficiently. I have been in rounds where we spent 10+ minutes exchanging emails. Have a paper copy of your case and evidence in case technology fails or takes too long. I do not join email chains. I like to judge the round based on what is said rather than reading it.

For LD, I prefer a more traditional, value-based debate, but I am open to a more progressive debate if that is the approach you want to take.

Evidence- I like to see that your case is well-documented from timely sources. However, please don't spend your debate arguing that your evidence is "more recent" or "more legitimate". State why you think this is the case and move on. Try not to make it the main argument of the round.

Thanks!

Dr. Christi Grudier

Background: I debated public forum for three years, prob strike me for LD or CX

Email Chain: student.cvms@gmail.com

If you're running to round and don't have time to read everything

1. Don't spread tags, I'll say clear if its a problem.

2. Tech > Truth, warrant it

3. Crossx concessions are generally not flowed. If you want them to be considered then address it in speech.

4. Weigh. And warrant it.

5. There are very few situations where you should extend everything. Collapse and weigh.

6. Summary things:

-Weigh

-Extend defense in first summary

-Extend everything you want to bring into ff. Otherwise, it's dropped.

-Please don't bring in new arguments. New evidence in 2nd summary only if responding to new evidence in 1st summary.

-Collapse on arguments

7. Final focus things:

-don't bring up new evidence or arguments or new methods of weighing (especially not in second ff)

-ff should generally mirror the summary

8. Don't do the double breathing thing.

Longer Form Paradigm

Constructive:

Tabula rasa for the most part. If you're attempting to run something more progressive than the standard pf fare, keep in mind that you're going to have to explain to me exactly your position and the in-round/ greater implications of your arguments. I know a little about running CP's and T but I would advise against running K since you'd probably lose me pretty early on. Disclosure theory is fine. Lmk if you disclosed on the wiki. Otherwise, constructive is up to whatever you choose to read.

Rebuttal:

1r is your time to read turns, delinks, etc. Generally, you don't have to refer back to case unless you're weighing. Preemptive frontlines are kinda weird and a bit of a gamble but I'm not one to dock you for it so feel free. 2r is trickier, I expect at least some kind of weighing and at the very least addressing turns from 1r. Otherwise, you've dropped those turns.

Summary:

1st summary must extend defense and should weigh. Summary isn't the time for new arguments, but it is paramount that you frontline in summary. I don't really see why you'd need to bring in new evidence except for the aforementioned frontlining clause. Don't extend everything, collapse on arguments. A three min summary isn't an excuse to extend everything, especially since ff is still only 2 minutes. For 2nd summary, no new evidence unless responding to first summary. Try and set up summary to be mirrored in final focus.

Final focus:

Preferably line by line, absolutely no new evidence. New arguments will be frowned upon and not flowed. As previously mentioned, ff should mirror the structure of the summary. If it's a slow day, numbered voters are acceptable as well.

Extensions:

I'm somewhat lax on what constitutes an extension. Blippy extensions like just saying a card name here or an argument name there isn't an extension though. Claim warrant impact is what constitutes an extension. I might get more strict in the future with the more recognized Uniqueness, link, internal link, impact structure but those changes will be highlighted at the top if they ever do happen.

Fiat:

If it's in the res, then fine. Otherwise, don't go yelling about fiat in crossx.

Sticky:

Nothings sticky past rebuttal.

Theory:

The logic behind extensions applies here as well. If you want to extend the shell DO NOT DROP the violation. You have to extend the shell to get offense off the voter. Be specific too, 'their whole case' is not specific. I am generally less inclined to vote on theory than on resolution-based case arguments. Consequently, I am more inclined to vote on RVI's. Disclosure is becoming the norm, if you're a big school not disclosing then you better be very convincing.

Speaks:

Don't spread. Don't take too long pulling up evidence. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic etc.

Please try your best to not shake your head in abject disapproval of everything your opponent says. I will shake my head when it is warranted. Nodding in approval of your partner is encouraged.

*TOC* '22 - Helping some kids out, guess I'm back just for this one tournament

Conflicts: Walt Whitman DP and Marist School

Background: Plano West Class of '18, Was affiliated with Hebron ('18-19), Colleyville Heritage ('19-20), The Marist School ('20-21), Worked with debaters from Plano East ('19-21), Coppell ('19-21), Westlake ('19-20), and Walt Whitman ('20-21)

If you're really that curious about anything else check judging record I guess.

My speaks used to average in the mid 27's if that matters

I don't even know why I have to say this, safety is critical to participation, if you make the round unsafe it's a stop the round L0, trip to tab

Top level notes (I.e. Important Stuff):

-I have not been involved in circuit debate since this tournament last year. I have not thought about arguments, I have not done research, I have not coached. My level of competency for fast, technical debates is undoubtedly lower than it used to be

-Arguments and styles that appeal to a lay audience are both good and useful but do not confuse this with the "truth > tech" nonsense. Full link chains are still required and any argument is founded on a warrant. Conceded arguments are 100% true, I don't care how ridiculous you make them out to be. If you think they're non-sensical the burden's on you.

-Speeches are meant to build on top of one another. The role of the rebuttal is to address offense - this means you should be covering turns/disads/etc. in the 2R. No, "sticky defense" is not a thing. What is in summary should be in final focus and vice versa. No new arguments in the second final focus, that's ridiculous.

-You should be weighing. Weighing should be comparative. Weighing is an argument and therefore should be warranted. Weighing should be introduced as. early. as. possible.

-Your backhalf extensions ought to be extensions of the full argument. UQ -> Link -> I. Link -> Impact. Don't forget the warrants or the impact, those are kinda important and tend to be left out more often than not.

-Crossfire does not matter, I do not listen to crossfire, I'm probably writing notes on the ballot. If something important happens in cx bring it up in speech proper

Other Stuff:

-Progressive arguments? Used to be okay with them, now it's a run at your own risk. I probably don't remember much. I was kinda a disclosure and paraphrasing-bad hack but if you win the argument you win the argument. No I will not vote on impact turns that teams should lose for disclosing or cutting cards. Yes you need an offense to win an RVI. Yes you automatically lose if it's competing interps and you don't defend a competing interp. Yes theory is apriori to case.

-Speed? I used to be able to process things pretty quick but I'm old now and out of practice so my brain probably can't handle super speed too well. Go at your own risk.

-Evidence? If I can resolve the round without looking at evidence, I will not call for evidence. I will not call for evidence if the round is difficult to resolve. However, I will call for evidence if I am told to do so and it affects the outcome of the round or if I am told that evidence is misrepresented or miscut. If your evidence ethics are hot steaming garbage that's an easy way to get L20. You've been warned

-Presumption? Used to presume neg, I guess that's still a thing? Convince me otherwise, y'all are debaters.

-Speaks? Speaks for content, I don't care about delivery unless I can't understand you. You get three clears before I put my pen down. If you've disclosed, remind me and I'll bump you.

If you have any other questions please ask. I've undoubtedly forgotten something that's probably important

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

FOR PF Debate:

General: I consider myself a classic PF judge and believe in the intent with which PF was formed in order to provide a clean and more balanced style of debate. I expect debaters to know and follow the rules.

Use of evidence: I prefer a clear, well-structured debate with thoughtfully selected and well-documented evidence that is used persuasively and is strongly linked to impacts. Cramming in more evidence just to add more evidence has no purpose without successful connection to clear impacts.

Flow and structure: Flow is important and I expect arguments to carry over the debate. Clear sign posting is also important as well as clear evidence citation.

Speed: Spreading should not occur in public forum. While I can easily follow speed, I will not tolerate speed over clear communication, especially if speed is used to try to cram in more evidence and/or to try to confuse the opponent or judge. This is a debate - not an auction. Competitors should not gasp or have to take deep breaths for air; speakers should be able to regulate their speaking and breathing.

Demeanor: I expect a respectful and professional debate in tone and volume and for debaters to face the judge. Do not cut off your opponent and take turns during cross ex. During cross-ex you also need to make sure to ask questions. It is not time to advance your own contentions. It is time to question your opponent's case.

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20+ years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit Policy & PF, along with local LD and a bit of Parli and World Schools. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

_____________________

Public Forum Paradigm

_____________________

SHORT VERSION

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts that you want to extend from your own case. Just frontlining without extending the link and impact stories from constructives means you have dropped those links and impacts.
2. Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Send speech docs WITH CUT CARDS BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, A) I will be sad, B) any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and C) the max speaks you will be able to earn from me will be 28. If you do send card docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will earn will be 28. This only applies to varsity teams.
4. Don't paraphrase. Like w/ speech docs, paraphrasing will cap your speaks at 28. Reading full texts of cards means 28 will be your floor.
5. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
6. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
7. I'm OK w/ Theory & Ks - IF THEY ARE DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

DETAILED VERSION

(This is more an exercise for me to refine my own thoughts, but if you want more detail than above on any particular issue, here you are)

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will be unlikely to cut it. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision. You need warrants as to WHY I should prefer your framing over the default net benefits. For example, just saying "Vote for the side that best prevents structural violence" without giving reasons why your SV framing should be used instead of util is insufficient.

3. Send Speech Docs with the cut cards your are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and it is time for PF to grow up as well. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids look for cards that they should have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and just paraphrasing stuff without the cut card readily available. To combat these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives in varsity rounds to have debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain in a timely fashion (less than a minute or two) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, I will cap your speaker points at 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, I will guarantee that the lowest speaks you receive will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have this ready before the round, or can't get it ready in a minute or so before each speech, don't waste time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. Just accept that your speaks will be capped, learn from it, and put together your cases and blocks more ethically for next time. Three caveats to this general rule: 1) the obvious allowance for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, 2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score, 3) I won't penalize debaters in novice or MS rounds who don't send card docs. We all have enough to learn in those debates without also having to send docs. But if you are a novice team competing in an open/varsity division, the expectation is that you send cards.

Second, I will utilize the approach that has been used in the past at the TOC, where teams are free to prep while the other team is searching for the evidence that they have been requested to share and should already have available, and that time will NOT count against the requesting team's 3:00 of prep. If you read this and can figure out how to use it to your advantage, more power to you.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality. If you don't like this, strike me.

4. Don't Paraphrase

It's really bad. Don't do it. In CX & LD, it is called clipping cards, and getting caught doing it is an automatic loss. PF hasn't gotten there yet, but eventually we should, and will. I won't automatically vote you down for the practice (see my thoughts on theory below), but I do want to disincentive you to engage in the practice. Thus, I will apply the same speaker point ranges I use for Speech Docs to paraphrasing. Paraphrase, and the max speaks you will get from me are a 28. Read texts of cut cards, and 28 is your floor.

5. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

6. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

6A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

7. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen one or two rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y"). Also, Neg DOESN'T get to counterplan. Again, you can't specify anything, so neg doesn't even have the resolution to fiat. So, no actionable K alts and no CP texts (even if you call them a "generalized, practical solution." You are stuck defending the status quo, absent a good role of the ballot framing arg for critical negs.

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - Don't paraphrase. I come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is minimal room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This theory arg is the way to do that. If your opponents paraphrase and you don't, If you read a complete paraphrasing arg and extend it in all of the necessary speeches, it is going to take a whole lot of amazing tap dancing on the part of the guilty party for me not to vote for it.

Trigger Warning - I am not your guy for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it.

Where to First Introduce - I don't yet have a strong opinion on this, as I haven't had enough decent theory rounds to adjudicate for it to really matter. If you force me to have an opinion, I would probably suggest that theory be read in the first available speech after the infraction occurs. So, disclosure should probably be read in the Constructives, while paraphrasing shells should likely be in either the 2nd Constructive or 1st Rebuttal, once the other team has had a chance to actually introduce some evidence into the round.

Frivolous Args - I am totally here for paraphrasing and disclosure, as those practices have substantial impact on the quality of debate writ large. I am less likely to be receptive to silly cheap shot args that don't have the major benefit of improving the activity. Hence, leave your "no date of access" or "reading evidence is bad" theory args for someone else. You are just likely to annoy me by reading those types of args than to win my ballot with them. Reading them means I will give the opposing side TONS of leeway in making responses, and I will likely look for any remotely viable reason I can to justify not voting on them.

Reverse Voting Issues - Theory is a perfectly acceptable strategic weapon for any team to utilize to win a round. I am unlikely to be very receptive to RVIs about how running theory on mainstream args like disclosure or paraphrasing is abusive. If a team properly narrows the last half of the debate by kicking substance and going for theory, that pretty much acts as a RVI, as long as the offending team still at least perfunctorily extends case. Now, once we stray more into the frivolous theory territory as referenced above, I will be much more likely to entertain a RVI, even if the team reading theory doesn't kick substance first.

8. Critical Arguments

In general, I would advise against reading Ks in PF, both because I think the event is not as structurally conducive to them, and because I've only ever seen one team in one round actually use them correctly (and in that round, they lost on a 2-1, because the other two judges just didn't understand what they were doing - ironically emblematic of the risk of reading those args in this event). However, since they are likely only going to increase in frequency, I do have thoughts. If you are a K team, I would suggest reading the Topicality and Criticisms portions of my policy paradigm below. Many of the thoughts on argument preference are similarly applicable here. A couple of PF-specific updates, though:

A) Alternatives - Because PF Negs don't get fiat (e.g. no power to CP), I don't buy that Neg gets the power to fiat any type of action-based alternative. You can reject or maybe do nothing, and, of course, you can garner offense off of all of the traditional ontology and/or epistemology first in decision-making framework args you want. But trying to fiat any action as an alternative (e.g. engaging in active resistance, or anything similar) isn't likely to fly with me, unless you can make a really solid ROTB arg to change what my vote means. This severely limits what you can do from the Neg in front of me. Be warned.

B) Role of the Ballot args - "Our role of the ballot is to vote for the team that best reduces structural violence" isn't a role of the ballot. It is a bad impact framing argument without any warrants. Proper ROTB args change what the judge's vote actually represents. Normally, the ballot puts the judge in the position of the USFG and then they pretend to take or not take a particular policy action. Changing the ROTB means instead of playing that particular game of make believe, you want the judge to act from the position of someone else - maybe an academic intellectual, or all future policy makers, and not the USFG - or else to have their ballot do something totally different than pretend enacting a policy - e.g. acting as an endorsement of a particular mode of decision-making or philosophical understanding of the world, with the policy in question being secondary or irrelevant to why they should choose to affirm or negate. Not understanding this difference means I am likely to treat your incorrectly articulated ROTB arg as unwarranted impact framing, which means I will probably ignore it and continue to default to my standard util offense/defense weighing.

9. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

10. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

11. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

12. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, (not just "Smith continues..." or "Indeed...")which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20+ years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be very easy to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy (e.g. ontology first) tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - alts rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me, and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated, but they need to be made in the 2nd Opp, not the 3rd. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

I have been coaching and judging debate for over a decade.

For PF: I really want the competitors to run the round and do what they do. I like direct clash and clear weighing. I'm not a huge fan of numbers/statistics for their own sake but prefer them to be weighed against their opponents. I appreciate well researched cases with a clear understanding of the topic and its implications. Economic stuff is tough to do so make sure you understand what you're actually arguing on a topic that is econ heavy.

I believe I vote fairly based off of the information presented in round; I try to come in as neutral as possible. I appreciate direction on the flow and organization while speaking. It really does help make sure that I get as much as possible and can judge the best.

Hi, I have judged at national-level tournaments in PF and LD.

All events: be inclusive and KIND :)

I like good slow arguments and prefer speakers give clear instructions and organizations.

I will listen to all argumentations but please be reasonable...

I have taken the Cultural Competency course and other certifications for NSDA.

ASK BEFORE ROUND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

School affiliation/s - please indicate all - None

Hired - yes

If HIRED - what schools/programs in Texas do you work with if any: none

High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years - n/a

Please list ANY schools that you would need to be coded/conflicted against - none
Currently enrolled in college? grad school University of Texas at Dallas

College Speech and Debate Experience - parliamentary debate

Years Judging/Coaching - 4

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event - 25

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year - lots

Check all that apply

_XX___I judge WS regularly on the local level

_XX__I judge WS at national level tournaments

Rounds judged in other events this year

xx_ PF

xx__ LD

xx__ Extemp/OO/Info

xx__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

Have you chaired a WS round before? yes

What does chairing a round involve? facilitating between speeches

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? equal burdens

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? flow

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. I think there needs to be a balance of both.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? for strategy it's a matter of addressing the arguments in the round and how well they adhere to the norms of their speech order.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast? style

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? which side presents more compelling logical warrants as to why something is true.

How do you resolve model quibbles? whichever side does a better job of explaining why we should prefer theirs

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? whichever side does a better job of explaining why we should prefer theirs

*updated 10/17/20*

Hi, welcome to my 30 second tutorial called, 'Answering Arguments Wins Debates.' Notice I didn't say 'repeating arguments wins debates,' because it doesn't. You have to listen to your opponent's argument, and then craft a response that shows why your side of the resolution is comparatively better regarding this issue. Telling me their argument isn't well-warranted isn't enough. You have to provide me with a warrant for why your side of the debate wins that point.

Now onto the stuff about me...

NO SPEED IN DEBATE. If it's faster than you would talk to a parent or teacher, don't do it. I will say clear once, then I will take off speaker points if I have to say clear again. I find speed problematic for two reasons. 1) it does not promote an inclusive debate space, because participants who are new or rarely compete cannot truly participate. 2) it is completely ableist to assume all of your competitors and judges will be able to meaningfully understand your speech. A decade ago I experienced a bipolar break, and since then my brain doesn't work as fast, and my ear-to-brain interaction isn't what it used to be. That doesn't mean I am stupid. It just means that I need to hear things at a normal, conversational speed.

***Whether it's prelims or elims of LD, PF, or worlds, at the point that you disregard my ability to participate in the round, you will not win my ballot. You might think you can win the other two ballots in an elim round, but it's not a great idea to have a 50% chance of winning/50% chance of winning/0% chance of winning when you could go slower and have 50% chance of winning each judge.*** Please note that I rarely am put in policy rounds, but sometimes I am needed. In prelims I expect a slower round. In elims, I will not be offended if you go your regular speed, but you have a greater chance of winning my ballot by going slower, as pointed out above. If you are in LD, PF, or worlds I WILL be offended if you go faster than my preference, and offending judges is not a great look.

In terms of argumentation, I will consider anything that isn't offensive. If you're trying to make an argument based on debate jargon explain it to me. Just because you think you sound cool saying something doesn't mean I am going to vote on it. I do not vote off tricks on the flow. Not every dropped argument actually matters. On the flipside, don't ignore arguments. LISTEN to your opponent. Respond to them.

I vote more on the big picture - overall impacts, overall strategy. I want to see you show why your side of the resolution is comparatively better than your opponent's. I do not like overwrought impacts. I am going to buy the impact about a million people that has a high probability of happening and a strong link chain over an existential impact that has a shady link story. If you think your opponent's impact is ridiculous, I probably do, too. Point that out to me so I can vote on yours instead. Every time a debater makes an argument that extinction level impacts have a zero percent probability, an angel gets its wings and Tinkerbell can fly again. You want to save flying paranormal creatures, don't you? Then be the person who isn't impacting to extinction.

Lastly, be respectful of me and of your opponent. If I am cringing by how rude you are in CX, you won't be getting high speaks. I don't vote for bullies. I vote for debaters. If you have questions about how to get better after the round, you can ask me. If you want to re-debate the round, I will not be tolerant. You had a chance to communicate to me, and if you lost, you lost. I am not going to change my mind, and arguing with me will just mean I will be in a bad mood if I ever have to judge you again. I judge often enough you want to be the person I smile when I see.

I tend to view myself as conservative and traditional judge. When judging LD I taught this for twenty years and I tend to focus on intent of resolution and the burdens of each speaker. I don't favor critiques nor do I want the negative to present a counter plan. When judging Policy I do not just pay attention to stock issues, I also think that I occasionally view a round through the eyes of a policy maker. I truly enjoy teams that are organized and can articulate clearly the impacts of evidence and connect the evidence appropriately to their position. If you claim a comparative advantage, then be prepared to support it with evidence that actually links clearly back to a specific piece of evidence your opponent used. I do not mind voting on topicality, however the wording of the resolution is flexible and your analysis of terminology and application within the round can make even a topical case susceptible to a no vote if you neglect to properly articulate why you are significant or substantial with adequate evidence or proof. I prefer to hear arguments proving the disadvantages or why a counter-plan can solves and I don’t think that everything leads to total destruction. I am not overly fond of kritik’s but I will listen and I have voted on them when they are well presented and supported by evidence and understood by both team members. I flow fairly well but, if you use speed you must have clarity of speech. I think the spread is not really necessary if your research and understanding of the resolution is sufficient. When I am judging World School debate, I want both teams to responds to points of order or to request that they address them once they have completed their presentation.

I am a tab judge.

I will vote on whatever issues you want me to, but you have to tell me. I am fine with most arguments as long as they are well structured. I do not like K affs for policy rounds. Other than that I am fine with Ks and CPs as long as you structure them well and understand them. Speed is fine. If you have other questions just ask.

Coaching History:

Mansfield Legacy [2023-Present]
Byron Nelson High School (2018-2021)
Royse City High School (2013-2018; 2021-2023)
Email: matthewstewart@misdmail.org (do please include me in any email chains)

General Preferences [updated as of 3/14/24]:

Theory
More truth over tech. If you're real big on theory, I'm not your judge because I'm definitely gonna goof up that flow.

Disclosure:

Don't run it. I think open source is good and should be the standard, but I don't care for it being used as an argument to smash small schools without prep.

Framework:
Default offense/defense if I don't have a framework to work with. Winning framing doesn't mean you win the round, you still need to leverage it for your offense.


Speed:
Whatever you AND your opponent are okay with! Speed shouldn't be a barrier to debate. Slow up for Taglines/Cites, give me a filler word ("and," "next," etc.) to let me know when you're moving to the next piece on the flow and be sure to give me some pen time on Theory/Topicality shells.

Round Conduct:
Don't be sketchy, rude, or hostile to judges or your opponents! We're all here to learn and grow academically, remember that.

Speaker Points:
Starts at 27 and goes up based on strategy, delivery style, and round conduct. Sub 27 means you most likely said something unabashedly offensive or were just generally hostile towards your opponents.

Miscellaneous Stuff

-Debate what you want to debate, I would rather try to meet you on your side of what debate is rather than enforce norms on you. BUT that doesn't mean you can get away with making unwarranted arguments or not doing extensions, impacts, or weighing like a good debater should!

-Open CX and Flex prep are cool with me, but I will respect the norms of the circuit I am judging in.

-I'm pretty non-verbal as I'm flowing and listening, so for better or worse that's gonna be there.

-Just be chill. Debate the way that is most comfortable for you...hopefully that isn't a really yelly and rude style because I'd prefer you not. Respect each other, do your thing, and we'll all have a good time!

-A roadmap is just telling me what order to put my flowsheets in. No more. No less.

-Be kind to novices, be the support you wish you had when you first started. Bonus points for treating newbies nice.

-Extending specific warrants WITH your cards is good, so is doing evidence comparison and impacting out drops

-The less work you do on telling me how to evaluate the round, the riskier it gets for your ballot. Don't assume we're both on the same flow page or that I can read your mind.

-Sending the doc or speech is part of prep time. I will not stop prep until the doc is sent.

Current Assistant Coach: Lansing HS

Former Head Coach: Thomas More Prep Marion Jr/Sr HS, Bonner Springs HS

High School Policy: 4 Years - Champs

EMAIL CHAIN - kelli.henderson@usd469.net (yes, I would like to be included on it)

Speed - I’m flexible. I prefer to be able to understand you and have clarity with your words. Make that happen for whatever that looks like for you. If I can’t understand you or follow, it will be obvious that I’m zoning out. I will listen to whatever you choose to say, however you choose to say it. Make it count.

Preferences - I’m a fan of line by line. Tell me where to put it on the flow and tell me why it matters. I like Impact Calc. I typically default to policy maker and like stock issues if no one is directing me how to vote. I like to see direct clash, I believe that quality evidence matters, and having a cohesive and clear vision for the round is a plus.

All in all I try to keep an open mind to the arguments being made as long as they are not blatantly false/illogical. I want you to debate how you know how to debate I do not want an altered version based off of what you think I want to hear.

Some Specific Argument Notes:

If you do not make clear your position and why I should vote a particular way, I will more than likely default to policy maker.

Case: I love a good case debate! Be sure to have smart analysis of what is being presented in the round. Do not overlook plan.

Topicality: I like topicality and believe it is an under used tool. I want standards/voters. Do not run T just for the sake of running T. I want it to be logical and well constructed.

Disads: I value a strong link. Impact Calc. is important. If running something along the lines like Nuc War, it had better be strong and well constructed for me to consider it.

CPs: They’re not my favorite. I prefer specific solvency over generic CPs. You can still win a CP debate but please make sure it is truly more beneficial.

Kritiks: I enjoy philosophy but it needs to actually make sense. Explain the logic of the K to me if you want to win it. If you are not able to clearly explain your literature, do not go for it.

Theory: You must be able to thoroughly articulate why Theory matters and what the actual impact is. I will listen to it. I will weigh it accordingly. Not my favorite.

Things that I do NOT like or will not tolerate:

Being disrespectful - Your words matter. Use them wisely, properly, and be in good taste.

Abusing prep/flash times - be honorable and courteous.

Falsifying evidence - just don’t.

alexvaughn389@gmail.com

Wylie High School (2015-2019)

UT Dallas (2019-2022)

he/him

I am rewriting this because why not.

CX - I rarely judge but if i happen to default to my LD paradigm

LD - I rarely judge but have experience. I consider myself a tab judge so give me a framework to evaluate the round and emphasize that over the course of the debate. I urge you to stray away from progressive debate tactics (like K's, T, etc.), mainly bc most debaters in LD can not run them properly or respond to them properly, and it makes for bad debate. Sorry. That being said, I am competent at evaluating any round of LD and any type of argument as long as you can explain it well.

PF - I judge this the most. Please know that blatant PF "toxic disrespect" is an automatic loss and 25 speaks. Make sure that you are always respectful to your opponents and have healthy discourse. Also, there seems to be a trend where people waste time by asking and begging to flash a certain card that ends up not mattering or teams taking too long to respond when people want to see the evidence. Please know that this will not happen in any of my rounds. I will immediately intervene and decide for myself, and then talk to your coaches because it is ridiculous. It should take no more than 20 seconds to find and flash a card, albeit email it, and any longer or other abuse of time theft will result in my intervention. Aside from that, I can evaluate any arguments, including DAs and T, but be sure that your opponent knows how to respond to them, otherwise its an awkward debate. Be sure to give voters.TLDR: don't be ridiculous, be respectful, give voters, and give good debate.

Congress - Just know that the person that gets my one will likely not have all of their speeches prewritten. Rather, they take what their opponents say and craft a speech mid round to give rebuttal arguments and constructive debate. Also, they actively participate on every bill. For the PO, as long as you know the basics it's fine and you will likely be ranked well, you can ask for help whenever.

Extemp - Make sure you answer the question. I have ranked the best speeches last because they simply don't answer the question word for word as it appears. I don't want that to happen to you :(

IE/whatever else - Give TW's if you discuss sensitive material. That's it just do you.

speak loudly

speak clearly

I am a traditional judge. I want to understand what you say. Diction, pace, volume are part of the presentation. Being a professional also means you look and act the part of a professional! I want to see sportsmanship and grace. I also want to see you enjoying yourself.

Debaters, you must make quality points not necessarily quantity points. Remember, it needs to have facts backed up. You have been researching these points for months, use your research to support your views. Use the research to turn your opponents arguments your way when you can.

The purpose of debate is to persuade and sway an argument. This is done with facts and logic. Know your stuff! Debaters need to make logical arguments that are easy to follow. Good debaters should be GREAT listeners and are always respectfully listening to the opposition in order to counter their points.

Debaters should not use progressive arguments and should not spread. I promise it will not be rewarded in my rounds.

In Speech rounds, make me FEEL it. Show me that your really understand the piece and character(s). Use your voice and inflection as well as your facial and physical traits to bring the piece to life. If it is funny, make me laugh. If it is sad, make me cry. When you pantomime hit all the positions right on and make sure to use the same actions over again and again, don't get sloppy as the piece continues. Stay in character all the way through. When "switching" characters, make sure you really distinguish the personalities. Have fun..... Good Luck!

Thank You!

Westwood, ATX 2015-2019

Extensive local and national circuit experience

Competed mostly in Extemp but I am familiar with other speech events, PF, and Congress.

Extemp

- Answer the question - Make sure you are explaining everything that's in your question in each of your points. I'll rank you down for not doing it it's that important. - This is the best way to get my vote. If you answer the q sufficiently, then I will look for other qualities of your speech to rank you in the round as seen below.

- Time management is critical - If you are a competitor who has the ability to get the timing of your intro, 3 points, and conclusion within a 5 second margin then you'll easily be top 3

- Substrucuture should be easy to follow. If not, well .....

- Humor and a conversational tone are always welcomed. Your job is to make the audience comfortable.

- In elim rounds, I expect you to give me unique sources for your evidence.

- The point of cross is to point out the short comings of your opponent's speech, not to ruin their day. Your performance in cross ex can help you in my ranking of your speech.

Congress

- Analysis is one of the most important parts of Congress, show me what you know

- I'm not really a stickler for time in Congress but if you can be done with your speech at the 3 minute mark, that's impressive to me.

- Rhetoric/Humor/Presence should always be there

- Be polite and aware of your words

PF

- Plz put me on the email chain: maxswolf20@gmail.com

- Speaking fast doesn't make you a better debater. If I don't know what you're saying, then I won't be able to vote on whatever I couldn't hear.

- No real preference on arg types. Just do your thing and I'll do my best to follow where you are going with it.

- Do not miconstrue evidence, i.e don't paraphrase. Plz frontline in 2nd rebuttal.

- Do not give me prewritten reasons that say that your impact is wider in "scope" compared to your opponent's impact. Show me that you actually care about what your talking about by telling me why your link into the impact is specifically stronger than any other links/turns your opponents go for. This should be done clearly.

- Don't be mean or discriminatory. Y'all should know the rules.