1.) I prefer Tech>Truth. I will give the win to whoever maintains the flow and whoever is able to win the argument, not based on who is reasonably correct. This is how I resist my cognitive biases and preferences during a debate round. However, I have a low threshold for arguments such as, "extinction good" or "racism good". Such questionable impact turns and link turns usually means that you're not well-prepped and I will likely vote on the more reasonable argument there. However, if the other team doesn't respond to it, the argument will always flow to the side who ran it. No question there.

2.) Every claim must be warranted. If your claim is unwarranted and unsupported, I will not put it on the flow. If you tell me that, "Saudi Arabia is bad", tell me why Saudi Arabia is bad. Don't give me blank statements that are unsupported. When two teams have contradicting claims, I will put each team's warrants side by side and give the win on the specific argument to the team that better warrants their claim on that issue. I can't evaluate and vote on warrants that don't make sense.

3.) Impact Calc. Impact calc. Impact calc. Ultimately, my decision will always come down to whoever frames the impacts of voting AFF/NEG the best. I want each debater to tell me how to vote and which impacts to vote on. Should I vote on the moral implications of the plan regardless of the outcome? Should I weigh the impacts more on timeframe? Magnitude? Probability? What would the world look like with an AFF or NEG ballot? If there's no impact comparison in your overview, there's no way I can fairly vote.

Also make sure to highlight the impacts of your off-case arguments such as T, Theory, and your Kritiks. What are the impacts of fairness in a round? Education?

4.) Debate Type Preferences: I don't vote based on a stock issues paradigm (I say this because most novices in my circuit think that knocking out a single stock issue wins them a debate. If there's a solvency deficit to the AFF, but there aren't any harmful impacts to voting for the plan, the AFF still wins the debate. Same with inherency. If the neg says that conditions are improving, the aff only has to show me that there's a net benefit to passing the AFF now. I will always vote for whichever side yields the best impacts. I am open-minded to K debate, but I'm not very familiar with the literature. I am familiar with Cap, Security, Settler, Fem, and militarism. If there are any other Ks you want to run, do at your own risk. If you're going to run a cp, make sure it doesn't link into your own DAs.

I like judge kick, but I'll only do that if you tell me to

5.) Theory. I will vote on theory arguments if they are well warranted and can prove to me that the other team has done something structurally wrong that impacts the round significantly. If the other team forgets to respond to a theory argument, I will vote for the theory argument. I default on the idea that neg gets fiat unless the aff can tell me why they shouldn't.

6.) In round expectations: Don't spread taglines. Don't spread analytics. Only spread on cards if you can clearly pronounce everything so that I understand every word in the card. If I can't understand what you're saying, I won't flow it. I'm okay with open cx. Just make sure that everyone in the room is okay with that.

7.) Evidence and ethics. Disclose all your evidence before your speech. If you refuse to, I will not hesitate to give you the automatic loss. Deliberate and repetitive card clipping is looked down upon. Don't do that. If I doubt the legitimacy of a piece of evidence, I will search it. If you falsify evidence, I will give you the automatic loss and report you to the tournament chair. Maintain decorum in the round and don't be rude to your opponents.

Bonus

I will give you extra speaker points if you say, "long live Big Chungus." It shows that you read through my paradigm.

add me to the email chain: allidixon13@gmail.com

I consider myself a bruh judge, meaning after speech I will say bruh

also, I find myself voting neg 100% of the time because I think lundberg was correct in saying that a call for the ballot is a call to have desire affirmed, I will never affirm desire thus I vote neg on presumption in every round.

Noah Reed (He/They)

Mill Valley HS/Shark/Valle De Mille(2018-2022)

George Mason University(2022-2026)

Dontstealprep@gmail.com

I will flow anything that is not death good/racist/sexist/queerphobic etc

North Dallas High School

dallasrivas4@gmail.com

I am a JV debater at my high school.I will be Varsity next year.I made it to state(But got postponed)

I have only debated CX but I get the concept of LD

# of OFF cases < Significance of OFF CASE

Speed < Clarity

Tabula Rasa

*Speaker Points*

Be clear,slow down on tags

Organized speech

*Impact calc*

Probability is preferable

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

The debate should form itself

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

K's are totally acceptable but not my favorite(K's must be presented very clearly)

DA are Great

On-case should win solvency

CX-Open

Prefs

1 - LARP/Policy

1 - Theory / T

2 - Light phil

2/3 - Friv Theory

3 - Heavy phil

1/4 - Trix, depending on how well explained they are and if you're going against a lay/trad debater or not.

4 (strike) - Ks

4 (strike) - Spinoza

Hehe tech>truth go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr but don't lie it makes me sad

Speak as fast as you want if you send a doc. I will never vote you down just for spreading unless it's incomprehensible but speaks will suffer if we're in the oregon circuit or against a lay/trad debater.

Don't run net benefits or cost benefit analysis, I will cry

Debate is a game, only rules are I have to chose a winner and speech times.

I give speaks based on how likely you are to win and how sad I am, default to 28.5.

i never vote for the aff

Did Policy and PF for 4 years. Comfortable with any argument, be innovative!

If you can ever "that's what she said" me, you get 30 speaks, if you do that to your opponents more than 3 times, 30 speaks and I presume for you. That would be based.

I want all speech docs where evidence is read to be on the chain. (all constructive speeches 1AC/1NC 2AC/2NC. That's rebuttal for you kids). If you don't have ev for the 2AC/2NC well ummmmm ya. I won't look at it but it is for evidence exchange purposes. srikartirumala@gmail.com.Add both to the chain!

Don't ask me to verify I'm there before every speech. I want to flow, not keep unmuting. Just assume I'm always ready.

Philosophy:

I am a fairly tab judge who operates solely on an offense/defense paradigm. Tech>truth to the fullest. I will do no work for you as that's your job (so I won't even implicate defense for you as terminal). You do you -- don't change how you debate for me. I will adapt to your style (unless your style does not hit the basics like extensions, comparative weighing etc.)

Do not

1. Any -isms. Just be a good person it's not hard. For the people who read "racism is a democratic value kick people off social media" this is you!

2. Bad ev. You will not win a round trying to fake ev in front of me if it is called out. For me faking or misrepresenting ev is as good as cheating and all your opponents need to say is "it's a voter for education/fairness/legit anything". And I'll hack. But you need the prove the evidence is actually bad IN ROUND. Ie - it's not enough to say "It's faked" U must say "It is faked because of X reason -- that's cheating and it's a voter for fairness/education".

I do not like

1. Paraphrasing

2. "Discourse" as solvency. I'm sick of it and probably will insta delete your "K" from the flow. Have a real alt / well thought out method.

3. No speech Docs.

4. "Probability weighing". This is just reading empirics, anything else is just a link mitigation or a no link argument and ways smooth brained teams with bad rebuttals can sneak new defense into summary @Sarvesh babu looking at you.

5. Claiming any progressive stuff isn't "public in public forum" I will laugh at you during RFD whilst playing Laughing to the bank. If you're in varsity, you should be prepared to deal with all the arguments no matter what.

This part is stolen from THE beach

***If you are in varsity at a TOC bid tournament, I will by NO MEANS evaluate a "we do not understand theory or K/theory or K excludes me because I don't know how to debate it" response. In fact, I will give you the lowest speaker points the tournament reasonably permits-- you're perpetuating horrible norms in this activity. Do not enter the varsity division of tournaments if you are unwilling to handle varsity level argumentation. ***

As an aside to this ^, if you a reason why theory/ K is bad, I won't automatically intervene but your speaks are GONE and I will legit buy "bruh what the heck is this it allows for bad norms" and then strike it off my flow. This is one of the worst takes I've ever heard, and I'm really sick of people perpetuating the narrative that "public forum should be for the public" or whatever dumb thing boomers in this activity who are afraid of anyone that isn't a cishet white male doing well in the activity propagate. I also will not buy any "people don't know how to disclose or access wikis" it's just blatantly untrue and disrespectful to small school debaters. It's not a response -- it's just you not knowing how to interact. this is the one spot I feel 0 shame in intervening, I will laugh at you while I do it and play Laughing To The Bank by Chief Keef while I read the decision.

I like these

1. Theory (but not stupid and friv)
2. Kritical args (But actually with solvency not DiScOuRsE)
3. Framing / Meta Weighing
4. I errheavily towardsparaphrasing being bad, speech docs being good, and disclosure being good, and will evaluate procedurals based on that.
5. Lots of explanation on what's happening in the flow (I won't do any work, if you don't tell me why it's important or what to do with it it's nothing)

Why do I care so much about good ev?

I've had teams straight fake ev against me and it hurts. As a researcher the skills you get from research in debate is unparalleled to other activities. Faking evidence is akin to cheating, and this is a competitive activity. There's y'alls little procedural.

Strike me if you

1. Fake evidence / do not cut your cards (you know who you are)

2. Think I'm going to buy your "persuasive appeal" BS, speaks are a construct and don't matter in a W/L

3. You are going to run problematic arguments, I won't deal with them. I don't like to intervene on the flow, but I will in these cases. I might even physically stop the round depending on how bad it is.

Arguments:

1-5. 5 means I love

LARP: 5

Go crazy, idc. I mostly LARPed in HS

Framework: 4.5

- not much to say, I read fw in HS a lot. I never really did LD, so if I'm in judging it, please explain phil? I'm actually really confused and bad at phil debate. Tbh, if i'm judging you and you are going to read phil, please just treat me as a lay judge (just on the fw, u can spread or do w/e later).

T/Theory: 5

- If I believe theory is frivolous, I might not give you good speaks. Make sure it's accessible. I used to read theory like crazy in HS. I am 100% fine if you read it in shell or paragraph form, that's your choice.

- I completely tab on most theory args unless it's p obvious it's friv against K or against a novice. I'mma hold you to a high burden when it comes to extensions in these cases. I tend to err towards paraphrase bad and disclosure good but I will not hack at all. I've read both paragraph theory and shell in HS so I'm ok with w/e u are. If you are in Policy./LD where there are a billion different AFFs, I think disclosure is definitely a good norm. If you are in Policy/LD I expect better. if you paraphrase in any event ur speaks are gone.

Dude, Condo is Dispo don't try and cap otherwise.

K : 4

- I started reading more Kritical arguments my senior year, this being said, any argument can be explained properly. I tend to err towards K over T, but I'll be tab. High theory is fine dumb it down. If I'm confused over the K, it means ur OV or your extension wasn't good enough or explained well, and I'll probably vote on something cleaner.

- Note, I rarely read K in policy, I was more of a LARPER, but I will probably understand most of what you are saying if you bother to try to explain it to me. This means get rid of a lotta the K-specific jargon "e.g. state of exception". I'll understand some of the stuff i'm familiar with but still be careful. In policy / LD though you need to really explain the K. I’m going to be lost if ur just spreading cards. The 1NR/2NC needs to have REALLY good OV extension that REALLY explains your theory.

- I am fairly familiar with most K lit. I read Set Col, Sec, Orientalism, Imperialism, Neolib, Biopolitics/Biopower, but I'll buy k about anything just PLEASE don't just spread ur usually jargony OV. Very familiar with most IR terms / list

This is my hot take, I don't like identity AFFs that much in PF. Trust me, I am VERY VERY HAPPY to vote them up, and often do, just know I don't really like how it's being done in PF where I can't tell WHAT SOLVENCY IS! If you do it right I'll enjoy it.

Plans/CP : 5

- IN ANY EVENT These are perfectly ok in my mind, I will buy a good plan bad theory tho. All u have to prove is that the plan potentially could be viable, some sort of implementation or actor and I think the theory doesn't apply. I am fine if u just tell me a counter plan to the AFF/Neg, and defend that it's good. Rules are meant to be broken if they are bad so a response to a CP can't be "NsDa RuLeS sAy No CP" give me a reason why I should uphold that norm.

• I prolly think process CPs are another method of doing the plan.
• I think infinite condo on CPs are bad

DA: 5

- All good,weigh them!

Trix: 3

If you want me to vote neg on presumption/AFF risk of solvency/1st speaking team -- warrant out why, don't just yell this. Aka IL how how the trick applies to your presumption, lot of people, miss this. Don't j be like "EMPIRICUS 2 BC *Breath* fehhfuiewhfewhfewfhewewh. Ok next trick"

I think especially in PF this is a bad strat but in LD / Policy I guess I get it a bit more.

I started keeping tally of how many times I voted for Trix: IIIIIIII

Speed: 4

- PF spread fine, I am cool with full policy spread, just make tags distinct from cards ("AND", Slow down). If you aren't sure how distinct your tags are from cards, just speech doc. Also make sure the opponent can understand, or speaks might be hurt. I will call clear twice, then I will give up. People ask what I can flow, I can probably flow up to 300 wpm without a speech doc with card names.

- I will probably not need to use your doc, make your tags really clear, and if ur not clear when spreading I will clear you. if I clear your thrice, your are capped at a 27.

Performance/Non T AFFs : 4

You need to make the ROTB very clear and win it. also PLEASE READ A LINK! Why is the ballot needed? What is my role as the judge? Also like how does ur case link into the ROTB? Make it very clear. Honestly I tend to err K > T so this might be a good strat, but make sure you are ready to win the AFF. Also please tell me why your method is uniquely key.

• If you are hitting a non T aff it isn't enough to tell me the rules are something I must maintain, I say screw the rules unless u tell me why the rules are good.
• Tbh if there isn't a CLEAR method / solvency you're capped at a 26

Presumption:

- Absent presumption warrants given in speech, I default to whoever lost the coinflip.

TKOS: 2

- saves us all time. Typical rules apply, if there's a path to the ballot, you L20, if none, W30. I won't stop round ever -- but if you're right I'll be like ok and stop flowing. Don't really like tho there's always a chance u drop the ball but if u call one go for it. DO NOT LIKE THESE but I'll consider the following

1. A procedural on no speech docs is a TKO vs a team that does not disclose or a team that spreads random paraphrased stuff -- if it's dropped

2. Bad evidence is a TKO -- treat this similar to an NSDA challenge if the ev is crap call it out I won't like it

3. No cut cards is a TKO if it's conceded.

4. Problematic language is a TKO. This includes repeated misgendering or anything of that form. I don't understand why some judges DON'T make this a TKO?

5. Any IVI on a team that says "prefiat offense is bad" is basically a TKO, I won't stop round but lol I'm not going to flow responses to it.

6. Bad haircuts is a TKO. I don't wanna look at your receding hairline. My kids know what I'm talking about. (obviously a joke)

RCDS '20

MSU '24

TLDR

Email chain scottyscott1424@gmail.com

Fine with speed

Make sure you kick out of stuff right

Good for the K and Policy, generally more experienced with policy affs and flex negative strategies.

Full stuff

Hi I'm Mitchell or Scotty, either work, I did 4 years of high school debate for Riverfield Country Day School. I Currently Debate for Michigan State University. Competing at both the local and national level.

I decided to scratch most of my prewritten paradigm, it felt like debaters tried to overadapt to what my preconceived biases are, when I should be trying to evaluate a debate. So I'll leave it at this, win your arguments and win the debate, and I'll vote for you, generally regardless of what it it (exceptions for inherently problematic arguments like sexism, racism, ableism, etc.)

Cool with everything, run what you want (yes even strange things like wipeout), I generally have a soft spot for the fun but completely unrealistic arguments. Not a bias so much as an acknowledgment that I will in fact vote for it if you win.

I think condo is getting a little stretched, feel free to read as many as you want, but any more than 5 and I'll lower your speaks a little.

I'm generally pretty open to debate how the debaters want to debate. Things I don't have patience for are sexism, racism, ableism, etc. and "progressive debate bad" arguing Ks are an invalid strat or speed is bad for comprehension is not super persuasive for me. (Note about speed, if you have a reason for a more conversational speed round, feel free to ask for one before the round, the other team should honor this, but trying to catch a team with either a speed K or speed theory when you didn't ask for no speed is not persuasive to me)

if you have questions, feel free to ask before rounds and feel free to reach out post-round.

jtroutdebate@gmail.com for all Speech and Debate related things, including email chains --updated for Stay At Home Classic

Competition History:

Bolivar High School: Policy Debate for 3 years, various IEs (Congress, Informative, Domestic Extemp), also did Big Questions one time. never again. Competed in the Ozark (MO) circuit my entire HS career.

Missouri State University: Currently a Sophomore who has competed in NFA-LD mainly so far, and a couple of NDT-CEDA tournaments as well.

I have judged every NSDA/MSHSAA sanctioned High School speech, debate, and interp event at least once. I generally judge policy-style debates, however I have judged numerous (traditional) Public Forum and (traditional) Lincoln-Douglas rounds at high school tournaments.

General Judging Things:

Don't be a jerk to your competitors. If you were extremely rude to your competitors, I will vote you down, regardless of whether you did better than them or not.

Feel free to time yourself. I'm not a huge stickler on time. I allow a bare minimum 30 second grace period. However, that doesn't mean that I'm going to let you give a 12 minute extemp speech or something like that. I generally use a timer that's pretty loud, so when it goes off you better start wrapping things up.

Policy-style Debate Events:

You can run whatever argument you want. That, however, doesn't mean that I'm going to let you get up there and say something that is blatantly offensive. I even welcome meme-y args as long as they don't violate above rule.

Affirmative:

I really, really, really would prefer that you run a Topical aff with plan text. If you choose to run a nontopical and/or planless aff, you better have really good reason as to why you should be able to read said aff. I actually really enjoy framework debates so if you have good framework answers then you should be fine running a planless aff.

With all that being said, you have about a .0001% of winning the round if you run something that is barely related to the topic. Please run something at least semi-topical and you will have no problems.

Negative:

DAs: I prefer non-generic DAs if possible but I understand why generic DAs exist and I have no issue with them. Politics DAs are cool. Make sure DAs have a good link story otherwise it's gonna be really hard to convince that the aff actually causes the impacts.

CPs: Whatever is fine here, you just need to prove that either the CP is mutually exclusive or that it's not possible to perm in order to win on it.

Ks: Kritiks of any kinds are fine. However, I'm not super experienced so you will have to explain it if it's not cap or an identity-based kritik.

Ts: Fine. I think T debates are generally overblown. Prove they are untopical, don't just say "they're abusive" and move on.

Framework: Framework debates are good. Give me a good reason why your framework is better.

Other Things: Condo is generally good, but a reasonable amount. I think kicking planks of CPs when you have multiple CPs is bad. However, I could be convinced otherwise.

Non-Policy Debate Events (Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Congress, etc.)

Progressive debate is a-ok. I come from a policy background and progressive debate is basically policy in most circumstances. See the policy section for specific argument things.

I did congress for a couple years in high school so I have a pretty good idea of how things are supposed to go. If you are going to run for PO, make sure you know what you're doing. Otherwise I'm going to have to keep track of things and I really don't wanna have to do that.

Speech Events (Extemp, Inform, Oratory/Persuasive, ADS, etc.):

Being a good speaker is the main thing that I care about for these events. Also, humor is great. Some people take these speeches too seriously. Have fun.

Interp/Acting Events (HI, DI, POI, DUO, Duet Acting, Prose/Poetry, etc.):

I never have competed in any of these events, but I have seen/judged enough rounds to know what's going on. Make sure different characters have distinct voices and/or postures. Make sure said voice/posture is appropriate for that character as well.

I really enjoy humor in all of these events, especially in scripts that are really depressing (most DIs and POIs that I've seen). I don't want to be sad during your entire performance. Even if you are dealing with a serious topic, I want there to be a least a couple lighthearted moments throughout the performance. Dramatic does not just mean serious and depressing, it means an array of emotions, including humor.

tula webber

first and foremost, i judge based off the flow. my values and opinions are not to affect the round. i love to see clash more than anything and actual understanding of each other’s arguments. as for how i vote on certain arguments, see below.

theory

i enjoy the occasional theory debate, but it must be developed well. everything you say needs a warrant. develop your arguments if you want me to consider them. i am unlikely to decide an entire round based on an issue explained or extended in less than five seconds. i also am unlikely to find *-spec persuasive unless there is in-round abuse.

topicality

i will vote on t as long as it is well developed and warranted throughout the round. standards, limits, ground etc. are essential. i will consider reasonability only if the standard is given.

case/disads/CPs

all is well as long as there is clash, this is rather traditional turf so i’m likely to vote on most as long as it’s extended well.

kritiks

i’m happy to vote on kritiks. i find they make rounds a lot more interesting to judge and love a well done k that is carried through the round. you need to explain how I should be evaluating the k versus the case. there needs to be some kind of benefit to the world of the alt. at the end of the day, i will be weighing it against the case. w k without an alt is just a non-unique, linear disad. i love hearing new ks, but you run something outside of the common ones, explain it clearly.

kritikal affirmatives

i’m happy to vote on k affs as long as they have some relevancy to the resolution. this is what i ran this year mostly, and i find them rather educational when done right. i still vote based on the flow, make sure to keep the debate clean.

rebuttals

i try not to impose my views on the debate, but that requires debaters do a good job in the last two rebuttals crystalizing the issues and telling the story of the round. "we win the entire flow" is not usually true and is not a good way to weigh the issues. Tell me why your winning of the disad overwhelms the advantage of case or why their rhetorical slight is more important than structural violence. make sure there is a traceable lineage to your arguments. i am strict on new arguments from the 1NR onward. tell me that it’s new and, if true, ill strike it. i will do my best to protect the 2NR from new 2AR arguments.

additional/misc

tag team cross is totally cool, just make sure it isn’t abused.

i really am not as happy to vote for teams that are rude during round, so please enjoy yourselves and be nice, it makes everything easier :p

i will be timing but feel free to time yourselves as well.