Updated 4/11/24 for Post-NDT

Hi everyone, I'm Holden (They/He)!

University of North Texas '23, and '25 (Go Mean Green!)

If you are a senior graduating this year, UNT has debate scholarships and a program with resources! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via my email listed below and we can talk about the program and what it can offer you! If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!

I would appreciate it if you put me on the email chain: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

For high school LD rounds, please also add jhsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Most of this can be applied to any debate event, but if there are event specific things then I will flag them, but they are mostly at the bottom.

The TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. I think intervention is bad (until a certain point, those exceptions will be made obvious), and that letting the debaters handle my adjudication of the round as much as possible is best. I've been described as "grumpy," and described as an individual "that would vote on anything," I think both of these things are true in a vacuum and often translate in the way that I perceive arguments. However, my adherence to the flow often overrides my desire to frown and drop my head whilst hearing a terrible argument. In that train of thought, I try to be as close to a "no feelings flow bot" when adjudicating debates, which means go for whatever you want as long as it has a warrant and isn't something I flat out refuse to vote on (see rest of paradigm). I enjoy debates over substance surrounding the topic, it's simulated effects, it's adherence to philosophical principles, and it's critical assumptions, much more than hypertechnical theory debates that aren't based on things that the plan does. Bad arguments most certainly exist, and I greatly dislike them, but the onus is on debaters for disproving those bad arguments. I have voted for every type of argument under the sun at this point, and nothing you do will likely surprise me, but let me be clear when I encourage you to do what you interpret as necessary to win you the debate in terms of argumentive strategy.

I take the safety of the debaters in round very seriously. If there is ever an issue, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know in some manner (whether that be through a private email, a sign of some kind, etc.). I try to be as cognizant as possible of the things happening in round, but I am a human being and a terrible reader of facial expressions at that so there might be moments where I am not picking up on something. Misgendering is included in this, I take misgendering very seriously and have developed the following procedure for adjudicating cases where this does happen: you get one chance with your speaks being docked that one time, more than once and you have lost my ballot even if an argument has not been made related to this. I am extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells. Respect people's pronouns and personhood.

Tech > Truth

Yes speed, yes clarity, yes spreading, will likely keep up but will clear you twice and then give up after that.

Debate influences/important coaches who I value immensely: Louie Petit and Colin Quinn.

Trigger warnings - they're good broadly, you should probably give individuals time to prepare themselves if you delve into discussions of graphic violence. For me, that includes in depth discussion of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide.

I flow on my laptop, and consider myself a pretty good flow when people are clear, probably a 8.5-9/10. Just be clear, number your arguments, and slow down on analytics please.

Cheating, including evidence ethics and clipping, is bad. I have seen clipping become much more common and I will vote you down if I feel you have done so even without "recorded" evidence or a challenge from another debater.

For your pref sheets (policy):

Clash debates - 1

K v K debates - 1

Policy throwdowns - 1/2 (I can judge and am fairly confident in these debates but have less experience in this compared to others)

For your pref sheets (LD):

Clash debates of any kind (Policy v K, K aff v framework, phil v k, etc.) - 1

K - 1

Policy - 1

Phil - 1

T/Theoy - 1/2

Tricks - 4

Trad - 5/Strike

I'm serious about these rankings, I value execution over content and am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.

The Long Version:

Who the hell is this person, why did my coach/I pref them?

Hello! My name is Holden, I've been involved with debate for 8 years now. I am currently a communication studies graduate student at the University of North Texas, where I also got my bachelors in psychology and philosophy. During my time as a competitor, I did policy, LD, and NFA-LD. My exposure to the circuit really began my sophomore year of high school, but nothing of true note really occurred during my high school career. College had me qualify for the NFA-LD national tournament twice, I got to octas twice, broke at majors, got gavels, round robin invites. I now coach and judge exclusively, where I have coached teams that have qualified to the NDT, qualified to outrounds of just about every bid tournament, gotten several speaker awards, have accrued 30+ bids, and made it to elimination rounds and have been the top speaker of the TOC.

I judge a lot, and by that I mean a lot. Currently at 600+ debates judged since I graduated high school in 2020. I think this is because judging is a skill, and one that gets better the more you do it, and you get worse when you haven't done it in a while. I genuinely enjoy judging debates because of several reasons, whether that be my enjoyment of debate, the money, or because I enjoy the opportunity to help aid in the growth of debaters through feedback.

I do a lot of research, academically, debate wise, and for fun. Most of my research is in the kritikal side of things, mostly because I coach a bunch of K debaters. However, I often engage in policy research, and enjoy cutting those cards immensely. In addition, I have coached students who have gone for every argument type under the sun.

Please call me Holden, or judge (Holden is preferable, but if you vibe with judge then go for it). I hate anything more formal than that because it makes me uncomfortable (Mr. Bukowsky, sir, etc.)

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays High School (my alma mater), and the University of North Texas. I currently consult for Westlake (TX), and Jordan (TX). Independently, I coach American Heritage Palm Beach CW, and Barrington AC.

Previously, I have been affiliated with Cypress Woods MM, and Eat Chapel Hill AX.

What does Holden think of debate?

It's a competitive game with pedagogical implications. I love debate immensely, and I take my role in it seriously. It is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I'm not ideological on how I evaluate debates because I don't think it's my place to determine the validity of including arguments in debate (barring some exceptions). I think the previous sentence means that you should please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability. There are only two concrete rules in debate - 1. there must be a winner and a loser, and those are deicded by me, and 2. speecj times are set in stone. Any preference that I have should not matter if you are doing your job, if I have to default to something then you did something incorrect.

To summarize the way that I think about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does it best, "I believe judgign debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, faor, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."

I’ve been told I take a while to come to a decision. This is true, but not for the reason you might think. Normally, I know how I’m voting approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute after the debate. However, I like to be thorough and make sure that I give the debate the time and effort that it deserves, and as such try to have all of my thoughts together. Believe me, I consider myself somewhat comprehensible most times, I find it reassuring to myself to make sure that all my thoughts about the arguments in debate are in order. This is also why I tend to give longer decisions, because I think there are often questions about argument X on Y sheet which are easily resolved by having those addressed in the rfd. As such, I try to approach each decision from a technical standpoint and how each argument a. interacts with the rest of the debate, b. how large of an impact that argument has, c. think through any defense to that argument, and d. if that argument is the round winner or outweighs the offense of the opposing side.

What does Holden like?

I like good debates. If you execute your arguments in a technically impressive manner, I will be impressed.

I like debates that require little intervention, please make my job easier for me via judge instruction, I hate thinking.

I like well researched arguments with clear connections to the topic/the affirmative.

I like when email chains are sent out before the start time so that 1AC's can begin at start time, don't delay the round any more than it has to be please.

I like good case debating, this includes a deep love for impact turns.

I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this includes labeling your arguments (whether giving your arguments names, or doing organizational strategies like "1, 2, 3" or "a point, b point, c point, etc."), I find it harder to vote for teams that make it difficult for me to know who is responding to what and what those responses are so making sure I can flow you is key.

I like debaters that collapse in final speeches, it gives room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.

I like it when I am given a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can take place via a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can takes place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, framework, fairness v education, a meta-ethic, or anything, I don't care. I just need an evaluative lens to determine how to parse through impact calculus.

What does Holden dislike?

I dislike everything that is the opposite of the above.

I dislike when people make problematic arguments.

I dislike when debaters engage in exclusionary practices.

I dislike unclear spreading.

I dislike messy debates with no work done to resolve them.

I dislike when people say "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."

I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, it's your prep time, I don't care just tell me you're taking it.

I dislike when debaters are exclusionary to novice debaters. I define this as running completely overcomplicated strategies that are then deployed with little to no explanation. I am fine with "trial by fire" but think that you shouldn't throw them in the volcano. You know what this means. Not abiding by this will get your speaks tanked.

I dislike when evidence exchange takes too long, this includes when it takes forever for someone to press send on an email, when someone forgets to hit reply all (it's 2024 and y'all have been using technology for how long????). If you think email chains aren't vibe then please use a speechdrop to save all of us the headache.

I dislike topicality where the interpretation card is written by someone in debate, and not about the specific term of art in the topic.

I dislike 1AR restarts.

How has Holden voted?

Since I started judging in 2020, I have judged exactly 602 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff approximately 52.23% of the time.

My speaks for the 2023-2024 season have averaged to be around 28.588, and across all of the seasons I have judged they are at 28.525.

I have been a part of 188 panels, where I have sat approximately 12.77% of the time.

What will Holden never vote on?

Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.).

Arguments that say that oppression (in any form) is good.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.

Claims without warrants, these are not arguments.

Specific Arguments:

Policy Arguments

"Well, for starters, they kick ass." - Louie Petit

Contrary to my reputation, I love CP/DA debates and have an immense amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do good amounts of research on the policy side of topics often, and coach teams that go for these arguments predominantly. I love a good DA + case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. One of my favorite 2NR's to give while I was debating was DA + circumvention, and I think that these debates are great and really reward good research quality.

Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive with germane net benefits, I think that most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments about these issues and I greatly enjoy competition debates. Limited intrinsic permutations are probably justified against counterplans that don't say a word about the topic.

I am amenable to all counterplans, and think they're theoretically legitimate (for the most part). I think that half the counterplans people read are not competitive though.

Impact turn debates are amazing, give me more of them please and thank you.

I reward well cut evidence, if you cite a card as part of your warrant for your argument and it's not very good/unwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link/size of impact to that argument. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that often acts as a tie breaker between the spin of two debaters.

Judge instruction is essential to my ballot. Explain how I should frame a piece of evidence, what comes first and why, I think that telling me what to do and how to decipher the dozens of arguments in rounds makes your life and my job much easier and positively correlates to how much you will like my decision.

I enjoy well researched and topic specific process counterplans. They're great, especially when the evidence for them is topic specific and has a good solvency advocate.

I default no judge kick unless you make an argument for it.

Explain what the permutation looks like in the first responsive speech, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you.

For affs, I think that I prefer well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts much more than the shot gun 7 impact strategy.

Explanation of how the DA turns case matters a lot to me, adjust your block/2NR accordingly.

K's

Say it with me everyone, Holden does not hack for the kritik. In fact, I've become much more grouchy about K debate lately. Aff's aren't defending anything, neg teams are shotgunning 2NR's without developing offense in comparison to the 1AR and the 2AR, and everyone is making me feel more and more tired. Call me old, but I think that K teams get too lost in the sauce, don't do enough argumentative interaction, and lose debates because they can't keep up technically. I think this is all magnified when the 2NR does not say a word about the aff at all.

This is where most of my research and judging is nowadays. I will be probably know what you're reading, have cut cards for whatever literature you are reading, and have a good amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I've been in debate for 8 years now, and have coached teams with a litany of literature interests, so feel free to read anything you want, just eb able to explain it.

Aff teams against the K should go for framework, extinction outweighs, and the alt fails more.

My ideal K 1NC will have 2-3 links to the aff (one of which is a link to the action of the aff), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.

I have found that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how it interacts with the alts and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alternative does, your chance of getting my ballot goes down. Example from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense y'all are going for in relation to the alternative, the links, and the permutation. Please explain the permutation in the first responsive speech.

I've found that most K teams are bad at debating the impact turn (heg/cap good), this is to say that I think that if you are against the K, I am very much willing to vote on the impact turn given that it is not morally repugnant (see above).

I appreciate innovation of K debate, if you introduce an interesting new argument instead of recyclying the same 1NC you've been running for several seasons. At least update your cards every one in a while.

Please do not run a K just because you think I'll like it, bad K debates have seen some of the worst speaks I've ever given (for example, if you're reading an argument related to Settler Colonialism yet can't answer the 6 moves to innocence).

K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC so they can be floating.

For the nerds that wanna know, the literature bases that I know pretty well are: Marxism, Security, Reps K's, Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Weheliye, Grove, Psychoanalysis, Scranton/Eco-Pessimism, and Settler Colonialism.

The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Accelerationism (Fisher, CCRU people, etc.), Agamben, Abolition, Bataille, Cybernetics, Queer pessimism, Disability Literature, Moten and Harney, and Puar.

A note on non-black engagement with afro-pessimism: I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. Particular authors make particular claims about the adoption of afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you can do whatever. If you are reading this K as a non-black person, this becomes the round. If you are disingenious to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I am. This is your first and last warning.

K-Aff's

These are fine, cool even. They should defend something, and that something should provide a solvency mechanism for their impact claims. Having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers become much more persuasive, and makes me happier to vote for you, especially since I am becoming increasingly convinced that there should be some stasis for debate.

For those negating these affs, the case debate is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the negative develops a really good piece of offense by the end of the debate then everything else just becomes so much easier for you to win. I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, and other impact turns, and quite enjoy judging these debates.

Presumption is underrated if people understand how to go for it, unfortunately most people just don't know how. Most aff's don't do anything or have a cogent explanation of what their aff does to solve things and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should probably utilize that.

Marxism will be forever underrated versus K affs, aff's whose only responses are "doesn't explain the aff" and "X explains capitalism" will almost always lose to a decent 2NR on the cap k. This is your suggestion to update your answers to challenge the alternative on some level.

Innovation is immensely appreciated by both sides of this debate. I swear I've judged the exact same 2-4 affs about twenty times each and the 1NC's just never change. If your take on a literature base or negative strategy is interesting, innovative, and is something I haven't heard this year you will most definitely get higher speaks.

Performance based arguments are good/acceptable, I have experience coaching and running these arguments myself. However, I find that most times when ran that the performance is not really extended into the speeches after this, obviously there are some limitations but I think that it does give me leeway for leveraging your inevitable application of the performance to other areas of the debate.

T-Framework/T-USFG

It may be my old age getting to me, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that fairness is a viable impact option for the 2NR to go for. I think it probably has important implications for the ballot in terms of framing the resolution of affirmative and negative impact arguments, and those framing questions are often mishandled by the affirmative. However, I think that to make me deploy this in debates negative teams need to avoid vacuous and cyclical lines of argumentation that often plague fairness 2NR's.

In my heart of hearts, I probably am aff leaning on this question, but my voting record has increasingly become negative leaning. I think this is because affirmatives have become quite bad at answering the negative arguments in a convincing, warranted, and strategic manner.

Framework isn't capital T true, but also isn't an automatic act of violence. I think I'm somewhat neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I am of the belief that the resolution should at least center the debate in some way. What that means to you, though, is up to you.

Often, framework debates take place mostly at the impact level, with the internal link level to those impacts never being questioned. This is where I think both teams should take advantage of, and produces better debates about what debate should look like.

I have voted on straight up impact turns before, I've voted on counter-interps, and I've also voted on fairness as an impact. The onus is on the debaters to explain and flesh out their arguments in a manner that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging specific warrants of DA's to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is no engagement in either side in the debate.

Counter-interpretations seem to be more persuasive to me, and are often underutilized. Counter-interpretations that have a decent explanation of what their model of debate looks like, and what debates under that model feature. Doing all of the above does wonder.

In terms of my thoughts about impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills.

"Fairness is good because debate is a game and and we all have intrinsic motivation to compete" >>>> "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate your arguments so hack against them," if the latter is more in line with what your expalantion of fairness is then 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose.

Topicality (Theory is it's Own Monster)

I love T debates, they're absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. They've certainly gotten stales and have devolved to some model of T subsets one way or another. However, I will still evaluate and vote on any topicality violation. Interps based on words/phrases of the resolution make me much happier than a lot of the LD "let's read this one card from a debate coach over and over and see where it gets us" approach.

Semantics and precision matter, this is not in a "bare plurals/grammar means it is read this" way but a "this is what this word means in the context of the topic" way.

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, nad you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

Theory

I have judged numerous theory debates, more than the average judge for sure, and certainly more than I would care to admit. You'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I ask that you don't blitz through analytics and would prefer you make good in-depth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to your offense. I find that a well-explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me conceptually more persuaded by your impact arguments.

Conditionality is good if you win that it is. i think conditionality is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it should be robust if you plan on abusing the usage of conditionality vehemently. I've noticed a trend among judges recently just blatantly refusing to vote on conditionality through some arbitrary threshold that they think is egrigious, or because they think conditionality is universally good. I am not one of those judges.If you wanna read 6 different counterplans, go ahead, but just dismissing theoretical arguments about conditionality like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. I evaluate conditionality the same no matter the type of event, but my threshold of annoyance for it being introduced varies by number of off and the event you are in. For example, I will be much less annoyed if condo is read in an LD round with 3+ conditional advocacies than I will be if condo is read in a college policy round with 1 conditional advocacy.

Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:

- Shells abiut the appearance and clothing of anoher debater.

- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this

- Reading "no i meets"

- Arguments that a debater may not be able to answer a new argument in the next speech (for example, if the 1AR concedes no new 2AR arguments, and the 2NR reads a new shell, I will always give the 2AR the ability to answer that new shell)

Independent Voters

These seem to be transforming into tricks honestly. I am unconvinced why these are reasons to reject the team most of the time. Words like "accessibility," "safety," and "violence" all have very precise definitions of what they mean in an academic and legal context and I think that they should not be thrown around with little to no care. Make them arguments/offense for you on the flow that they were on, not reasons to reject the team.

I will, however, abandon the flow and vote down that do engage in actively violent practices. I explained this above, but just be a decent human being. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Evidence Ethics

I would much prefer these debates not occur. Nor would I really prefer to adjudicate a evidence rules issue as a theory shell. If you stake the round I will use the rules of the tournament or whatever organization it associates itself with. Debater that loses the challenge gets a 25, winner gets a 28.5.

For HS-LD:

Tricks

I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments based on getting into the weeds of logic (think the philosophy logic, IE if p, then q). I took logic but did not pay near enough attention nor care enough to have a deep understanding or desire to understand what you're talking about. This means slow down just a tiny bit and tone down the jargon so my head doesn't hurt as much.

My thoughts about tricks can be summarized as "God please do not if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate it you can go ham."

I can judge these debates, have judged numerous amounts of them in the past, and have coached/do coach debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not deal with them. There's little to no innovation, and I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1N do not expect me to be very happy about the debate or your strategy. if I had to choose, carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am."

Slow down on the underviews, overviews, and impact calc sections of your framework (you know what I'm talking about), Yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory argumetns like they're card text. Going at like 70% of your normal speed in these situation is greatly appreciated.

Be straight up about the implication and warrant for tricks, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether I feel like evaluating them or whether I'm tanking your speaks. This extends to disclosure practices, you know what this means.

Tricks versus identity-based kritikal affirmatives are bad and violent. Stop it.

Phil

I love phil debates. I coach plenty of debaters who go for phil arguments, and find that their interactions are really great. However, I find that debate has trended towards a shotgun approach to justifying X argument about how our mind works in favor of analytical syllogisms that are often spammy, underwarranted, and make little to no sense. I prefer carded syllogisms that identify a problem with ethics/metaphysics and explain how their framework resolves that via pieces of evidence.

The implication/impact of the parts of your syllogism should be clear from the speech they are introduced in, I dislike late breaking debates because you decided to hide what X argument meant in relation to the debate.

In phil v phil debates, there needs to be a larger emphasis on explanation between competing ethics. These debates are often extremely dense and messy, or extremely informational and engaging, and I would prefer that they be the latter rather than the formr. Explanation, clear engagement, and delineated weighing is how to get my ballot in these debates.

Hijacks are cool, but once again please explain because they're often just 10 seconds long with no actual warrants.

Slow down a bit as well, especially in rebuttals, these debates are often fast and blippy and I can only flow so fast

For those that are wondering, I'm pretty well read in most continental philosophy, social contract theorists, and most of the common names in debate. This includes the usual Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Spinoza, and Deleuze as well as some pretty out of left field characters like Leibniz and Berkeley.

I have read some of the work regarding Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Particularism, and Constitutitionality as well.

I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with people reading Deleuze as an ethical framework, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe moral claims but is a question of metaphysics/politics, proceed with caution.

Defaults:

- Comparative worlds > truth testing

- Permissibility negates > affirms

- Presumption negates > affirms

- Epistemic confidence > modesty

Trad/Lay Debate

I mean, sure, why not. I can judge this, and debated on a rather traditional LD circuit in high school. However, I often find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. If you think that you can change my mind, please go ahead, but I think that given the people that pref me most of the time I think it's in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, for your sake and mine.

NFA-LD:

Everything above applies.

Don't think I'm a K hack. I know my background may suggest otherwise but ideologically I have a high threshold for execution and will punish you for it if you fail to meet it. Seriously, I've voted against kritikal arguments more than I've voted for them. If you are not comfortable going for the K then please do not unless you absolutely want to, please do not adapt to me. I promise I'll be so down for a good disad and case 2NR or something similar.

"It's against NFA-LD rules" is not an argument or impact claim and if it is then it's an internal link to fairness. Only rules violation I will not roll my eyes at are ethics challenges.

Yes non-T affs, yes t - framework, yes cap good.heg good, no to terrible theory arguments like "must delineate stock issues."

Speaks:

An addendum to how I dish out speaks , any additional speaker points you get via challenges cannot get you above a 29.7, the other .3 is something you have to work for.

For speaker points challenges, those that know them can utilize them, this will be edited after TFA.

I don't consider myself super stingey or a speaks fairy, though I think I've gotten stingier compared to the rest of the pool.

I don't evaluate "give me X amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad then perform well or use the methods I have outlined to boost your speaks.

Here's a general scale I use, it's adjusted to the tournament as best as possible -

29.5+ - Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament

29.1-29.4 - Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 - Good round, you should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 - About the middle of the pool

27.6-28 - You got some stuff to work on

27-27.5 - You got a lot of stuff to work on

Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it

Top level

Debate is a game, and I'll evaluate as much on the flow as I possibly can. With that having been said, I'm not going to evaluate bigoted arguments. As well as that, if you're very rude to your opponent, I will tank speaks and I'll likely be looking for any reason to vote for your opponent on the flow. I really don't do well with evaluating LARP v LARP, so for my most accurate ballot consider running philosophy against LARP or a K or something of the sort, however I will certainly do my best to evaluate it. As a former judge of mine once pointed out, the debate is owned by the competitors and as the judge it is my responsibility to facilitate that debate that the competitors want to have as best as I can.

PLEASE CLARIFY BEFORE ROUND AND PLEASE SEND THE DOC I DON'T WANT TO MISS SOMETHING AND IT MAKES MY FLOW MORE CLEAR

Contact info

senddebatedocs@gmail.com -- email, send a message if you have a question before round, good if you also want to do file share over email.

Note that I prefer file share to be over speechdrop.net, especially in outrounds with many judges. It's just quicker.

Preferences

(1 is best, 5 is worst)

Meme case v meme case - 1 (this would be great)

LARP v K - 1

LARP v Phil - 2

Phil v K - 2

K v K - 2

Phil v Phil - 3

LARP v LARP - 5

Aff K v Trix - you're literally the worst just don't, ESPECIALLY not against idpol

Trix v Neg K - (2 - strike) (depends on the 1ar strategy)

Trix v Trix - 10 (I'd be terrible at evaluating this)

Theory / Topicality

Really hasn't been my style for the most part unless I saw real abuse, however I do like frivolous theory. Must wear santa hat, must bring a sled, must live in Texas, etc. can give me a chuckle and the debate over the shell, IF DONE WITH PROPER OFFENSE, is very interesting to me.

Topicality on aff Ks is gross for the most part. Stop whining and actually critique their position or run policy, a K v K debate has a much larger potential for critical education and real pedagogical value than your shell. With that having been said, I'll still evaluate topicality because the flow comes first, but please just run a K or larp.

Topicality on policy is interesting to me, I like to hear the different interpretations on the meaning of the resolution. That having been said, Nebel is gross.

I default to K comes before T, competing interps, no RVI, and drop the debater.

Note that I am very compelled by theory on misgendering and other practices that exclude marginalized groups from the debate space. I do not believe that apologies check -- without any punishment for these practices, debaters would have no reason to change. However, provided that one of these practices is not ACTIVELY bigoted (EG misgendering on purpose, impact turns on homophobia / sexism / antiblackness, etc) I will not intervene, and I will evaluate everything based on the flow, I just want to be clear on where I stand (c'mon, it's not that hard to at least use they/them pronouns to refer to people in the round...)

LARP

This is likely my weakest position as a judge, when both debaters perform very well it becomes very hard for me to evaluate. Luckily, at least 1 debater makes a major mistake in almost all debates except for the best of the best national circuit rounds, but know that LARP is not my strongest subject. I have a very poor understanding of the policy literature for this topic, so please metaphorically hold my hand throughout the debate. That having been said, I will do my best to evaluate it and I will do my best not to judge screw.

With that having been said, I love LARP going up against philosophical or critical positions; it's extremely interesting to watch the debate move between extinction, ontology, the value of the state and debate, the ethical validity of consequences or teleology, and all of the rest of the arguments that occur in these debates!

K

My personal favorite is queer pessimism, and I love every permutation of it. I've judged many K debates, so I think I have a good grasp on most of the standard Ks. However, in the case that I don't understand an argument or its implications, it's always great to be clear of the implications for my flow. I don't believe that it's always the competitor's fault that the judge doesn't understand the K, and as well as that I don't believe that it is a reasonable ask for the competitor to teach the judge multiple books worth of critical theory in their 1NC, so even if I don't fully understand a K I'll do my best to evaluate it fairly.

Phil

The more obscure the better! I do love watching philosophy against LARP in any permutation (EG LARP v Kant), however my favorite debates to watch include perspectives that I haven't heard before with creative implications. I love hearing rebuttal speeches leverage their philosophy in creative ways that wouldn't be expected.

Pet Peeves (please read novices)

There's a few things that really, in the words of Amy Santiago from Brooklyn Nine-Nine, really "grate my cheese".

[1] DEBATERS WHO DON'T USE ALL OF THEIR TIMES IN THEIR SPEECHES: Now I've been known to not use all of my 1AC on some cases in the past and while I don't think it's strategic of me to do that sometimes I do it just to mess with the other debater or because I have no idea what I can add without having the judge view me as too abusive, BUT 1NRs, 1ARs, 2NRs, and 2ARs should use all of your time. This is competitive debate, I want to watch you debate. If you read out a document and you have 3 minutes left in your 1NR, I want to hear you line-by-line their case, not just say "uh I'm finished". Your speaker points will SUFFER if you do this.

[2] DEBATERS WHO CONCEDE IMPORTANT ISSUES IN THE DEBATE: Many times it's the debaters who don't use all of their time who do this. Even if you personally agree with an argument or it seems frustrating or confusing to respond to, just make something up! Take time in prep to think about it if necessary. When you're going into a round you have to have an idea of what your ballot is going to be already. If you do this and your opponent does this as well, the round will be VERY difficult for me to evaluate and I will not be nice with speaker points.

[3] DEBATERS WHO MAKE CLAIMS WITHOUT WARRANTS: Now I'm fairly lenient with warrants, obviously I don't have to agree with your warrant, but you can't just say "evaluate the debate after the 1AC" for example, you have to provide a reason why. For example, "evaluate the debate after the 1AC, key to deconstruct debate" if your case opposes debate. Now that's an example of a case where it's very close to not enough warranting, but I will allow that. However, the weaker the warrant the more easy it is for your opponent to respond, so warrant lightly at your own risk.

[4A] DEBATERS WHO DON'T EXTEND THEIR ARGUMENTS: Now this doesn't have to be that long, but if you want me to evaluate an argument you've got to show me that it's still in the debate. I give a lot more leeway with the 1AR and extensions can be quick

[4B] EXAMPLES OF EXTENSIONS THAT I'M FINE WITH:

1. Long: (EG Extend the Biden advantage -- Trump is set to win the election, that's Bedard 7/22, and that will lead to extinction, that's Starr 19, but compulsory voting increases voter turnout and nonvoters are by in large democratic that's Mukuthu 19 and Badger 18, which leads for a victory for Biden which o/ws the neg on a] opportunity cost because their counterplan costs more and at best achieves the same effect, b] magnitude, nuclear extinction is irreversible, and c] timeframe because our case impacts are contextualized to the death of Breyer and RBG, with RBG having died this impact is closer than ever)

2. Short: (Extend the Biden advantage, Trump will win the election without compulsory voting and that leads to extinction through warming, nuclear prolif, and middle east instability. This o/ws the neg on a] timeframe because the election is in a few months and b] magnitude because extinction is irreversible)

Note that the length of your extensions should definitely depend based on your opponent's case, EG if they run a different philosophy that doesn't evaluate your consequences and they don't engage much with your advantage, it's better to spend more time on the framework debate.

Favorite Cookie Recipe

(If you tell me your favorite cookie recipe and you give me a link before the round, I'll boost your speaks by 0.1 - 0.5 or POSSIBLY higher depending on how likely I am to try it out. This also serves as a reward for reading my paradigm)

This is a recipe for snickerdoodles. I've tried a lot of snickerdoodle recipes before, but this is by far my favorite one. It turns out consistently great snickerdoodles and in my opinion the best form of cookie to test baking prowess is a snickerdoodle, because it relies less on quality of ingredient than baking style, ratios of ingredients, and patience.

Ingredients:

• ½ cup butter, softened
• ½ cup shortening
• 1 ½ cups white sugar
• 2 eggs
• 2 teaspoons vanilla extract
• 2 ¾ cups all-purpose flour
• 2 teaspoons cream of tartar
• 1 teaspoon baking soda
• ¼ teaspoon salt
• 2 tablespoons white sugar
• 2 teaspoons ground cinnamon

Directions:

• Step 1: Preheat oven to 400 degrees F (200 degrees C).

• Step 2: Cream together butter, shortening, 1 1/2 cups sugar, eggs, and vanilla. Blend in flour, cream of tartar, soda, and salt. Shape dough by rounded spoonfuls into balls.

• Step 3: Mix 2 tablespoons sugar and cinnamon together. Roll balls of dough in mixture. Place 2 inches apart on ungreased baking sheets.

• Step 4: Bake 8 to 10 minutes, or until set but not too hard. Remove immediately from baking sheets.

Barkley Forum Update (not debate related): I'm a student at Emory right now (chemistry and premed). If you have any questions about Emory in general I'd be happy to answer them for you! Feel free to ask me stuff before or after the round (but please not during lmao).

Other Barkley Forum Update (this one's actually debate related):I haven't judged an LD round in almost a year now (I judged some policy over the summer) and I don't coach anyone so it's been a minute. Please slow down a little bit to probably 80% of your max speed instead of full circuit spreading because I don't want to miss anything y'all are saying. Also I am not as well versed in a lot of the acronyms anymore in circuit debate (particularly tricks) so please take the time to say the full names of things. I will still be able to evaluate the rounds properly just as well as I have been but my vocabulary isn't the same anymore so please explain all the terms you need to (you know what they are).

Here's my full paradigm so plz read

My email is cyprian.dumas@gmail.com. If you ask me for my email I'm gonna assume you didn't read my paradigm.

I did national circuit LD in high school and I primarily ran policy stuff, theory, t, and tricks (I'm prob best for judging these arguments). You can prob put me as a 1 for these on your pref sheets.

I'm down with judging phil and k debate too but I'm not familiar with a lot of the lit (especially pomo k's) so if you're running that please overexplain. You can prob put me as a 2 or 3 for these based on how confusing your lit is but you should probably put me as a 5 if you're running exclusively pomo.

This should go without saying but don't be offensive. You should also try to avoid being a jerk in general because this is supposed to be an enjoyable activity.

Tricks debate is cool but there's some things I'll interfere on there. First, you don't get to change speech times and I evaluate all five speeches. Don't bring in stuff from outside of the round (except disclosure stuff I guess but I'll get to that more in a second). That'll be met with an L and minimum speaks. Everything in this paragraph is non-negotiable.

I'll vote on disclosure theory but I really don't like it at all especially if it's run against someone with substantially less resources than the person running it. Don't expect your speaks to look good if you go for disclosure theory against a stock position.

A claim, warrant, and impact for EVERY argument you want me to evaluate at the end of the round each have to be extended in EVERY speech as well.

Debate should be a safe space for everyone involved. If you're reading something that could be potentially triggering or sensitive for someone please ask everyone involved in the round if they are ok with the material being read.

I'm not a fan of really long paradigms (this one's already pushing it) so I'm not gonna write out every single nitpicky thing for all your RVI warrants and framework weighing and all that other stuff. So PLEASE ask me for specifics in round. I'm looking forward to judging your debate. Good luck and have fun!

nathan.gong@utexas.edu / I prefer tabroom fileshare though

I qualified to the TOC three times for LD, debated twice, and cleared once (as Plano East and Plano Independent)

Read good quality evidence, be clear, compare arguments, and ballot paint!

Stop talking early when possible - I don't want to hear a 6 minute speech when a theory shell was conceded.

I can tell you speaker points after round if you want

Don't read evaluate after X

pranav.kalkunte@gmail.com

The Greatest Conceivable Pranav Kalkunte exists and determines morality!

1] Ontology - there are 2 conditions for existence, existence in mind, and in reality. A being that exists, in reality, is definitionally greater than something that doesn’t exist. Thus, if the GCPK exists only in the mind but does not in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than the GCPK. But we can’t conceive of something greater than the GCPK by definition. Thus, if the GCPK exists in the mind, then the GCPK exists in reality.

2] Motion- Objects are in motion. Everything in motion was put in motion by something else that is moving. There must be a first mover, and that is the GCPK. The alternative is an infinite regress, something relies on the further back and there is no starting point.

3] Contingency- there are 2 forms of being, a necessary and a contingent being. An existence is contingent if it is based on the existence of something else. Not everything is contingent, because then, by definition, it all could have never existed. Thus, the necessary being exists, a being that can’t not exist. The necessary being is GCPK.

4] Degrees - Properties come in degrees. In order for there to be degrees of morality, there must be something perfect against which everything else is measured. The GCPK is the pinnacle of perfection against which everything else is measured.

5] Teleology- essence precedes existence- everything has a purpose. A cup exists to hold water and is made so by purposeful design. To be purposeful, there needs to be a creator of purpose, which is the GCPK.

6] Pascal’s wager – default to a belief in the GCPK since disobeying the GCPK’s will would be infinite badness, but irrationally following a nonexistent GCPK is only instrumentally bad.

7] Performativity – you couldn’t contest the arguments of the 1AC without being here because of the first mover which means every argument you make concedes the authority of the GCPK and collapses to me.

Thus, we ought to remain in consistency with the GCPK’s will and the GCPK’s will is infinitely good.

PF/LD in HS, former UT policy debater (2A/1N).

PSHS '20, UT '24

Conflicts: Plano Senior HS (Plano, TX), Jasper HS (Plano, TX), Clark HS (Plano, TX)

plano.speechdocs@gmail.com (Email for email chain)

Judges who I largely agree with:

Aryan Jasani

Vandan Patel

Pref Sheet for all Events (1 is highest, 5 is lowest)

1 - LARP/theory

2 - K

3 - phil

4 - tricks

5 - K aff, performance

Defaults

Theory - DtA, Reasonability, RVIs*

Presumption/Permissibility flows neg

Policymaking in the absence of a RotB and Utilitarianism in absence of an alternative framework

Note that these are just what I default to in the absence of arguments made for any of these issues, if any arguments are made on these I will obviously evaluate them.

*Check theory section if you do CX Debate

As a general note, my favorite rounds to judge are really solid LARP/theory/K rounds, but don't worry if that's not your strat because I'm fine with anything as long as you do a really good job of it. Good flow-oriented debate will always beat grandstanding and not flow-oriented debate.

TLDR if you are pressed for time: Debated LARP style and a little bit of K. Do your strat and I will do my best to evaluate it.

PF

- +0.5 speaks for disclosure on the NDCA wiki before round with proof

- just because you have a piece of evidence doesn't mean it has a warrant - make sure each card you provide in any speech has sufficient warranting

- second rebuttal should frontline offense in the first rebuttal

- defense isn't sticky in summary

- summary and final should ideally mirror each other

- weigh, weigh, weigh! good weighing will reward you in round

LD/CX

LARP - favorite style of debate. I really like smaller affs and specific case debate. Good weighing in the 2NR/2AR is a good way to get my ballot in a LARP round. Finally, please extend case in the 2AR if you want me to evaluate it at the end of the round. If case was conceded in the 2NR, a small 2AR extension at the top of the 2AR will suffice.

Theory - I prefer more fleshed out arguments rather than blips. I would also like you to go a little slower through analytics and on the interp text/counterinterp text. I will vote on disclosure theory but I think there is a difference between someone not disclosing at all and someone not adhering to every single little interp you have. I also probably won't evaluate disclosure on people who can prove in a verifiable way that their school policy prevents it. Other than that, I don't have any strong preferences on theory but I will say the bar to responding to friv theory is much lower. Good standard weighing and clear abuse stories are easy ways to get my ballot in a theory round. *CX Specific - theory/T are not RVIs, so don't try it.*

T - I only really ask that you have a TVA/caselist with any topicality argument or I will err more on the aff side of topicality. Other than that, anything is fine.

Tricks - I mean, I guess you can but I won't be too thrilled about it. Just delineate them, err on the side of overexplaining the arguments (like don't be blippy) and be up front in CX. I will not vote off condo logic - its a terrible argument (tbf all tricks are terrible but this one just is worse than the rest).

Phil - I'm familiar with Kant, Rawls, Hobbes and virtue ethics at a basic level but assume I don't know your lit and err on the side of overexplaining what the framework is and how the offense links under it.

K - I've only really read cap and security as a debater so assume I don't know your lit so err on the side of overexplaining the theory of power in the 2NR. I really like well done K debates, so please don't forgo the line-by-line for overarching overview answers and shallow explanations of the arguments that regurgitate buzzwords, that will make me sad. Including examples to explain the theory of power and/or alternative are also good. I also like specific links to the 1AC, generic links are fine but specificity will always better your chances of winning and/or getting good speaks.

K affs/performance - I don't really know the ins-and-outs of this style of debate too well because I never really debated in this style, but I will say I tend to lean on the neg side of T-framework just because I ended up on that side in a lot of debates.

kelvinmeng07@gmail.com

1 - Policy, Theory
2 - K
3 - Tricks, Phil

Bad flower. Slow down on pre-written analytics.

Overexplain unintuitive arguments. Concessions aren't a substitute for lack of explanation. Scenarios start at 0.

Bad tricks debate is difficult to sit through. Logic aprioris are fine, "no neg arguments" are not. Extempting tricks is egregious.

I reserve the right to end rounds due to ableism.

Lay Debate

Overview

Hey everyone! My name is Jack Miller, I've been a LD debater for 4 years. I've qualled to NSDA nationals twice, qualled to TOC twice, and placed top 3 in lots of different national circuit tourneys. I care less about what you read and more about how you read it; idc what the framing and contentions are as long as its executed well. Just win the flow and I'll vote for you.

Good luck and have fun!

Misc Thoughts:
-Please extend args
-LBL>large overviews that just concede args (i.e. please dont give a 2nr where you just extend everything thru ink and say "voter" a lot)
-Framing isnt a voter, you need to win contention level offense under it otherwise its just a presumption ballot.

ask any other questions in round if you have any.

Goodluck and have fun!

Circuit Judging

About Me

Hey everyone! For those of you who couldn't tell, my name is, in fact, not Pegasus Mitusbishi Fitzgerald - it's Jack Miller. I am currently a rising senior from a small school in Oklahoma (ACCS). My decisions in debate very much center around strategy, so I've read a very eclectic range of arguments—everything ranging from a myriad of phil affs, to trix and friv theory, to pess and debate bad—so I am happy to evaluate whatever type of round you want.

Ideological Overview

One of my strongest beliefs in debate is that the flow is the sole determiner of who should win the round, so my goal as a judge will always be to render the most objective and equitable decision possible. I don't ever want a debater to feel like they have to accommodate to me—read whatever arguments you feel most comfortable with and I will do my best to evaluate the round presented in front of me. Of course, I am not omniscient so I naturally understand some arguments more than others (i.e. I am probably the worst at evaluating larp vs larp), but I will always consciously attempt to detach myself from any biases or predispositions I have. In summary, you can read whatever arguments you want as long as you win them on the flow and implicate them as justifications for voting in a particular way.

I don't care how fast you go, but if I can't understand you, I will shout clear. I would also prefer if you included analytics in docs since it ensures with certainty that I won't any miss arguments, but if you decide not to, I'll still do my best to toggle on my inner flow-bot.

Judges who I've always liked and strive to judge similar to: JP, Castillo, Taj, Sam Azbel, Tom Evnen, Becca Traber, Scopa, Aqin, Leedrew, Austin Broussard, Joey Georges, and pretty much every other tab judge on the circuit. If you like the judges listed above, you will hopefully like me.

Quick Pref Shortcut

Prefs are hell to do at most tourneys, so if you are feeling time-crunched or lazy, here's a TLDR as to what I feel most comfortable evaluating:
1. Phil, Theory/T, K, K Affs, Trix.
2. Policy (this is for policy vs policy; I feel very comfortable evaluating policy vs Phil/K and don't lean in either direction)

Specific Arguments

Kritiks

Overview: I've read a lot of Ks throughout my career and think they have the potential to be very strategic. The lit bases/Ks I'm familiar with are disability (Mollow, Fritsch, St. Pierre, Hughes, Campbell, and pretty much every other author that is read in debate), Deleuze, Baudrillard, Berardi, Edelman, Lacan, Setcol, Cap, Security, Afropessimism, Grove, Bataille, Weyhelie, Cybernetics, Onticide, Virilio, Baldwin, James, and utopian authors like Munoz. HOWEVER, you should not take this as an excuse for not explaining arguments - I'll still have the same threshold for extensions as normal.

Specific Preferences:
-Word PIKs are strategic
-Not a huge fan of author indicts or other ad homs.
-

K Affs

Theory

Overview: I read lots of theory throughout my career and think it's incredibly strategic in a lot of circumstances. Here are some of my specific thoughts on theory:
1. I am of the belief that there is no such thing as friv theory - if you win a theoretical arg then it's just as valid as any other. However, feel free to make arguments to the contrary in the round and persuade me otherwise.
2. If you are going for reasonability, PLEASE provide a reasonability brightline! Otherwise, I don't know how to evaluate what is reasonable, and I'll probably be very compelled by arguments as to why I should reject reasonability without a brightline.
3. RVIs are coherent and people should read them more often. I don't know why they have such a negative stigma to be honest. In most cases, they waste the opponent's time at worst, and can win the round at best.

Trix: Like I mentioned in the ideological overview, I will evaluate any argument with a warrant (no matter how bad it is), so yes I will evaluate trix. I've gone for a lot of tricky arguments and honestly find this style of debate to be super fun in moderation. Here's some things to keep in mind:
1. I am a philosophy geek and am particularly interested in things like formal logic and skeptical problems, so there's a good chance that I've read entire articles about whatever trick you are going for. This is not to say that you should under-explain arguments; I am simply saying that you shouldn't feel pressured to shy away from esoteric arguments or condense claims into incoherence for the sake of explanatory ease.

Policy: This is the style of debate I am least familiarity with because I never enjoyed reading these arguments myself, so I have much less first-hand experience with it. However, I do still feel very familiar with the Policy vs K/Phil debate, and think extinction outweighs is one of the stronger arguments in debate. Here's some miscellaneous thoughts and things to keep in mind if you are reading a policy aff or DAs/CPs in front of me:
-Even if the 2NR is 6-minutes on T, you still need to extend case—It feels arbitrary to disregard args that aren't extended in every instance except for a 2AR vs T. HOWEVER, saying "extend case, it was conceded" will suffice.
-In a lot of scenarios, I think 1AR framework + weigh case is the right 2AR rather than the perm (i.e. the perm is pretty incoherent vs pess in my opinion). However, I do still think spamming perms is a good time suck, and am a big fan of creative, strategic perms.
-I think multiple condo is probably bad but you can easily win otherwise. I also really enjoy hearing CP theory debates.

Speaks

Speaks are a referendum of how well you debate, not how well you talk. If you make strategic pivots, smart arguments, demonstrate good time allocation, make arguments efficiently, implicate claims well, and display impressive round vision, I promise you that it will be reflected in your speaks.

Safety

As I stated at the start of my paradigm, I am an incredibly tab judge, and will evaluate any arguments presented. However, if anything makes you uncomfortable in any way, please let me know (you can text me at 405-763-7778 if you would like to do it discreetly but quickly) and I will immediately stop the round and figure out the best course of action.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

Defaults

If no arguments are made on a particular issue, I'll default to the following:

Ev Ethics

I would prefer you to just debate it out if its a insignificant rule like not having a link to an article.

CX

1. CX is binding just like any other speech. I highly doubt I will evaluate any arguments to the contrary (to clarify, you can argue about the semantics of what was said and the implications if it, but just not blatantly choosing to sever out of what has been said.
2. Prep can be CX but CX can't be used as extra prep.
3. I don't flow CX (by default - if you want me to flow, tell me and I will), but I'll listen and will write down anything that you flag as important.

Traditional/Locals Paradigm

full paradigm