Hi I debated LD throughout high school at Westwood (2018), earned two career bids and qualified to the TOC. pls flash jugal1999@gmail.com

~ last edited 11/21 ~

2021 Longhorn classic stuff

1. I am probably going to be late to the room, PLEASE have an email doc ready to go before I get there

2. I have not done anything debate related in the past 7 months BUT I still follow politics and current events very closely and watch lectures on 4x speed so the only issues I will have are topic specific items (jargon, common link chains) and clarity

3. UT's campus can be very confusing, please feel free to ask me for directions or food recs. It has also not been particularly safe recently so I will strongly encourage you to not stray past Guadalupe street.

4. once the round is over i'll finish typing feedback on my ballot and then give an rfd. it really disrupts my thought process if you interrupt me until I'm done with my rfd, please hold off on questions until then (write them down if you have to). I promise I will provide some feedback on speeches but if u have specific questions (after I am done) fire away!

5. I think my paradigm is still mostly true but I am less patient/less willing to gloss over things that annoy me. Yes, my paradigm is too long but I think I've conveyed my thought process well enough that you will hopefully know what you're getting when you debate in front of me.

general

I coached Westwood from 2018-2021, I have not been very involved with debate in the 2021 fall season.

I was coached by Rodrigo Paramo and I think I share similar views with Bennett Eckert, Travis Fife, and Aaron Timmons.

If you're lazy some pref shortcuts:

LARP - 1

Theory/T - 1-3 (depending on the frivolity of the position)

Kritiks - 2

Phil - 2-4

Tricks - strike

My general disposition towards debate is that it's a competitive arena that has educational potential, because of that I really believe in providing feedback on the debate so please feel free to ask questions!

--- a byproduct of this is that if I believe you are doing something that excludes your opponent from learning anything i will be very annoyed. Things like reading kritiks/theory or spreading against traditional or novice opponents just to cheese a ballot irritate me deeply, please treat your opponent with respect. i would hate to judge a round where a debater did not learn a single thing.

I am NOT tabula rasa and I don't think anyone actually is.

I will ONLY say slow/clear TWICE and after that I'll stop flowing.

My favorite kind of debate was a simple plan/disad/cp debate because I think those brought about the most clash and in-depth evidence comparison at the high school level. That said, I don't want to hear you failing to go for a disad when you've never read one before.

I will not vote for anything I don't understand - I think I have a good grasp of the "generic K's" and Kant but beyond that some explanation might be necessary given I haven't read all of the literature. I think this is especially true for links and alternatives.

I am a very expressive person - I will constantly be making faces in round, think of them as you would like, but I would recommend just ignoring them.

I have become increasingly cynical with k debate in LD the longer I've been judging. It is not fun to judge debates with no clash since no one knows what their position says including the ones reading it. I urge you not to read it unless you're CONFIDENT in your ability to explain it.

I love a good case debate - challenge the aff's home turf.

I STRONGLY believe in disclosure - The only exception is if you are unaware of what the wiki is. Screenshots MUST be provided including TIME STAMPS.

I have a HIGH threshold for good evidence - I think it should be about your scenario and as specific as possible. If it's a politics disad or a time sensitive argument newer evidence from reliable sources prevails.

In the case of cheating (evidence ethics, clipping, etc) I'll vote against the debater in question but will continue the debate. Speaks will be awarded based on the round and I'll subtract 2 points for the cheating. See Rodrigo's paradigm for more specific details for things I agree with.

I largely agree with Rodrigo regarding trigger warnings.

I treat theory/T as a kind of disad/cp debate with the standards being disads to the aff's interp. Please WEIGH! I need impact calc on the net benefits or I will probably throw out the shell.

If you intend to read 5+ cards on case, tell me to get another page for them. I haven't quite learned how to copy paste while flowing on paper.

I will wait until AFTER postrounding to give speaks - if you and/or your coach is rude then your speaks will suffer.

_________________________________________

Speed

I don't recall anyone being too fast for me to understand (I watch school lectures on 4.5x speed) on evidence but for short analytics like theory standards you HAVE to go slower bc I can't write at light speed.

Clarity is a MUST, and debaters almost always think they're clearer than they actually are so maybe go slower.

Speaks

I will award speaks based on what I think your propensity to win the tournament is, based on the round I judged. If I'm confident you can win, you get a thirty, and it'll go down from there. My perception for this might be skewed and I will usually end up giving you lower than what your final record will end up being.

Efficiency and good strategy will bump u up.

Try not to 100% BS facts. If you say xyz is polling at 80% when they're actually polling at 40 you will lose speaks.

I WILL dock speaks for being rude and award speaks for being kind.

I appreciate numbering arguments (1. no link, 2. link turn, 3. perm) and labeling offs (next off - econ disad).

Reading interesting and good arguments will also bump up your speaks. I love unique and specific plans or disads but if the evidence is trash I'm not gonna like it.

Theory

I think potential abuse exists and can be an effective argument even if you have aff specific offense.

I think most theory shells that are based on CX are frivolous (ex. must list perms, must spec k over T, etc)

Counter interps and interps must be flashed before read.

I'm persuaded by disclosure, open source, and brackets - but they still need a warrant - I won't hack. Round reports is silly tho, i've never been convinced there's any real abuse

If the 2n is literally 6 mins of theory/T I think the aff implicitly gets an rvi, since the 2n has conceded substance. I see no benefit to forcing the aff extend the 1ac for ten seconds.

I really LOVE specific and in-depth interps but try and make sure it still makes sense as a universal rule and as a sentence.

Topicality

Dislike semantics first (nebel) and generally think it's a floor not a ceiling but will still vote on it. That said, I still don't know what grammar is and the argument must be coherently explained. If I don't get your violation or understand the warrant for the definition, I can't vote on it.

Developed standards and voters are important and weigh between them if you want to have a good debate

I don't think a dictionary definition is mandatory but in T debates it will go a long ways - the more specific the definition the better. However, I am compelled by arguments saying that a counter interp is incomplete without them.

Interps and counter interps need to be complete statements. I treat them like plan texts since they are an attempt at defining a norm, so things like "Counter interp: let this aff in" are not real counter interps. I think paragraph theory like "conditionality is a voter" is fine.

Plans

I strongly believe they should have solvency advocates

frameworks are a must

I'm not a fan of underviews filled with analytics but if you're going to read that 1ar theory paradigm PLEASE SLOW DOWN.

CPs

For whatever reason I'm more lenient on the existence of a solvency advocate here, that said having one could be relevant to theory debates

One condo is chill

Not a fan of judge kick and will only evaluate the arg if it's made in the 1NC

PICs

I think these are some of the most strategic arguments in debate but I am persuaded by well crafted theory shells saying they're cheating.

Phil

The way I've always thought about philosophical frameworks is the same as Kritiks. There should be a way of explaining the world, a link to the topic, and some sort of impact.

I love util but in my senior year I branched out to deontologists like Kant and Hobbes.

Miss me with your justice v morality args - I don't care

Kritiks

Not a fan of Floating PIKs - I think they're cheating but if your opponent doesn't ask it's fair game if your evidence justifies it

I was a big fan of the security, anthro, and cap K's but specific links make a world of difference.

Unwarranted evidence is far too common in kritik debates. I find it frustrating when the NC is basically just 5 minutes of glorified impact cards.

I have a high threshold for afropessimism based arguments. I think they're often read poorly in LD and commodified, therefore I'm persuaded by the argument that white people shouldn't be advocating for it.

NOT a fan of generic links like the state is anti-black - the more specific the better

Kritik's must have SOME form of framing and I believe that the ROTB might precede case but this must be clearly justified. No, a card listing all the reasons why capitalism is bad and therefore should be stopped is not a ROTB, it needs to talk about education or activism or something related to debate.

Big fan of framework against kritiks done similarly to how Policy does it.

Performance

go for it as long as it isn't something that could potentially endanger someone

I do think all of your actions must be justified

I'm strongly compelled by T-Framework, and think plans are good for debate

Skep/permissability/tricks

no. A burden will result in an almost instant loss. I'm more than happy to discuss this with you outside of round but I think practices that focus on winning from blippy analytics are bad for debate.

I define a "trick" as a preempt that prohibits an action, like the neg can't read counter plans. Things like aff gets rvis or allow 1ar theory are ok, but annoying.

I am open to all arguments and will do my best to adapt to you. I am very focused on my flow so be mindful when moving from one card/argument to the next to leave a gap or say "and" to clearly indicate motion. Slow down on authors and dates please.

CX: I'm a policy maker but am always open to other arguments. My main concern is whether or not you've proven the resolution is true or false.
Topicality/theory: I default competing interp. If there aren't good extensions or if it's a wash I probably won't vote here.
K: If the lit is obscure you'll need to explain it to me a little more than popular Ks. Feel free to ask.
Case: I want the aff to extend in every speech. I will likely not vote exclusively on case defense, so negs please have another voter.

LD: I'm very line-by-line driven, and focus on the flow. Be very specific with voters.
Value/criterion: Not a must-have, and in many rounds I judge I find debaters will spend time on this without ever impacting it as a voter. If you go for this, that is totally fine, but give a clear reason why it matters in determining the resolution's truth.
Pre-standards/observations: Fine with these, but I feel the more outlandish ones need a little more work to actually matter. In any case, it is important that these are answered and not dropped.
Off-case: totally fine and love to see it, so long as whoever runs any off has an understanding of how to run that argument.
NC: I tend to be less persuaded by strats that try to spread the aff thin and just go for whatever they drop/undercover, and while I won't stop you from doing that, I begin to err heavily in the aff's favor when they have four minutes to answer 4 off, respond to your case, and defend their own. In my opinion, it's better for debate for you to demonstrate your skills by thoroughly arguing a really good voter rather than throwing half-hearted args at your opponent to see what sticks.
Aff: The most frustrating part of judging LD is watching 1ARs that try to do line-by-lines on everything and drop part of the flow. I want to see a 1AR identify the reason the 1AC theoretically wins, extend that and respond to attacks against that premise, identify why the neg would theoretically win, and respond to that. The aff does not have to win every single argument in round to prove the resolution true, so show your skill by covering what you absolutely must in this small period of time. Too often I see 2ARs make good arguments that are too little too late, so do whatever it takes to give a 1AR that doesn't drop anything important (only drops stuff that isn't important) be it taking extra prep, going with opposing framework, etc.

HI. You can call me Aaron. Currently a Senior at UT and I did LD at Northland Christian School in Houston, tx for 3 years and competed on the national circuit my last 2. I stuck to mostly DAs, CPs, T and Theory, but I've been exposed to a lot at this point. Please note I've been removed from debate for a WHILE. I judge a couple national circuit tournaments a year, so I haven't completely lost all knowledge. But err on the side of over explaining and slowing down some on important arguments/tags. (Don't assume I know the entirety of an argument from a phrase of jargon, tag the arg then explain por favor) If you're off the doc prob don't go full speed and make sure you're clear mostly because I haven't heard people speak fast since last february.

Add me to chain please: abarcio@utexas.edu

Quick Notes:

- BE CLEAR. I haven't judged in about a year so if it's early in the tournament let me get warmed up. Go a little slower on tags, card names, and especially blocks of analytics.

- If you're going to blitz through analytics please send them. If you don't, I'll probably miss some which hurts you.

- Please do framework interaction.

- Collapse and your speaks will be happier and less margin for error on decision

- The less I have to wait before the round begins the happier I will be

Pref Shortcut:

tech>truth (but won't vote off an argument that is incomprehensible---probably won't be an issue)

1- LARP

1- T/Theory

2/3 - Ks (don't expect that I know the lit tho, explain)

3 - phil (I'm fine w the more common stuff like kant, hobbes, etc., but anything more nuanced pls explainnnn) Likely if you really know what you're talking about, I'll be able to catch on.

4 - tricks (I can probably evaluate them ok just never read tricks in high school so explain well)

*If any questions feel free to ask me before rd or email/facebook message me.*

Speaks:

National Circuit

- 29-30 : makes the strategic decision when collapsing, good explanation, writes out the path to the ballot (I think you should break)

- 28-28.9 : either makes the strategic decision or has good explanation and the one you didn't do isn't horrendous (you're on the bubble to break)

- 27-28 : don't make strategic decisions and explain poorly

- 26 : defend something racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc.

Local (I'm pretty lenient I think)

- I'll likely give speaks by the 0.5

- 29-30 : speak clearly, sound knowledgeable about the topic, and make good arguments

- 28-29 : don't do one of the above

- 27-28: don't do two of the above

- +1 to speaks if you don't use all your prep time (by like a decent amount)

Note: Things that are bolded in my paradigm are things I think people are generally looking for or I think are worth noting about my preferences. Read the bottom for my speaks paradigm; the TLDR paradigm is the third paragraph in this top section. Everything in this paradigm has a logical justification; ask me if something doesn't make sense and I'll be happy to explain.

Intro: Hi I'm Austin. I mainly debated LD in high school, but I'm familiar with most other event formats. I graduated from Northland Christian HS in 2020 and UT Austin in 2022 with a psych major phil minor. I'm currently a 2L at Texas Law. I competed on the local and national circuit all four years of high school (and have been judging/coaching consistently since graduating), so I like to think I'm pretty up to date on the technical nuances of LD. Add me to the chain at abroussard@utexas.edu. Feel free to email me with specific questions before the round or thoughts on how I could improve my paradigm!

TLDR paradigm: I really love highly technical debates especially on a theoretical layer but I'm good with evaluating policy, kritik-al debate, etc.; by nature (even outside of debate) I default erring on the side of the person who is most logically consistent which means I will not vote for you unless you are ahead on a technical level (absent someone proposing an alternative method for me to evaluate by);my opinion on anything in this paradigm can change, just make the proper arg.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

- I default args must be immediately sequential and/or allow for a sequential response ("concessions are true," "new 2nr args permissible," and "new 2ar args impermissible" are some noteworthy implications to this); this is my default because any other standard allows for the 2ar to always win by either answering arguments from the 1nc conceded by the 1ar/extended in the 2nr in the 2ar or by making new 2ar uplayers (i guess this means my actual default is against any paradigmatic stance that theoretically allows either side to win every debate because that defeats the purpose of the ballot/there being an adjudicator); please ask me about this point if there is any confusion before the debate starts (also note this is not a rigid stance, just a default)

- I will NOT make arguments for you because I believe judge intervention is the worst for the activity; consequently if your opponent does something that propels a model of debate that is sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/abelist or something similar I will not drop them unless you mention it. It can be as simple as "they said/did x and that makes debate less accessible so they should lose." Otherwise the only thing I have jurisdiction to do is give them god awful speaks. To clarify if you don't say that they should lose for their discriminatory actions and they are ahead on the tech debate I will vote for them and be very very very sad about it. Please do not make me do this and call them out for being unethical. It's an easy ballot and better for debate.

- i'll evaluate arguments made as to why concessions don't make arguments true, extensions are unnecessary to win arguments, or any other argument you can think of

- I presume neg unless the neg reads an alternative that is farther from the squo than the aff's plan/advocacy (or presume aff/neg args are made, same for permissibility)

- tech>>>truth

- I default comparative worlds but love truth testing

- I will vote on literally anything given the proper framing metric and justification

- you don't have to ask me to flow by ear; I promise I'm both listening and reading your doc (to clarify, I'll catch extemporized blippy analytics)

- I probably default more T>K but that's really up to you

- Weighing makes me happy, as well as a strong fw tie/explanation

- For ethics challenges/evidence ethics calls reference the NSDA guidelines for this year; if the guidebook doesn't make a speaks claim I will either evaluate them myself given the speeches read (if any) or default normal round evaluation (meaning speaks spikes are viable)

- I don't have a default on disclosure at the moment but in debate I defaulted disclosure bad; regardless of my default it doesn't affect my ability to listen to either stance and adjudicate accordingly

- My ability to understand spread/speed is pretty good; feel free to go as fast as you want but please be clear

- Please please please ask your opponent if your practices are accessible before the round so you are 1. not exclusionary and 2. not susceptible to an easily avoidable independent voter; if you don't ask and end up doing something inaccessible you'll probably lose (provided they make it a voting issue); this includes giving trigger warnings

- flex prep is cool

- if you don't read a fw/fw is a wash I'll presume neg (same for voters on t/theory)

- you don't have to ask if I am ready for you to speak; I am probably paying attention (to clarify, default I am ready unless I say something that suggests otherwise)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pt. 1 Pref Shortcuts (by my confidence in my ability to adjudicate and 1 being most confident 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

Phil/High Theory- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

K- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

LARP- 1 to 3 (depending on density)

Pt. 2 Pref Shortcuts (by my desire to see them in round and 1 being most desirable 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1

Phil/High Theory- 1

K- 2

LARP- 3

note: I will be happy to adjudicate LARP it's just not my highest preference

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy

Plans:

- Love these please know what your own plan says though

- I default plans are abusive mainly because I never read one for its PeDaGOgiCaL VaLUe it was always for strategy but don't let this discourage you from reading a plan seriously they're fine

- Honestly severance is cool with me but if they point it out and make a theoretical reason to drop it could be hard to beat back; if they read a condo or dispo CP, however, it becomes a little easier to get out of

- the solvency section is important for plans, if you don't have one it's gonna be rough

- please have an advocate just for the sake of an easier theory debate

Cps:

- These are cool but better if they're actually competitive; read as many as you want just know anything more than 1 is hard to justify theoretically especially if it's not uncondo (although I love multiple cp debates)

- Any cp is cool (including actor, process, etc.) just make sure the 2nr extension is sufficient to vote on

- I default condo bad but don't let that discourage you from utilizing it as I think condo is super strategic (which is good for speaks), you just have to be technically ahead on the theory debate; feel free to read like 8 condo cps just know it's an uphill theoretical battle (but certainly not impossible)

- I default perms as an advocacy because they always seem to be extended as such but it is really up to you

Das:

- Probably my least favorite position because they all seem to go down the same path towards the 2nr, but a good explanation and coupling with a competitive cp makes this position much better

- the more unique the da the more I'll like listening to it (please don't make me listen to a basic three card econ disad unless you don't plan on going for it)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Phil/High Theory

General:

- Please do notttt confuse this with basic fw debate

- I used to read a few high theory positions but that doesn't mean my threshold for explanation on those positions is lower/higher than any other argument

- Kant is kool but I'm not a hack

- If the aff doesn't have a fw and the neg strategically reads a fw the aff can't link into, aff is probably losing

- If no one reads a fw I will probably not evaluate any post-fiat implications of either side and just vote on strength of link weighing (if justified)/presumption or a higher layer (i.e. I will NOT default util or sv for you this isn't pf)

- I'm hesitant to say this but I did read a decent amount of Baudrillard just know there is a reason why I stopped lol feel free to still read it though I love hearing it as well as any other high theory author

- I especially love hearing new philosophies that are either obscure or that I just haven't heard of yet; phil debate is one of my favorite parts of ld

- I am more likely to vote on presumption than I am to evaluate strength of link to fw in the instance I cannot decide which model to evaluate under

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kritiks

General:

- K Affs are fun but I am more inclined to err on the side of t-fw as that's what I mostly read and it seems intuitively true; it really depends on the framing metric though and I will definitely vote on a k aff vs t-fw as long as there is sufficient tech offense

- KvK is cool

- poems/music/art/performance can be offense and if you don't respond to it your opponent can extend it as conceded (I have no problem voting on conceded performance offense with the proper framing mech)

Fw:

- should have a ROB and/or ROJ (and the best ones are not blatantly inaccessible to one side)

- if your opponent asks you a specific question about the framing of your kritik and you cannot give them a cohesive answer it's gonna look bad

- if the distinction is unclear between the method the k evaluates by and the aff's you will have a hard time winning

Links:

- please don't read links that you yourself link into

- Having specific rhetoric from the aff itself or your opponent is great and much better than just topic/omission links

- I love seeing the extrapolation of links as linear das in the 2nr

- I am comfortable voting off state/omission links they're just boring

Impacts:

- you must have them and they must be unique; please do weighing as well because k impacts don't always contextualize themselves

Alt:

- explain plz; It doesn't have to be explained super well if your opponent doesn't press the issue but I need to have a basic understanding of what I'm voting on i.e. what the world of the alt looks like (unless a set col type arg is made about imagining the alt being a move to settlerism, etc.)

- Please don't make the alt condo/dispo if your k is about some sort of oppression it looks bad

- do not read two contradictory alts in front of me you will probably lose; if they work well together that's cool

Overviews:

- I LOVE these they make it easier to evaluate the line by line because all the big picture issues are out of the way

- Please make sure the overview is not just line by line in disguise (I was guilty of this) but is instead framing the ways I need to evaluate offense

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

T/Theory/Tricks

General:

- literally my fav the more you read the more I'll enjoy the debate as long as you know what you're doing

- friv is fantastic

Interps:

- please make them positively worded

- be careful of your wording; poor wording leaves you susceptible to easy i meets

Violations:

- have them and extend them in the next speech

- screenshots/photos are the best

Standards:

- there are really only like four good standards that the rest fall under categorically but it's whatever

- the more the merrier

- if you do fairness and education linkage inside the standard block I'll be happier

Voters/paradigm issues:

- I default rvi's good and competing interps unless otherwise specified

- I tend to default fairness first but am VERY easily able to be persuaded otherwise

- you must justify voters independently of the standards section (i.e. explain why fairness, education, fun, etc. matter)

Tricks:

- I evaluate these arguments like any other (if they have a claim/warrant/impact you're good)

- I think a block of text is funny but definitely annoying as far as the organization of your spikes/tricks so preference is at least numbering but it's really not a big deal if you can explain them well

- These arguments are generally so bad but if you don't respond or spend too much time messing with them the round becomes significantly more difficult for you

- I can be persuaded by some sort of spikes k so be wary

- I'm unsure if afc/acc are tricks, but know I'll listen to both and any other pseudo-trick

- aprioris and eval after the 1ac are the a-strat

- I'm fine with indexicals, condo logic, log con, etc. (idk how else to say i'll vote on literally any trick/arg generally)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speaks

General:

- I will grant a 30 speaks spike (i.e. give both/one of the debaters 30 speaks for x reason) as long as it's extended (or reasons are made as to why an extension isn't necessary)

- if no ties are allowed on the ballot I technically am unable to perform "give both debaters 30 speaks" and i'll evaluate like i normally would; if you know no ties are allowed/are uncertain if ties are allowed, spec 30/29.9 rather than 30s bc that's always permissible on tab (and i'll give the 30 to whoever would be ahead under my typical speaks evaluation unless told otherwise)

- if you're uncertain if tab

- I generally give speaks based on strategic decision making (and will try to justify the deductions if asked, although ultimately they're always on some level arbitrary)

- Anything that you do that purposefully makes your opponent uncomfortable, expresses discrimination/oppression, or generally makes the debate space unsafe will result in your top speaks being a 25 and more likely will result in a 0 or whatever the lowest allowed speaks value is

- for locals I generally give 28-30 and for nat circuit 27-30 unless the tournament has a specified structure; occasionally if the round is super underwhelming I'll evaluate a local like I would a nat circuit

- If you make me laugh you're definitely getting a speaks inflation but this is rare and it has to be genuine

- I'll clear twice without a speaks deduction and definitely have more lenience in the online format (i hardly ever clear anyways)

parent judge. will probably default util, no spreading. clear weighing, signposting, enunciation = good speaks

I am a retired speech and debate coach and am comfortable with all debate, speech and interp events. In CX I am a stock issues/policy maker; in LD I am more traditional; in PF I look for evidence and analysis. Congressional Debate and Extemp need evidence and analysis as well.

General info for all debate—

1) no speed - this is a communication event

2) follow guidelines for each event that make that event unique.
3) I prefer a debate that is organized structurally so I may flow easier. I like internal structure like A, B, C and 1, 2, 3.

4) if an argument is not attacked it is a drop unless originator of argument fails to extend in which case it’s a wash.
5) CX is for asking questions not making speeches. Keep it professional.

Specifics

LD- I expect a value & criterion. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy. Regardless, I find standards to be important, especially how debaters respond. Please be sure to respond to the FW. I do not view LD as one person policy so be aware of your argumentation style.

CX- this is a team event and both partners need to be actively involved in the debate. I expect the affirmative to offer a plan. I am fine with counter plans but if one is presented it must be competitive with the plan (either mutually exclusive with the affirmative or be undesirable in conjunction with the plan). I am fine with disads. I don’t care for Kritiks and would prefer you debate the topic rather than make theory arguments. I want a friendly debate free of rude or negative comments and a cross ex that is meaningful and helps strategically set up future arguments. If you are varsity and debate a inexperienced team help make it a teachable round so they remain interested in the activity and grow as a debater- no need to beat them up and discourage inexperienced teams. I do evaluate the stock issues first and then look to policy making. I do my best to come to the debate with an open mind. I also like the debater to be clear in extending arguments, I expect credible evidence (explain why it matters) and to provide analysis and voters.

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Tim Cook, Salado HS

tim.cook@saladoisd.org

I debated in high school and college. I have been coaching for over 40 years.

TFA State

I will not tolerate speed! I will say clear and then stop flowing. If I don't flow it, you don't get it. I will not be flowing from a doc.

Don't run theory unless there is real in round abuse (Not a fan of theory).

K and other progressive arguments (Not a fan). Don't assume I am familiar with the lit on your K.

I am very traditional! Establish a framework and link offense back to it.

No flex-prep

Flashing part of prep time.

Congress

Prefer clash or topical AGD. Have 2 developed arguments with good evidence. Think think tanks.

Clash and no rehash essential.

Make me laugh! DO NOT BE RUDE OR OVERLY AGGRESSIVE. Have fun.

PO's must run efficient and fair rounds. Don’t make parliamentary mistakes.

Ask me more specific questions.

Speech/Extemp

I have coached multiple UIL State champions, TFA state finalist and TOC finalist.

Answer the question! Have a clear thesis and three germane points. Prefer quality over quantity of evidence. Love AGD to be weaved throughout the speech.

Prefer controlled gestures, not repetitive. Movement should have meaning.

Ask me more specific questions.

LD

Establish a framework and link offensive back. I prefer substantive arguments over the resolution.

I will accept any argument as long as it is not offensive.

I will not tolerate speed. It will definitively result in low speaker points and could result in a loss if I don’t flow your argument.

Topicality needs to have a real abuse story.

Theory, CP and K are fine. If you are reading a K don’t assume I familiar with the argument and literature. The K needs to have a pragmatic alt. Theory needs a real abuse story.

Make sure speeches are organized and responsive to your opponent’s argument.

Don’t make do a lot of work for you because I won’t.

CX

My default paradigm is policy maker. I prefer substantive arguments over the resolution.

I will accept any argument as long as it is not offensive.

I will not tolerate speed. It will definitively result in low speaker points and could result in a loss if I don’t flow your argument.

Topicality needs to have a real abuse story.

Theory, CP and K are fine. If you are reading a K don’t assume I familiar with the argument and literature.

The K needs to have a pragmatic alt.

Make sure speeches are organized and responsive to your opponent’s argument.

Don’t make do a lot of work for you because I won’t.

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com and strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

Hello,

My name is Justin Dwyer and this is my judge paradigm. A little bit about myself before I get into the specific things i look for when judging each event. I competed in speech and debate all 4 years of high school and also competed for 3 years in college in NPDA and IPDA debate. I at one point or another have competed in every debate type and most speech events. The main outcome that I think debate rounds should have is some educational aspect where each competitor leaves the round better than when they walked in. The other key component to every debate is clash. Clash is important when evaluating debaters and their cases. But now for the line by line of what i look for in each event.

LD:

In LD I was a very traditional debater. The philosophy aspect is huge when it come to deciding the round. That being said, you can win or lose a round with me strictly on the value debate. If you cannot uphold your own value or show me why yours is what should be looked at first it is very had to win. After that it is up to you as a debater to steer me to what you want me to vote for. If the value and framework debate is a wash I will look towards the voting issues brought up by both debaters. That being said, the more flushed out your argumentation is the better. I will not do the work on the flow for you.

CX:

When it comes to CX I am a judge that is very persuaded by the flow. If you do the work on the flow and give me reasons why that is important to the round I will be more inclined to vote for that side. I feel that K's and off case hold a lot of weight if used effectively to combat the AFF. I am willing to listen to any and all argumentations but, if it is more of a out of the box argument then you need to do the work to guide me on how it is relevant and how it adds to the debate. For the Affirmative the best defense is a good offence. If you can prove to me that voting for the AFF would in any way lead to a 1% net positive increase from the status que the round is almost decided for me. At the end of the day just make sure there is clash and all information presented is relevant and realistic to what the topic is asking for.

PF:

When it comes to PF I am a very lay judge. If you can persuade me to vote for you in a realistic way you win my ballot. In PF there is many ways to do that but for me the easiest is the flow.

When it comes to speaker points I feel like I might stray from some judges. I enjoy a nice pleasant voice as a lot of judges do but, the content of your speech also effects your points. Be effective and on topic along with that and you will garner more speaker points from me.

*Bolded information is for skimming if you're short on time.

**Online Tournament Notes: I'll unmute and let you know if you're having audio problems. Still comfortable with speed, but ask that we slow down a couple of notches from top speed to account for lag.

Round Info:

Feel free to just call me Kay; pronouns are she/her. I did policy for four years at North Lamar High School and graduated in 2017. I am currently a full-time social worker, so I don’t judge as much as I used to, which means that my topic-specific knowledge isn’t super high this year.

If you are using an email chain, my email is kay.edwards1027@gmail.com. If you are flashing, I don't want the flash and I'll ask if I need a specific piece of evidence post-round.

Attaching to the flash/email isn't prep unless it's excessive. If you're moving stuff between documents or around inside the document, that should be on the clock. If anything gets excessive, I'll let you know to start prep again.

Philosophy (all events):

Debate should be about the arguments you find "best" for you. I am comfortable and equally happy in well-warranted policy debates as I am in well-warranted kritikal or performance debates. When not given another framing mechanism, I tend to default to an offense/defense paradigm. My general answer to what "should" be allowed in a round is that theory read/answered by the debaters will parse that out.

[added on 2/23/2023] - For the sake of transparency, I want to add a few caveats to the above. The more I listen to it, the more I've discovered that I have a pretty high threshold for voting on disclosure theory. Just something to be aware of if you choose to read it in front of me.

Speaker Points (all events):

I assign speaker points on strategic decision-making and organization (including signposting and coherent line-by-line). I will dock speaker points for excessive rudeness, demeaning others in the debate, and intentionally making offensive/discriminatory arguments or comments in the debate.

Easy Routes to my Ballot (policy but also everything else really):

1. You should construct the narrative you want on my ballot. This means that I don't want to have to fill in internal links, test truth claims, or filter your offense through the framing that wins the debate.

2. Consistency across speeches is important. That means I'm not voting on 2NR/2AR arguments from the 1AC/1NC that aren't in the block or 1AR. I also have a pretty high threshold for buying arguments that are shadow extended through the block/1AR.

3. I prefer evidence analysis/extension over card dumps. I very seldom find dumping cards onto the flow in the 2NC/2AC compelling if I'm not getting some articulation of how the evidence functions in the round.

LD Paradigm:

I'm fine with everything from more traditional value/criterion debate to more policy-style debates, performance debates, etc. Have the debate you want and are most comfortable having. That being said, some of the less common LD arguments (skep, NIBs, etc.) are pretty out of my wheelhouse and will require some serious explanation for me to understand them enough to feel comfortable voting on them.

One other thing I like to add for LD'ers: winning framework (morality good, util good, etc.) isn't enough to win the debate if you aren't winning a piece of offense through your framing. I won't do the work of weighing your offense for you, either, so please show me how your offense connects to your framing.

PF Note (updated September 2020): I don't judge very much PF, but you all ask this question, so I'll go ahead and make it easy on you: defense isn't sticky. If you want me to vote on it, I need to be able to track the argument from speech to speech.

Feel free to email or talk to me in person before or after the round with any questions that come up!

TLDR: I am pretty tab and will vote on anything so long as its not morally repugnant and you tell me why it matters.

I would like to be on the email chain; Katyaaehresman@gmail.com . please time yourselves, flashing isnt prep unless its egregious. Let me know what pronouns you use & pls abide be your opponents pronouns.

Extensions of an aff arent 'overviews to the 1ar'.. they are just on case.. you prob want me to extend them n the flow not in a clump... idk why this is a trend

on this - i tend to haave a higher threshold for extensions, you need a warrant and impact for me to vote on it.

If things get uncomfortable, you need to leave because of mental health/personal safety reasons etc. just message me or knock on the table & give me some look and you will be allowed to go get water/we can stop the round/whatever is best in that situation. Debate should be safe & accessible in order to get these ~portable skillz~ all the kids are talking about.

Short version: Give me some sort of framework to weigh offense under or tell me why the impacts that you are winning are the top layer and I will be happy. I try to do as little work for you as possible so if you didn’t do big picture analysis or weighing the I’ll have to cipher through flows to make a more arbitrary decision and then we are all sadbois. You can read anything you want, though I am probably better at evaluating K/Larp debates and worse at evaluating dense Phil/friv theory debates ~~~ do with that what you will. I care about how you treat one another in round so if you are being obnoxious or problematic in anyway to your opponent, I will start dropping your speaks and if its irredeemable then I won’t vote for you. *shrug emoji* If you are worried about your behavior then… err on the side of being nice?????

Long Version:

I think paradigms are supposed to be more like what sorts of strategies I like to see on each type of flow to help you W30 in front of me so these are things that make me very happy:

Ks:

• Great, love them
• Pls win some sort of link or a reason why me voting for you matters & WARRANT it - I will probably call you on just regurgitating tags if that’s all you do for extensions.. do work please
• Performance is fine, the resolution isn’t always necessary as a stasis point if you tell me why - but I don’t have a default on this.
• PIKs are fine, be clear on what exactly you (my ballot) is solving for
• Subsequently I can be persuaded by PIKs bad, again just warrant it and do top level weighing

K affs:

• Again, love these! Read a wide spectrum of them myself.
• Apply strategy/framing issues from the K section here too
• Win why either talking about the topic is bad, your approach to talking about the topic is better, why your method or approach is good etc. and importantly what happens when I sign aff on the ballot.
• Don’t shy away from your off in the 1AR - a big pet peeve of mine is when debaters invest a lot of work into a solid K aff that has warrants about why your pedagogy or performance comes first and then you kick it and go for theory or barely extend it and the round comes down to the neg flows… don’t be like this

Performance:

• This is great, I love this - go for whatever you feel like/want, make the round your own - again just warrant why its important and importantly what my role in endorsing your performance is/why the round is important for this medium.

DAs:

• Great, some of my favorite debates are really good topical, substantive larpy rounds
• Give me clear impact calculus/ an internal link story
• I don’t think there are really many paradigm issues surrounding DAs normally… ask me whatever

CPs/PICs:

• Great and super strategic
• CP/Pic theory also viable - I don’t really have a default on pics good/bad but am probably persuaded that its good to test the policy of the aff from different angles
• Analytic, actor, delay etc. Cps are fine - just warrant solvency & competitiveness and give me some sort of net benefit to your world
• This is true with DAs too but try to give me some comparative worlds weighing, again - tell me where & why to vote

Theory:

• Have a low threshold for frivolous theory, would prefer people to just have substantive debate but I am very receptive to engagement and in round abuse preventing topical clash
• Just warrant an abuse story
• Go slow on interps

T/framework:

• very open to this
• If you’re hitting a k aff then try to weigh offense from the shell under the k fw - do interactions or clear layering, these debates get v messy v quick

Phil:

• Slow down a bit on long analytic dumps
• Err towards over-explaining phil warrants

Speed/speaks:

• Go as fast as you want but emphasize clarity
• I give speaks based off of strategy not speaking quality but strategy requires me to flow it and so clarity is somewhat necessary for that
• I will tank your speaks if you are rude, aggressive, say something morally repugnant, demeaning to your opponent etc. so pls don’t do this

TL;DR:

You should be good to run whatever you want as quick as you're comfortable running it. If there’s no framing, I default to offense/defense. Yes, I want the files too. Prep time doesn't stop until the doc is uploaded.

If you have any questions for me, or need to put me in the email chain: jteverett53@gmail.com

If you are a junior or senior and want to do debate in college, ask me about Texas State!! We have a nationally competitive program with speech events, NFA-LD (policy), parli, and public debate. If you have any questions about debating here at all just hunt me down or email me at the same email above!!

Hello! I am the current debate coach for Claudia Taylor Johnson High School in San Antonio, and was a 4 year policy debater in high school on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits for China Spring High School, and I competed in NFA LD, NPDA, and IPDA for Texas State, so I’ve seen tons and tons of debating styles. I'm here to evaluate arguments not to tell you what to run, so you can probably read any argument you're comfortable with if I'm in the back of your room. I tend to evaluate rounds based on an offense/defense paradigm, so I enjoy rounds with a lot of interaction between arguments and good articulations of their stories.

Speech drop is ideal, but email chain is fine. I'd like to be included in whatever form of file sharing y'all engage in. Prep time doesn't stop until the doc is uploaded (unless y'all are physically uploading to a flash drive and walking it to the other team, then prep stops when you start to walk the drive to the opponents)-- too many teams have taken advantage of their ability to "save the doc" to steal prep time.

I'm usually not looking at the doc during round, but occasionally I will based on how the round plays out. Don't count on me looking back over the doc to fill holes in my flow though, if you're not clear enough for it to end up on my paper then I'm not evaluating it. I look over evidence for questions of ethics, quality, or for resolving major points of interest in the round when I absolutely have to-- not to fill in blanks from what I couldn't catch.

For pref sheets:

Clash- 1

LARP- 1

K- 1

Trad- 2

T/Theory- 2

Phil- 3

Tricks- Strike/5

Feel free to ask me any other questions pre round!!

POLICY/NFA LD:

I enjoy watching K v K, K v Policy, and Policy v Policy rounds equally.

T/Theory: I love T and hold it at the highest standard in the round, when it’s used effectively. If T isn't your game, you probably don't want to run it in front of me because I always have a hard time voting for Ts that are blippy and not impacted out. I enjoy T debates that have a lot of clash on the reasons to prefer, and that attempt to compare the division of ground/education of each interpretation. Reasonability does not mean "You shouldn't care abt me bcuz im REASONABLY topical-"-- I have no idea what this means or how to decide whether you are or aren't "reasonably topical". Reasonability is about the aff's interpretation and its place in the literature/its division of ground.

Condo is fine, but it's on thin ice. I don't really have a preset threshold on how many conditional advocacies are okay, but I generally find myself enjoying watching rounds with less than 4 conditional advocacies more than rounds with 4+ in CX rounds. This doesn't mean that I'm not willing to vote on condo bad in rounds with less than 4 negative advocacies, this is just a statement of personal preference. For the LDers looking over this (NFA, or HS), I find myself enjoying rounds with less than 3 advocacies more than rounds with 3+.

I'm probably not voting on disclosure theory at a HS tournament unless we're at a TOC bid tourney (UIL norms, and new TFA rules), if you're a college debater you should be disclosing and I am very open to voting on disclosure theory.

I typically start theoretical questions from a "reject the argument" mindset-- I need a well warranted argument as to why I should reject the team to overcome this (with the exception of condo/dispo bad).

DA: Disads are great. Impact calc of some sort is key to win a disad (on both sides). DAs are won through the link chain, and lost through the aff’s offense.

CP: Counter plans are great. I like most CPs, and I really have any dispositions toward any CP (I've voted on PICs, Consult, Delay, International CPs, and many many more) however I am also more than down to hear a great theory as to why their CP isn't legit. I typically start the round from a drop the argument mindset and need warranted reasons as to why I should drop the team in these debates though. The only CPs I'm really suspect of are artificially competitive CPs (if you're confused what I mean, look here: https://www.debatemusings.org/home/stupid-cps-are-stupid ) but, I have in fact voted on them before.

I'm not the biggest fan of judge kick and start the round from the assumption I'm not judge kicking (however, you can make arguments for why this should change).

K: I love K debates, and I wish more teams would go for the K in front of me. This is the argument I collapsed on the most when I was competing. I like well constructed Kritiks that have good link chains, and solid alternatives. I probably haven't read the lit you're talking about in the K, so just assume that I haven't and make a concerted effort to explain it to me. Probably not the best judge for most Baudy (and friends), psychoanalysis, or any other high theory K-- I have voted on them, and am willing to vote on them again, but often teams who read these args just fill their overviews and tags with paragraphs of the most esoteric wording I've ever seen, and I often get lost in both flowing and understanding the round when teams do this.

K Affs: Go ahead, whatever is most comfortable to you. I enjoy good Kritikal affirmatives, and love both KvK and K v T/theory debates. Framework is definitely a viable collapse in front of me, but often teams who collapse on framework just won't resolve the offense on the flow when they go for it so I usually vote aff in these debates. If you are going for framework, make sure you're doing the work and establishing a clear link chain to the impacts on the T sheet.

A lot of judges say to be "in the direction of the topic"-- I think this is vague and arbitrary. You will probably have an easier time on the framework sheet with me if you are able to explain how your advocacy affirms the topic in some way or form, and you should still be arguing that we should change from the status quo (even if you're running pess), however I am also a fan of "debate about debate" Ks and I don't feel that the aff should be bound to being "in the direction of the topic" if they can win args about why the topic (or debate) is bad/exclusionary. That being said, if you can't win that debate then you'll probably lose the round. If you're not reading evidence that is at least somewhat in the lit for this year's topic, I'm also probably more likely to buy into impact chains on fwk/t-usfg (i.e. If you're debating on the college nukes topic and none of your ev is about nuclear weapons, predictability and limits become a lot easier to win on the neg. Same goes for the current HS CX income inequality topic/LD topic of the month)

Case Debate: I love good case debate, it's really a lost art now. If you're a good case debater, you should rely on that with me in the back of the room-- it will help you and your speaks out a ton.

Speaks: speaks are awarded based on performance, strategy, comfort, and your ability to bs without me catching you. Average speaker points for me typically come out to be a 27-28, stellar speakers range from a 28.5-29, and perfect speakers get 30s. Speaks will be docked if you’re mean, rude, or say something that comes out as harmful in any way possible (if you are being racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, etc. it's L 20s across the board). Speed is cool, just make sure you're being inclusive-- I also flow on paper because I'm not the quickest on a computer so you'll probably want to give me some pen time on tags and analytics.

-.5 speaks every time you say "Game over"-- idk how this became the standard grandstand of debaters, but it's the worst and you're better than having to rely on this to make it sound like you're winning.

This is true of all levels of debate, but it's something the NFA LDers looking over this need to pay closer attention to. Please chill out. There is absolutely no need to be as rude as I've seen the past couple of years in this event. Snide remarks in CX, unnecessary comebacks to questions, and general lack of respect for opponents is probably my LEAST favorite thing to watch in debate. I'd rather watch someone read a 7-8 minute NC of only friv theory or 26 off a-z spec and be nice than someone execute the best strategy I've ever seen while being an ass. In CX, ask the question get an answer and move on-- there is no need to say something snarky after you get a bad answer (I promise I heard it too).

(The average speaks I've given in the spring '24 semester are approximately 28.26)

Miscellaneous things you might want to know:

You probably won't see my face a ton in debates. I am typically a "nose in the flow" type of judge and don't really look away from the papers on my desk to make sure that I don't miss anything. If I am making facial expressions, or if you see my hands in the air/on my head it is because you have said something incredibly confusing, egregious, or I have absolutely no clue where to write down what you are saying (or some combination of the three).

Prompting/open CX is generally fine, but if it's overused it could result in speaker points docked

How I evaluate things: Procedurals/theory first, Pre-fiat arguments second, Post-fiat arguments third

Tech over truth, but truth influences tech.

Most of these assumptions are subject to change from round-to-round depending on the args in round.

The only rules of debate are the speech times.

When I was competing I primarily collapsed on system/reps ks and T in NRs, and ran soft left/topical K affs with a bit of trad policy affs sprinkled in. I never ran a planless affirmative but have coached/judged/debated quite a few.

My ideas on debate were shaped by: Jeremy Hutchins, Michael Donaldson, Tony Wyatt, and John Anderson-- if you like these judges you'll probably like me as a judge.

"The past tense of flow is flew" -- Tony

High School LD:

I'm typically in the policy side of things, but I have been in many a value round and know more than enough to judge this activity. That being said, I typically find myself more engaged in progressive LD rounds than traditional rounds but please just run the round however best suits you and your style of argument. I love comparative analysis, impact calc, and rounds where there is a lot of interaction between y’all’s arguments. You can go as fast as you want. My off case positions remain pretty close to the exact same as policy, so you can scroll up to get a more in depth look at those specifically.

I typically find myself using the framework of the round as a heavy component when making my decision, so use your value and criterion strategically-- make comparisons, tell me why your opponents framing is wrong, and tell me why I should care about your impacts through the lens of your value, debaters that do that work usually have an easier time winning my ballot.

If the values in the round are the same, or if there's no sort of clash on values for why I should pref one over the other then I typically find myself defaulting to looking for offense and defense on the flow. I'm probably a bit more flow oriented than some other judges you might see, I pay very close attention to my flows and if there's not an argument on it then it's not in the round. That being said; having good case structure, signposting, and line-by-line really helps yourself out with me.

I thoroughly enjoy good phil debate (especially on topics that don't use the word "ought"), although I am not a philosophy head myself. I will make a pretty key distinction here though-- I am not a fan of these cases that are 5 minutes of abstract framing that, half of which aren't carded, spewed out as quickly as possible and then two cards that are like "oh yeah, and one minor link to the rez", I do not enjoy this style of argumentation. 1) these cases are incredibly hard to flow (too much flowery language, confusing concepts, lack of cards, and spreading through taglines/analytics), and 2) they rarely make a full argument which means the other side doesn't have an incredibly high threshold to meet in terms of answering these cases. That being said, if you're doing the work to explain your case, how the contentions back up the framework, and explaining what my ballot does and what it says when I vote for you you will probably do just fine with this style.

Tricks is bad debate, and I have a hard time justifying a vote on most tricks even if they're straight dropped. I wouldn't recommend running this style of debate with me in the back of the room-- even if you win on tricks with me, your speaks are probably getting tanked (expect a 27, tops).

World Schools:

I competed in collegiate NPDA style Parliamentary debate, so I have relative familiarity with the event and how it works, although I am very unfamiliar with the norms in this style of debate. I operate off of an offense/defense paradigm, so I appreciate a lot of interaction between arguments. Please focus on your warrants, and the logic behind your arguments-- just because this is a non-evidentiary form of debate (or at the very least, the evidence standards are not as rigorous as other events) doesn't mean we shouldn't have complete arguments with a claim, data, and warrant. There are a lot of WSD rounds where students will get to the third or fourth speeches and will be saying "We said 'x', they dropped that" and then that's all they say on the argument-- don't do this, it will not get you very far with me. When extending arguments tell me why it's important that they dropped it, and/or how the argument impacts the round as a whole. I usually find myself deciding these rounds based off of the framework, so good comparison between the competing burdens and resolutional analysis will probably help you. If you have any specific questions before round just be sure to ask!

Head coach at Plano East Senior High.

I enjoy judging IEs most.
In Extemp: at TFA State I will be randomly source checking 1 source per speech, let’s not be making up our sources plz

In LD, I’ve gotten much more progressive, but I tend to still favor traditional.

-I do not like Kritiks; they are generic and lazy debating - I will not vote for them. If you can run the same K all year on all the topics, that's a problem.

-On case attacks are important!

-Theory & CPs good.

-Do not read at me while giving voters.

-2AR does not necessarily have to be line-by-line.

-I understand spreading, but if you become unclear I will say "clear" once, and after that, if you do not clear your speaking, I will stop flowing, more than likely hurting your chances. 7/10 speed please. Slow down on tags please.

In PF, I’m traditional. I don’t like spreading in PF and there should definitely not be CPs, Theory, Kritiks, or anything like that.

In Policy, pretty much the same as LD above, except I have more tolerance for Ks in Policy because it is a year long topic and you have more time to read lit. I have a lot less experience in Policy than the other debate events, but I have some competitive UIL CX history and can cross apply progressive LD knowledge.

In all debates: I do not tolerate rudeness - especially in cx/crossfire. I love seeing passion in rounds, but being passionate about your topic does not mean you get to be rude. Excessive rudeness/terrible attitude results in lowest speaks possible.

Include me in on email chains: madison.gackenbach@pisd.edu

I look forward to hearing you speak!

Overall:

Speed (Spreading): Don't spread if you can't do it properly! Speak quickly but if I can't understand you...I'm out.

Flow (Prep Time): USE YOUR PREP TIME! It is there for a reason. If you drop something or your argument isn't well rounded and you didn't use your prep time....hmmm...see the problem here?

Style (Interaction): I prefer the debaters to not get nasty towards each other but I also want you to stand your ground. There is a style to doing this without sounding like a teenager who isn't getting their way.

Arguments: You have your case...present it. Ask the questions that are needed.

I am a fairly quick thinker so if you miss some of the lingo that's okay but be sure I can pick out what is what in your argument. It should be well developed and structured so that both the judge and opponent(s) can flow your case.

LD: I prefer a round that is both debaters giving their cases at their best. Don't look for what I "prefer" or care about seeing; just give me what you've got and leave it all in the room.

Policy: I think my policy paradigm is the same as my LD. I love a good cross; it's there to ask as many questions as you can and get as much info as you can...be aggressive here if you have to.

sarah.gonzales@rcisd.org

grossly overqualified parent judge

Current affiliations: Director of PF at NSD-Texas, Taylor HS

Prior: LC Anderson (2018-23), John B. Connally HS (2015-18), TDC,UTNIF LD

Email chain migharvey@gmail.com; please share all speech docs with everyone who wants them

Quick guide to prefs

Share ALL new evidence with me and your opponents before the speech during which it is read. Strike me if this is a problem. A paraphrased narrative with no cards in the doc does not count. This is an accommodation I need and a norm that makes debate better. I have needed copies of case since I was a high school debater. Even with me complaining about this, it often doesn't seem to make a difference. The maximum amount of speaks you can get if you don't share your constructive with me is 28.4 and that's if you are perfect. This guideline does not generally apply to UIL tournaments or novice debate rounds unless you are adopting national circuit norms/speaking style

PF:

Tech > truth unless it's bigoted or something

Unconventional arguments: fine, must be coherent and developed (K, spec advocacies, etc)

Framing/weighing mechanism: love impact framing that makes sense; at the very least do meta-weighing. "Cost-benefit analysis" is not a real framework. Must be read in constructive or top of rebuttal

Evidence sharing/disclosure: absolutely necessary but i won't ever vote for a disclosure shell that would out queer debaters. I will err toward reasonability on disclosure if there is contact info on the wiki and/or the case is freely shared a reasonable time before round.

Theory: I am gooder than most at evaluating theory but don't read it if you don't know how. Evidence ethics is very very very very very important

Speed: Fine. Share speech docs

Problematic PF bro/clout culture: ew no

Weighing: wins the majority of PF debates, especially link weighing

Default: offense/defense if there's no framing comparison or reason to prefer one method of weighing

Flow: yes, i flow

Sticky defense: no

LD/Policy:

LARP/topicality/MEXICAN STUFF: 1+

1-off ap, setcol, cap/1nc non-friv theory: 1-2

kant without tricks: 1-2

deleuze/softleft/psycho/non-pess black studies: 2

most other k/nt aff: 3

rawls/non-kant phil/heavy fw: 3-4

Baudrillard/performance: 4-5

queer pess/tricks: probably strike although I'm coming around on spikes a little bit

disability pess/nonblack afropess: strike if you don't want to lose

UIL: Pretty much anything is fine if it gets us through the round with minimal physical or emotional damage. Try to stay on the line by line. Read real evidence. Weigh, please. For CX, maybe don't read nontopical affirmatives against small schools or novices. For LD, make sure your offense links to your framing and that you have warranted justifications for your framework. Read on for further details

TLDR: Share speech docs. Don't be argumentatively or personally abusive. Debate is a game, but winning is not the only objective. Line by line debate is important. No new case extensions in 2AR or final focus. I will intervene against bigotry and disregard for others' physical and mental wellness. I don't disclose speaks, sorry :). I promise I'm trying my best to be nice. LD and policy-specific stuff at the bottom of this doc. I love Star Wars. I will listen to SPARK, warming good, and most impact turns but I generally believe that physical death is not good. Pronouns he/him/his.

Speaks range: usually between 27 and 29.8. 28.5 is average/adequate. I usually only give 30s to good novices or people who go out of their way to make the space better. If you are a man and are sexist in the space I will hack your speaks.

Note on ableism: It is upsetting for me personally to hear positions advocating unipolar pessimism, hopelessness, or the radical rejection of potential futures or social engagement/productivity by the disabled or especially the neurodivergent subject.DO NOT read disability pessimism/abjection or pandering arguments about autism to get me to vote for you. You will lose automatically, sorry

Post-rounding: I can't handle it. This includes post-rounding in email after rounds. I am autistic and it is psychologically and behaviorally triggering for me. I'll take the blame that I can't handle it, just please don't.

Afropessimism: I will vote you down regardless of any arguments made in the round if you or your partner aren't Black and you read afropess. Watch me I'll do it

I have the lowest threshold you can possibly imagine for a well-structured theory argument based on the refusal to share evidence not just with me but with your opponents.

Long version:

Personal abuse, harassment, or competitive dishonesty of any kind is strictly unacceptable. Blatantly oppressive/bigoted speech or behavior will make me consider voting against a debater whether or not the issue is raised by their opponent. If a debater asks you to respect and use preferred pronouns/names, I will expect you to do so. If your argument contains graphic depictions of racial, sexual, or otherwise marginalizing violence, please notify your opponent. Also see mental health stuff below, which is personally tough to hear sometimes. You do not need to throw trigger warnings onto every argument under the sun, it can be trivializing to the lived experience of the people you're talking about. Blatant evidence ethics violations such as clipping are an auto-voter. Try not to yell, please; my misophonia (an inconvenient characteristic shared by a lot of autistic people) makes unexpected volume changes difficult.

Our community and the individual people in it are deeply important to me. Please do your part to make debate safe and welcoming for competitors, judges, coaches, family members, and friends. I am moody and can be a total jerk sometimes, and I'm not so completely naive to think everything is fluffy bunnies and we'll all be best friends forever after every round, but I really do believe this activity can be a place where we lift each other up, learn from our experiences, and become better people. If you're reading this, I care about you. I hope your participation in debate reflects both self-care and care for others.

(cw: self-harm)

Mental and emotional well-being are at a crisis point in society, and particularly within our activity. We have all lost friends and colleagues to burnout, breakdown, and at worst, self-harm. If you are debating in front of me, and contribute to societal stigmas surrounding mental health or belittle/bully your opponent in any way that is related to their emotional state or personal struggles with mental wellness, you will lose with minimum speaks. I can't make that any more clear. If you are presenting arguments related to suicide, depression, panic, or self-harm, you must give a content warning for me. I am not flexible on this and will absolutely use my ballot to enforce this expectation.

PF: Speed is fine. Framing is great (actually, to the extent that any weighing mechanism counts as framework, I desire and enthusiastically encourage it). Framing should be read in constructive or at the TOP of rebuttal. Nontraditional PF arguments (K, theory, spec advocacies) are fine if they're warranted. Warrants in evidence matter so much to me.

PF Theory: I agree with the thesis behind disclosure theory, though I am less likely to vote on it at a local or buy an abuse story if the offending case is straightforward/common. Disclosure needs to be read in constructive. Don't read theory against novices. I will have a low threshold for paraphrasing theory if the violation is about the constructive and/or if the evidence isn't shared before the speech. Don't be afraid to make something a paragraph shell or independent voter (rather than a structured shell) so long as the voter is implicated.

I will always prefer evidence that is properly cut and warranted in the evidence rather than in a tag or paraphrase of it, especially offense and uniqueness evidence. I have an extremely LOW tolerance for miscut or mischaracterized evidence and am just *waiting* for some hero to make it an independent voter.. So nice, I’ll say it twice: Evidence ethics arguments have a very low threshold.

DO NOT PERPETUATE THE TOXIC, PRIVILEGED MALE PF ARCHETYPE. You know *exactly* what I’m talking about, or should. Call that stuff out, and your speaks will automatically go up. If you make the PF space unwelcoming to women or gender minorities, expect L25 and don’t expect me to feel bad about it.

I absolutely expect frontlining in second rebuttal, and will consider conceded turns true. I will not vote on new arguments or arguments not gone for in summary in final focus. No sticky defense.

"It's not allowed in PF" is not by itself a warranted argument.

Crossfire: If you want me to use something from crossfire in my RFD, it needs to be in subsequent speeches. I am not flowing crossfire; I am listening but probably also playing 2048 or looking at animal pictures. I don't really care if you skip Grand, but I won't let you use that practice as an excuse to frontload your prep use then award yourselves extra prep time.

LD/Policy Specifics:

Speed: Most rates of delivery are usually fine, though I love clarity and I am getting older. If you are not clear, I will say "clear." Slow down on tags and analytics for my sake and for your opponent's sake, especially if you don’t include your analytics in the doc. For online debates, the more arguments that are in the doc the better. I will listen to well-developed theoretical or critical indictments of spreading, but it will take some convincing.

Kritik: I have a basic understanding of much of the literature. Explain very clearly why I should vote and why your opponent should lose. For me, "strength of link" is not an argument applicable to most kritik rounds - I ask whether there is a risk of link (on both sides). Your arguments need to be coherent and well-reasoned. "Don't weigh the case" is not a warranted argument by itself - I tend to believe in methodological pluralism and need to be convinced that the K method should be prioritized. A link is *not* enough for a ballot. Just because I like watching policy-oriented rounds doesn't mean I don't understand the kritik or will hack against them. If you link to your own criticism, you are very unlikely to win. I believe the K is more convincing with both an alternative and a ballot implication (like most, I find the distinction between ROB and ROJ somewhat confusing).Please be mindful and kind about reading complicated stuff against novices. It is violent and pushes kids out of debate.

Theory/T: Fine, including 1AR theory. Just like with any other winning argument, I tend to look for some sort of offense in order to vote on either side. I don't default to drop the debater or argument. My abuse threshold on friv shells is much higher. I will not ever vote for a shell that polices debaters' appearance, including their clothes, footwear, hair, presentation, or anything else you can think of (unless their appearance is itself violent). I'll have a fairly high threshold on a strict "you don't meet" T argument against an extremely common aff and am more likely than not to hold the line on allowing US/big-ticket affs in most Nebel debates. One more thing - all voters and standards should be warranted. I get annoyed by "T is a voter because fairness and education" without a reason why those two things make T a voter. I don't care if it's obvious. Don't abuse theory against inexperienced debaters. A particularly egregious example would be to read shells in the 1AC, kick them, and read multiple new shells in the 1AR. Underviews and common spikes are fine. Please, I strongly prefer no tricks or excessive a prioris.A little addendum to that is that I do like truth testing as an argument, but not to justify skep or whatever dopey paradox makes everything false

Frameworks: Fine with traditional (stock or V/C), policy, phil, K, performance, but see my pref guide above for what I am most comfortable evaluating. While I don't think you have to have your own framework per se, I find it pretty curious when a debater reads one and then just abandons it in favor of traditional util weighing absent a distinct strategic reason to do so. I think TJF debates are interesting, but I seldom meet frameworks that *can't* be theoretically justified. Not sure if there's a bright line other than "you need to read the justifications in your constructive," and I'm not sure how good that argument is. I will vote on permissibility/presumption, on which I often lean aff in LD/policy.

LARP: My personal favorite and most comfortable debate to evaluate. Plans, counterplans, PICs, disads, solvency dumps, case turns, etc. Argue it well and it's fine. I don't think making something a floating PIK necessarily gets rid of competition problems; it has to be reasoned well. I'm very skeptical of severance perms and will have to be convinced - my threshold for voting on severance bad is very low. Impact turns are underutilized, but don't think that means I want you to be bigoted or fascist. Cap/heg good are fine. I'm very skeptical of warming good but will vote for it. To the extent that anyone prefs me, and no one should ever pref me under any circumstances, LARPers ought to consider preffing me highly.

Condo: Be really, really careful before you kick a K, especially if it is identity-related - I think reps matter. I am more likely to entertain condo bad if there are multiple conditional advocacies. More likely to vote on condo bad in LD than policy because of time/strat skew. One conditional counterplan advocacy in LD or 2 in policy is generally ok to me and I need a clear abuse story - I almost never vote for condo bad if it's 1 conditional counterplan.

Flashing/Email/Disclosure: I will vote for disclosure theory, but have a higher threshold for punishing or making an example of novices or non-circuit debaters who don't know or use the wiki. Reading disclosure at locals is silly. Lying during disclosure will get you dropped with 25 speaks; I don't care if it's part of the method of your advocacy. If you're super experienced, please consider not being terrible about disclosure to novice or small-school debaters who simply don't know any better. Educate them so that they'll be in a position to teach good practices in future rounds. My personal perspective on disclosure is informed by my background as a lawyer - I liken disclosure to the discovery process, and think debate is a lot better when we are informed. I won't vote on disclosure theory against a queer debater for whom disclosure would potentially out them. One caveat to prior disclosure is that I do conform to "breaking new" norms, though I listen to theory about it. In my opinion, the best form of disclosure is open-source speech docs combined with the wiki drop-down list. Please include me on email chains. Even if you don't typically share docs, please share me on speech docs - I can get lost trying to listen to even everyday conversation if I'm not able to follow along with written words. Seriously, I have cognitive stuff, please send me a speech doc.

Sitting/Standing: Whatever.

I do not care how you are dressed so long as your appearance itself is not violent to other people.

Flex prep/open CX: Fine in any event including PF. More clarity is good.

Performative issues: If you're a white person debating critical race stuff, or a man advocating feminism against a woman/non-man, or a cis/het person talking queer issues, etc., be sensitive, empathetic, and mindful. Also, I tend to notice performative contradiction and will vote on it if asked to. For example, running a language K and using the language you're critiquing (outside of argument setup/tags) is a really bad idea.

I do NOT default to util in the case of competing frameworks. If the framing debate is absolutely impossible to evaluate (sadly, it happens), I will try to figure out who won by weighing offense and defense under both mechanisms.

I tend to think plan flaw arguments are silly, especially if they're punctuation or capitalization-related. I have a very high threshold to vote on plan flaw. It has to be *actually* confusing or abusive, not fake confusing. I do like interp flaw arguments as defensive theory responses in the 1ar

I won't ever hack against trad debaters, but I am what you’d call a “technical” judge and if a debater concedes something terminal to the ballot, it’s probably game over. If you’re a traditional debater and the field is largely circuit debaters, your best bet to win in front of me is probably to go hard on the framework debate and either straight-turn or creatively group your opponent’s arguments.

Warrant all arguments in both constructives and rebuttals. An extended argument means nothing to me if it isn't explained. “They conceded it” is not a warranted argument.

Policy:

New for 2022: I'm older than most judges and I don't judge policy regularly anymore; I need you to slow down just a tick (300 wpm is fine if clear). I generally don't get lost in circuit LD rounds; think of that as your likely standard.

I was a policy debater and consultant at the beginning of my career. Most of this doc is LD and PF-specific, because those are the pools to which I'll generally be assigned. Most of what is above applies to my policy paradigm. I am most comfortable evaluating topical affirmatives and their implications, but I am a very flexible judge and critical/plan-less affs are fine. That said, just like in LD I like a good T debate and I will happily vote for TFW if it's well-argued and won. One minor thing is different from my LD paradigm: I conform a little bit more to policy norms in terms of granting RVIs less often in policy rounds, but that's about it. Obviously, framework debate (meaning overarching framing mechanisms, not T-Framework) is not usually as important in policy, but I'm totally down with it if that's how you debate. I guess a lot of policy debaters still default to util, so be careful if the other side isn't doing that but I guess it's fine if everyone does it. Excessive prompting/feeding during speeches may affect speaks, and I get that it's a thing sometimes, but I don't believe it's particularly educational and I expect whomever is giving the speech to articulate the argument. I am not flowing the words of the feeder, just the speaker. While I'm fairly friendly to condo advocacies in LD, I'm even more friendly to them in policy because of norms and speech times. I'll vote for condo bad, but it needs to be won convincingly - I'll likely err neg if it's 1 or 2 counterplans. Much more likely to vote for condo bad if one of the advocacies is a K that links to the counterplan(s).

Everyone: please ask questions if I can clarify anything. If you get aggressive after the round, expect the same from me and expect me to disengage with little to no warning. My wellness isn't worth your ego trip. I encourage pre-round questions. I might suggest you look over my paradigm, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask questions.

Finally, I find Cheetos really annoying in classrooms, especially when people are using keyboards. It's the dust. Don't test my Cheeto tolerance. I'm not joking, anything that has the dust sets me off. Cheetos, Takis, all that stuff. I get that it's delicious, but keep it the hell out of the academy.

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

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

Doc Sharing

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

Speed

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

General Principle

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

Speaker Points

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

Policy

Theory

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

Kritiks

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

Performance/Pre-Fiat

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

Competition

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

Condo

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

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

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

Disads/CPs/NCs

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

Philosophy/Framework Debate

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

Public Forum

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

1. Debate

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

2. Speech

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

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

Theory

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

Framework

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

Finally Word for All

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

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present

--

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

--

email chains:

ld email chains: loyoladebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)

--

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

--

My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it!

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else. These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).

note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.

--

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

i have a lot of experience and do a lot of tings ‼️ just do whatever you do best and tell me how to evaluate.

Email: teahmbang@gmail.com

Pronouns: She/Her/Hers

Hi! I'm Teah Mbang, and I competed for Tuloso-Midway High School from 2017-2020.

I did LD, WSD, Congress, Extemp, Info, and OO. I've been in out rounds of Congress on a national and state level, qualified to the national tournament all three years I was in debate, been invited to the extemp round robin, and I was TOC & NIETOC qualified in Congress, and Extemp.

First, I want to start off by saying, do what makes you comfortable and what you're good at. I firmly believe that debate is about education and having conversations that allow us to be better people and debaters. I would rather judge a round that you are comfortable having than a round where you're trying to satisfy my paradigm.

That being said, some things need to happen for me to judge the round to its full potential:

That being said there are some things that need to happen in order for me to judge the round to its full potential:

1. Ensure that you adequately explain your claims, warrants, and impacts. I shouldn't have to connect the dots when listening to your cases/rebuttals/speeches. Not only will this help me judge the round, but it will also help you and your opponent better understand what is happening.

2. Be persuasive! At the end of the day, you pulling me to your side of the debate is what you want, and it's what should happen.

3. Please, please, please, do not be rude in any way. As a former competitor, I know that rounds can get heated, but keeping calm is always the best option. I DO NOT TOLERATE RUDENESS IN ANY FORM. Simply put, I will not vote for you if you're acting rude, racist, homophobic, classist, xenophobic, etc. Let's create a safe place for everyone. :)

4. Tell me how to vote. If you tell me how to vote, why I should vote that way, and why it matters in the round, it'll be an easy ballot. Paint the picture for me, and don't leave me guessing.

LD:

In terms of LD, I've always preferred a traditional debate. I enjoy traditional value, criterion, and contention level debate. I firmly believe that a framework is essential and can sometimes make or break a round. With that, I'm not a fan of theory, unless there is clear abuse happening. I don't enjoy debates about debates because I think it takes time away from the topic and doesn't truly show your skill as a debater. However, I will vote for theory, if executed correctly. (If you run theory, have all the correct parts, and really stick with it through and through, then I'll vote for it.)

I'm also really fond of comparative worlds. What does the world of the AFF look like? What does the world of the NEG look like? Explain why I would rather live in one world over the other, and why that should matter at all in the debate.

Lastly, I do listen to the CX in rounds. I think it's excellent when debaters bring the questions or answers from the CX into their rebuttals. It shows that you were listening and genuinely trying to find a way to have the debate on your side.

Congress:

I've always had a love-hate relationship with Congress (as I'm sure you all understand). I think the debate concept is great. However, when you're actually in the round, I know it can be intense and often even toxic. As a congress judge, that's something I note. I don't care how great a speaker you are; if you're belittling others, I won't rank you high. Period. :)

Judges say this about a million and one times, I genuinely hate rehash! I know it's bound to happen, but keep it at a minimum, or just move on, so the round doesn't get bland. Additionally, I LOVE unique arguments because they add a lil something to the round, so if you make out of the box arguments, I'll note it.

I think crystals are great, especially if you're one of the last speeches! That being said, a crystal isn't you reading an early-round speech with just some refutation. It should be a whole lot of refutation about some of the biggest arguments made in the round.

Lastly, I do listen to the CX in rounds. I think it's great when debaters bring the questions or answers from the CX into their speeches. It shows that you were listening and truly trying to find a way to have the debate on your side.

Have fun, and good luck!

Current coach/DOF at Lindale High School.

For email chains: mckenziera @ lisdeagles.net

CX - This is where I have spent the majority of my time judging. While I am comfortable judging any type of round, my preference is a more traditional round. Debate rounds that are more progressive (kritikal affs, performance, etc...) are totally fine, but you'll do best to slow down and go for depth over breadth here. I think that judges are best when they adapt to the round in front of them. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

LD - Despite judging policy debate most, I was raised in a traditional value and criterion centric area. Still, I think that policy debates in LD are valuable. See my notes above about progressive argumentation. They're fine, but you'll probably need to do a few things to make it more digestible for me. Again, though, you do you. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

PF - I judge only a few PF rounds a year. I'm not up-to-date on the trends that may be occurring. I naturally struggle with the time restraints in PF. I generally feel like teams often go for breadth instead of depth, which I think makes debate blippy and requires more judge intervention. I'd rather not hear 20 "cards" in a four minute speech. Framework is the most reliable way to construct a ballot. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

Congress - Speeches should have structure, refutation, research, and style. Jerky Parliamentary Procedure devalues your position in the round.

Speech - Structure and content are valued equally. I appreciate, next, things that make you stand out in a positive way.

Interp - Should have a purpose/function. There's a social implication behind a lot of what we perform. I value great introductions and real characters.

About Me:

NLHS Policy 2013-2017

UT 2017-2021 (just judging, no debate)

A&M Law 2021-

Top Level

Email for chain: steelemusgrove17@gmail.com

Email for contact: steelemusgrove@yahoo.com

The easiest thing I can tell you about my paradigm is that I am tab. I'll vote on anything, and I essentially ran anything while I was in high school, so you're not going to lose me in running any of your favorite arguments.

Further in-depth stuff (this is primarily for policy, but can be cross-applied to LD (or PF I guess)):

When I say I'm tab that means that I will vote in any framework you give me, don't mistake that for if you win the framework you win the round (this is especially true in traditional LD). I have voted for teams that lose the framework debate, but still had better offense under the opposing framing. Therefore, you need to both win your framework and meet that framework better than the opponent to win the round. However, if you don't run a framework I default to an offense-defense paradigm where I vote on whichever team has managed to generate the most offense.

If you're baffled by a decision it is because you did not warrant. I am a stickler for warranting, especially in extensions, and if you don't extend a warrant, even over a dropped argument, then I'm not doing that work.

Kritiks

Like I said, I'm tab, so naturally I'm fine with/a fan of Ks. I am NOT a fan of 2NC/2NR overviews of kritikal buzzwords that do nothing to advance debate in the round. I'm not 100% read on all K literature, so if you're going to use technical terminology - define them, tell me how they relate to your alt, to the link debate, and to the aff. Line-by-line is generally much easier for me to flow and understand a K debate.

That being said, I would avoid reading one-off K in front of me. I won't vote down one-off K on face, but I find that it's not terribly strategic, and doubly so if you're the type to concede all of case by going for the one K. All of the eggs in one basket just isn't good strategy, and it's super boring to listen to.

People will talk about how you need a specific link - I'm not that type. If the aff has a good reason that you need a specific link then you should be able to provide one, but a good generic link to the topic, state, or debate will suffice without aff contest.

Presentation

Stylistically I don't really care what you do. I can handle your spreading if you can handle your spreading. If you're unclear then don't spread. Furthermore, signposting is an absolute must between flows and cards. That can be as a simple as saying "next off" or "onto the K," and between cards inserting an "and." If I miss a card or argument that you didn't signpost clearly where I should've flowed it will not be evaluated, and that's on you.

Offensiveness in round is always bad, and I'll penalize any aggression appropriately depending on severity of the aggression. There are instances where you might just be ignorant which will only result in a minor speak penalty and a stern reprimanding in RFD. Above all, be polite to your opponents. You can be competitive, but don't be rude, especially in CX.

Redundancy isn't great. That means reading a bunch of repetitive cards, putting an explanation under a card that explains the card you just read, or just saying the same thing over and over. I get tired of this quickly and it does harm speaks. Card dumps seriously aren't persuasive or strategic about half the time. If you're card dumping like five new impacts onto a undercovered disad in the 2NC that's chill, but just reading like 5 uniqueness cards that all say the same thing isn't.

I evaluate speaks through strategy, not presentation. A 30 happens through really good decisions, time allocation, unique argumentation, etc. I can't tell you what exactly gets a 30, nor will I attempt to define it further decisively here, but I know it when I see it.

Theory

I don't err anything on any argument before a debate, so all theoretical objections are up for dispute. That being said, I've seen a lot of debates where people read two shells at each other (such as states bad v. good) and don't have any actual clash. If that is the ONLY sort of argumentation being put down on a theory flow before the 2NR/2AR, do not try to convince me to vote for theory because it'll end up being a wash, and I'll vote on presumption.

Speaking of presumption; I tend to vote it on it a lot because many people end up not winning anything. So in the case that there doesn’t seem to be any offense for any team I default to presumption. Most of the time for me that means neg, but if there’s an alternative advocacy on the flow then it goes aff. If you have a different model of presumption in mind - make it an argument, but otherwise that's how I vote.

Note about disclosure: I have an impressively high threshold for voting on disclosure, and there are a number of ways that debaters articulate disclosure that I find objectionable. Please do not make arguments for disclosure based on the capabilities of small/rural schools (especially if you are from a (sub)urban/large school). Moreover, please do not read interpretations that mandate your opponent post any sort of contact information on the wiki - I will not vote on this interp no matter how hard you're winning the flow.

T

I wouldn't say that I have a high threshold for T, I will vote on T if you win it, but you need to win each part of the T: interp, violation, standards, and voters. (Theoretically you could get me to vote on a T with just an interp, violation, and standards if you win that a stock FW is good)

The "all three branches T" is really popular right now. I'll vote on it, but it's the worst T argument. Nothing uses all three branches because that's not how government works.

Disads/CPs

I don't think you absolutely have to have either of these in the 1NC to win; if you like em, go for em, and if you don't, don't. I'm not a person who's super convinced that things have to be super specific or anything like that - generic links are fine, just try to contextualize to the aff or give a good scenario analysis.

Misc.

Please, god, do not sit at the door weirdly if I'm in the room waiting for my queue to give you agency. Just walk in. I'm the judge; you are ALLOWED to come in if I'm in here.

I don't care where you sit. I don't want to shake your hand before or after the round (especially true as of March 2020).

“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer, and if you use it it’s minus 1 speak.

Same thing goes for asking questions that are prefaced with "in your own words."

I am timing, my time is the time. You should still time yourself. I do not give signals during speeches, CX, or prep.

This is specifically for UIL tournaments: there's no such thing as "UIL style" and most "UIL rules" aren't actually rules. Any appeal to the UIL that aren't in any UIL handbook will not be flowed and is again, -1 speak.

PF Debate:

- I don't judge this event nearly at all, but please just select sides in such a way that pro always speaks first. I get confused when it's reversed.

- Also, there's nothing I hate more than the PF convention of sharing evidence. Please just flash entire cases.

I debated at Lake Travis High School for 4 years (2015-2019). I did mostly LD, but have some experience in PF, Policy, and even Congress. I debated TFA, UIL, NSDA, and TOC circuits. I ran a lot of queer theory, ableism, and LatCrit.

Put me on the email chain blake.a.ochoa@gmail.com

For PF

You can run whatever you want but don't think that because I'm an LD judge I will hack for theory or other progressive arguments. If anything it is a strong uphill battle because you will have so little time to flesh out a shell. If you think genuine abuse occurred you are better off just saying that on case than trying to read a full shell.
I need the summary and final focus to write my ballot for me. Tell me what you are winning and why it outweighs. If you don't do these things then I will have to try to figure it out myself and you are less likely to like my conclusion than if you just tell me how stuff breaks down.
You can go moderately fast but if you are just trying to go fast to scare/keep your opponent from engaging you won't get good speaks.
Refer to the speaker point scale and procedural things below, most of it still applies to PF.

Be nice and have fun!

Short Version

I will vote on anything as long as I get a clear explanation of it, but frivolous theory/tricks will be a steep uphill battle for you. I did mostly K debate, but I am well experienced in LARP, Theory, and traditional stuff as well. I won’t hack for you just because you read a K. Impact everything to a framing mechanism. I like to have a very clear explanation of what argument operates on what layer of the debate. If you go over 350 wpm you run the risk of me missing arguments. I’ll say slow/clear/fast/loud twice before it affects your speaks. I give speaks based on strategy, but being polite is a side constraint. Be nice and have fun!

Speed

I did circuit debate, so I have a decent understanding of speed, that being said slow down on important texts, analytics, and dense T/Theory analysis. If you flash me evidence I don’t care how fast you read the evidence as long as you aren’t clipping. I probably cap out around 350-400 wpm, so I might miss things over that. If you make a winning argument at that speed and I miss it, that’s your fault, not mine.

K

Note: I’m ok with 1AR K’s, but for convenience I will use neg speech titles

This was my favorite kind of argument to read in high school, but for that reason it is wise to ensure you are familiar with any K lit before you read it in front of me. I will judge based on how you articulate the argument, but I might look frustrated when you say incorrect things. I have a MUCH better understanding of identity K’s than high theory stuff, but both need to be clearly explained by the end of the 2N. I feel iffy about PIKs in general, if you want to read a PIK in front of me make it clear why perm doesn’t solve in the NC. To vote on K’s I need a clear link, impact to a framing mechanism, and a thorough explanation of the alt. If you wind up kicking the alt and going for the K as a linear DA, I will hold the link explanation to a higher standard.

T/Theory

Note: I’m ok with 1AR theory, but for convenience I will use neg speech titles

I have a strong understanding of how T/Theory functions, but I didn’t read it much, so if you are going for nuanced/ specific offense make your analysis twice as clear as you normally would. I will definitely vote if I see clear abuse, but frivolous theory will likely get an eye roll and higher expectations of what your analysis has to accomplish. I think in-round abuse outweighs potential abuse. If you go for norm-setting arguments it will be harder or you to win the theory flow (You need to win why you winning this particular round will set a norm). I will always look to paradigm issues before I analyze what happened on the T/Theory flow proper, so don’t waste your time going for a shell if you are gonna concede drop the argument. I DO NOT like a 1AR collapse to RVIs. If this is your best option in a round, go for it but I will be bored and sad.

Tricks

I have a complicated relationship with tricks. I guess I would vote for them if they are conceded, but you won’t get very high speaks because I don’t think that there is much educational value to debates that come down to “They conceded the B subpoint of the second justification of the 5th presumption spike.” That’s gross.

Basically if you want me to vote for tricks that are piffy and serve no purpose other than to confuse your opponent, I’m not down. If you supplement tricks with something more in depth go for it.

The only scenario in which I will drop you for tricks is if your opponent has a disability that is explained and you STILL go for tricks after that explanation is made.

DA

If I am going to vote on a DA with no advocacy associated I need a strong explanation of a solid link and an impact to a framing mechanism with reasons why it outweighs. I don’t think there is much else to say here.

CP

I like interesting counterplan debates, meaning that the more nuanced/fleshed out your CP the better. I think it is important that the CP text itself makes sense and isn’t a paragraph long. PICs are ok but please make them distinct enough from the affirmative to keep the debate interesting (like actor changes are fine but delay/consult Cps make me sad). I need a net benefit, solvency advocate, and an extended CP text to vote on it. A conceded perm is damning so don’t concede perms please.

Phil

My understanding of philosophical frameworks is pretty average. I have a good grasp on Kant, Hobbes, Butler, and other common stuff, but if you are going beyond the normal stuff, that’s fine but PLEASE explain it clearly. Regurgitating buzzwords will make me go “>:( .” As long as I can use your framework as an impact filter, you’re good. I do, however have an ethical problem with tricky framework for the sake of being tricky for the same reason I think Tricks debates aren’t educational. To clarify, if you can’t explain the framework to a fifth grader in the time of cx, it’s too tricky. Also, if your framework justifies morally reprehensible things and you defend those things, I won’t vote for you and your speaks will suffer.

Value/Criterion

Although I did a lot of circuit debate, I still really appreciate a good value/criterion traditional debate. Framework analysis is much more important in traditional debates, but I don’t think reading a counter framework is necessary. However, I want every impact to be contextualized in terms of some criterion/standard. If you don’t articulate why your impact outweighs your opponent, I will have to intervene and then no one will be happy.

Speaks

30-29 Seriously impressed

29-28 Pretty good, you should break

27-28 Some glaring strategy issues

27-25 Your strat was DOA or you said something overtly problematic or mean

25-0 You were so rude/ problematic that it made the debate feel unsafe

• If you make me think about the debate space/society in a different/enlightening way I will slightly inflate your speaks

Procedural Things

Here are my defaults, the lower on the list they are the less time it needs to change my mind

• Role of the ballot is the highest layer of framework
• Case can be cross applied to T/Theory
• No RVIs
• Reasonability
• Drop the argument

I do NOT have a default for layering offs (K before T, etc) so you NEED to do this analysis in front of me

I am generally tech/truth unless you are just lying (like saying that global warming isn’t real)

I will be disappointed/drop speaks if you do this

• Not clearly answering cx questions (especially status of advocacies and what layer comes first)
• Are occasionally rude (sass is ok, but teasing is not)
• Not giving content warnings before possibly triggering arguments are made

I will drop you if you do this

• Say or do anything explicitly exclusionary
• Act egregiously rude or blatantly mean towards your opponent (if you don’t know if what you do is ‘egregious’ or not it probably is)

Sandra Peek

CX Judging Paradigm

I have been teaching 32 years and coaching 17 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80’s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have.

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. In the absence of a framework, I will revert to policy maker, which is my personal preference. Unless you have an exceedingly strong policy advocacy and an exceedingly clean link story, I do not want to see a performance aff or neg.

SPEED- I prefer a moderately-paced debate. I understand the need for speed in the 1AR, and I can follow well-signposted fast argumentation. However, I want to hear the text of the evidence. I am not okay with speed so fast that the words in the evidence are not enunciated.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts and then signpost as you go including numbering. Additionally, before you speak put your speech on the flash drive or email chain so that it is easy to track prep time. I prefer most negative positions to be started in the 1NC . Disads,CP, and T should always be started in the 1NC.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks and affs. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond rejection.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are almost essential for the negative. I will vote a disad down if the aff articulates and wins that the link fails. I generally will not vote on a minuscule chance of the disad or on a “try or die” analysis from the affirmative. In sum, I want impacts to have a reasonable chance of happening before I consider them in my impact calculus.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

INHERENCY-I will not vote on inherency unless the negative proves outright that the aff plan is already happening. I don’t think I have ever actually voted on inherency.

SOLVENCY- I like solvency and vote on it often usually in conjunction with another argument.

COUNTERPLANS- I vote on them and generally accept that they can be topical.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss based theory arguments and will vote on them.

FUNDING- I cannot remember a time when I found funding arguments convincing (by saying this I am NOT saying that I do not like funding-based DA’s).

GENERAL- Open CX is fine if both teams agree except at UIL tournaments where the rules forbid it. Be certain that one gender is not preferred over the other through interrupting or condescending. I will not vote for those engaging in overtly racist or homophobic speech. Kicking is fine but be certain to make it clear. I do prefer the negative to sit on the right and the affirmative to side on the left.

LD Judging Paradigm

I have been teaching 30 years and coaching 17 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80’s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have.

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. In the absence of a framework, I will revert to value/criterion, which is my personal preference.

SPEED- I prefer a moderately-paced debate. I understand the need for speed in the 1AR, and I can follow well signposted fast argumentation. However, I want to hear the text of the evidence. I am not okay with speed so fast that the words in the evidence are not enunciated.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks on both aff and neg. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond reject.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are sometimes out of place in LD. I will generally vote a disad down if it is not intrinsic to the resolution.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

PLANS/COUNTERPLANS- I'm not a huge fan of these in LD but will not automatically vote them down. When there are policy-based resolutions, they often get my vote.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss based theory arguments and will vote on them.

GENERAL- Rude/sexist behavior and/or racist speech will result in lower speaker points. I will not, on principle, vote for those engaging in overtly racist or homophobic speech. I do prefer the negative to sit on the right and the affirmative to side on the left.

PF Judging Paradigm

I have been teaching 30 years and coaching 17 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have. In PF in particular, I think slower debate is better since the intent of the event is for everyone to be able to understand it.

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the pro wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the con wins framework, I will evaluate that way. In the absence of a framework, you put yourself at risk of me simply judging on policy impacts.

EVIDENCE- I think paraphrasing is fine, but be sure those that paraphrasing can be defended with actual correctly cited evidence.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- In my opinion, there is very little time to flesh out arguments like this in a PF round, so unless they are extremely easy to understand and carefully linked to the resolution, I would prefer debaters not use them.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- While the arguments do not have to be labeled as advantages or disadvantages, in most PF rounds I actually weigh impacts to make my decision so regardless of what you call the arguments, you should impact out this way.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

PLANS/COUNTERPLANS- In my opinion, plans and CP's are rarely a good use of the limited time in PF. Occasionally, CP's work if they provide a counter-narrative to the resolution.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss-based theory arguments and will vote on them.

GENERAL- Rude/sexist behavior and/or racist speech will result in lower speaker points. I will not, on principle, vote for those engaging in overtly racist or homophobic speech. I do prefer the con to sit on the right and the pro to side on the left.

1/8/24-edited to update years experience

Hi, I am a parent judge.

Keep debates grounded. Presentation is REALLY important to me. Explain things in layman terms.

I am a retired speech and debate coach. I coached almost all the events. I was a policy debater in high school and college (a long time ago).

Congress:

Be prepared. It is frustrating to take multiple in house recesses because nobody has a speech. Be active in the chamber (ask questions, make helpful motions or suggestions). Refute and/or reference previous speakers. Please don’t rehash. I love a good synthesis speech but don’t often see them. Good Presiding Officers are appreciated and will get ranked well.

Speech:

Public Speaking: In general, I prefer a more natural/conversational style and audience engagement. Ideas should be well supported. Transitional movement should be natural and appropriate for whatever space you are in. In extemp, the points should directly answer the topic question and the sources should be recent. I'm big on content so I'm looking for depth of analysis. In Info. I like to hear an interesting topic that isn't something everyone already knows about. Visuals should not be static - i.e. just a bunch of small pictures. In oratory, I appreciate good content balanced with humor. The solution section shouldn't just be a sentence or two.

Interp: Again, I prefer natural, believable characters. I appreciate good technique but it shouldn't be the focus. Put me in the moment with you and make me feel.

Debate:

I default policymaker but will vote for critical frameworks. If you are going to run a K, however, you should assume that I have not read the lit. and will need clear explanation. Things I like to see in a debate round: impact calculus, evidence comparison, clear signposting (If you make me guess where it goes on the flow, it might not be on my flow.) Please, please, please extend your offense. Things I don't like to see: blippy theory arguments, reading 5-10 pieces of evidence that all say basically the same thing combined with no analysis of how it responds to the argument, repeating arguments rather than extending them. Don’t go for everything in 2NR. Don’t kick the puppy rule: If you are clearly winning the round against a much less experienced team, be kind. Please feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Speed: Slow down on tags and authors (and anything else you want on my flow). I don’t care how fast you read evidence. I broke my right thumb in a car accident and although it has healed, writing is still painful. Speech drop or an email chain would be much appreciated.

I am a hired judge who graduated in 2017 from Plano Senior High School.

I am currently an enrolled senior majoring in Economics at the University of Texas - Austin.

I've judged all four years of college, and almost every event (Save for CX). In high school I competed in LD, Congress, extemp, and OO. This year I have probably judged over two dozen rounds of LD, a handful of rounds of PF, four each rounds of Congress, OO, HI, DI, and USX/FX

LD

Before, I usually tended to say that I am a tab judge; now I have developed more of a tendency to wield my near-absolute — nay, absolute — power within the round to force you poor debaters to comply to my desire of a round that is fun for me to judge and allows me to provide a RFD that is satisfying to both myself and both of the folks for whom it actually carries any weight.

With regards to types of arguments I'll hear, what matters most is the justification. I'll obviously gut-check a lot of claims made, but, like my fleeting youth, my gut has become more sensitive in recent years. Ks should be unique and specific to the topic at hand; they should be relatively close to what is being debated rather than monumental and apocryphal arguments that I, myself, would feel uncomfortable acting as the arbiter of what is right or wrong. Theory would preferably be in shell form, and ought to (ought to) demonstrate real harm within the round, rather than a cheap way to pick up a ballot. Disads should be within a realm of believability and plausibility. Performative cases — I appreciate the personal dedication that is put into them, but I must admit that I do not know how to fairly evaluate them.

The dreaded topic: speed. This is where I allow the largest portion of cattiness to emerge, as I typically say "go at your own risk"; simply put, if I cannot understand, I will not evaluate it. I will also not read your case rather than listen. You can call me lazy, old fashioned, or a whole other litany of derogation, trust me, I've been called worse. Ideally, you speak at a rate slightly faster than conversational; the operative word here being "speak." I also greatly appreciate when a debater is able to match the (slower) speed of their opponent. It is a true test of argumentation and economy if you are able to pick up a round even while getting less on the flow than usual.

I can greatly appreciate folks who discuss intriguing philosophical arguments — debates about values and frameworks are by far my favorite, and really demonstrate the depth potential of LD. Nishida is one of my favorite philosophers. Benhabib is another favorite. Neither might be applicable to topics this year.

Please be courteous to your opponent.

PF

Ah, public forum. What a wonderful world, one where you have a friend in the game. Ideally, you and your partner work well together.

I generally believe that there is a reason that PF and LD are separate events, beyond merely the addition of a partner. We should focus on tangible arguments, rather than philosophical ones. We agree on values, generally– how do we best carry through on them? This is public forum debate. Make arguments (and speak them) at a level that is accessible to the public, including my sweet old Brooklyn bubbe. Extend your warrants.

I am almost entirely opposed to LD concepts such as Ks and theory showing up in PF. I will almost never decide on them.

Remember evidence rules. I will go beyond my most basic duties and, yes, occasionally call to see cards.

Again, be courteous.

If anything is unclear, please do ask me before the round.

Congress

Rate of delivery should be deliberate - practice word economy and don't go too fast. Usually, two arguments in a speech is standard, or one new argument and one detailed, warranted rebuttal/clash to other speakers.

Evidence needs to be both legitimate and specific to the point you are making; it is difficult to prescribe a general number of citations, but if you are building a link story in your speech, then you need several, or if you're using a policy proposal by the CBO, for example, one citation may be enough.

Repetition of arguments is bad, obviously, but clash needs to feel extemporaneous, not over-rehearsed. Debate on a topic should eventually boil down to specific issues rather than repeating generalized overarching political beliefs.

Presiding is difficult to do when we're online, but POs should try to control the room as best they can with an emphasis on fairness, and an attempt to encourage less participatory members of the room to participate as much as they can.

Speech

Extemp: Should be conversational but informative; evidence should be used frequently. I prefer a minimum of two citations in each main "point", but more is always welcome. However, evidence should not be the main focus of the speech, rather, it should complement the argument you are making to make you sound convincing. For virtual delivery, moving around the room is awkward, so try to find any way to demonstrate you are moving from one point to another.

Oratory and Info: Make deliberate but sparing use of pauses and vocal emphasis (don't overdo it since it loses meaning). Evidence here should be complementary to the goal of the speeches, and doesn't have to be purely academic/research - stories, anecdotes, etc, do count! I think virtual delivery does not necessarily negatively affect the content of speeches, so just try to make sure you are being as engaging as possible.

Interp: Teasers/intros are preferably entertaining and have a "hook" but not too overwhelming in content/do not confuse the audience. Blocking should be deliberate and not over-animated, as gestures need not distract from the actual content. Since movement is limited in virtual settings, I won't be looking for it - just don't try to overcompensate for lack with movement with excessive blocking or gestures. Character work is appreciated.

Author intent needs to be appropriate and realistic enough, I guess. I don't think I appreciate it when competitors use a piece that is too mature for the setting or has curse words just for the hell of it; most important is that you show me you understand the topic and its gravity.

World Schools

I have judged one round of World Schools this year and I have enjoyed it. I believe I was the chair for the round. I like to flow WS like I flow LD, with a particular emphasis on sources and impacts.

I would liken World Schools to a pragmatic team strategy game; a team must understand how to respond to arguments and which to prioritize to best demonstrate their understanding of the topic and the strength of their advocacy.

With regards to practical vs principle arguments, I take a pragmatic approach; if principle arguments are well-crafted and clearly dominate the round, I would be likely to weigh them more. If principle arguments are more muddled, I tend to fall back on practical arguments.

I would deduct points if a speaker is speaking too quickly. An important part of debate is demonstrating that you are able to craft an argument in a concise manner. Speaking quickly is an attempt to get around the time limit rather than actually engaging in what I consider the difficult but rewarding aspect of debate. This in particular flows together with a speaker's strategy: if you can condense your speech down to the most compelling arguments while discarding those that are less convincing, you are demonstrating your understanding of the topic and using it to your advantage: strategy.

To resolving model quibbles/countermodels, I prefer to weigh the strengths and weaknesses to see which form is most convincing and follows rational logic best.

Paradigm:

I'm essentially a tabula rasa judge in that I will listen to justifications for any paradigm that you can convince me to hold  That isn't to say I don't have biases, but I can be convinced to vote against them if you set up standards, win them, and meet them.  One bias that I do hold (and it can be overcome) is that I default to seeing myself as judging the resolution up or down.  That is to say, if you affirm the resolution, I vote affirmative.  So, if you want to, say, run a topical PIC from the negative, you need to tell me why I should write "negative" on my ballot for something that is affirming the resolution.  

Speed:  

Speed is fine so long as you are not skipping syllables or slurring your speech. Too many debaters have a tendency do this to gain speed.  If you want to go faster than you can anunciate, you do so at the risk of losing me.  Slowing down on taglines and citations is always a plus, because I tend to organize my flow around cards (unless you get very theoretical, in which case, I'll switch to line numbers...so number your arguments in this case). It's also a good idea to get louder (and clearer) on phrases within the card that you especially want me to hear.  Doing this will ensure your argument gets on the flow in context.  Most judges like to hear cards and not just taglines, so we can evaluate source indictments.

Flashing:  

I'm evolving on flashing.  I once disliked it because I noticed that it made teams stop flowing, and resulted in less line-by-line rebutting.  This is an unfortunate habit.  I still allowed it because were some teams who managed to handle it just fine.  I think reading clarity is also sacrificed when flashing, because there is not the added pressure of having to be understood by your opponent.  But you still have to be understood by your judge!  Email chains are no better than flashing, by the way, and differ only in that judges are sometimes included in the chain.  I tried this once, and I realized that *I* stopped flowing!  It's not to say that I don't like being in on an email chain (so I can look at it during prep), but if you send me briefs, I will still not flow with them. 

On the other hand, teams who flash look more critically at their opponents' evidence and are less likely to accept the tagline as an accurate description of what the card says.  Even though all of the above problems are real, this new critical way of assessing evidence makes it worth it to flash.  So, flash away, but don't let that stop you from flowing!

This paradigm works for CX, LD and PF, but I should add that 

1) in LD, I am sympathetic to suggested paradigms that flow from the resolution.  For instance, if a resolution includes a call to action, a plan makes more sense.  If it doesn't, then not so much.  I can be convinced to shift this bias, but you must tell me why.

2) in PF, I tend to think more like a lay judge, since that is the spirit of the event.  I will be evaluating speaking skills and your ability to make logical arguments more broadly persuasive to a reasonable (but lay) audience.  That isn't to say I won't follow the flow if you get technical, but I will give you some lattitude to use grouping to buy time for more pathos and ethos.

My email address is icowrich@yahoo.com

About

• Director @ Coppell
• Assistant Director @ Mean Green Comet
• Debated NDT/CEDA at North Texas
• Please add me to the email chain and/or doc: sykes.tx @ gmail.com

Basics

• This document offers insight to the process I use to make decisions unless directed to do otherwise.
• Clarity is important. I'm also working to adjust my speaker points to keep up with inflation.
• I won't claim to be perfect in this area, but I believe debate has strong potential to build community. Please play nicely with others.
• I view all debate as comparison of competing frameworks. I considered myself a flex debater, and I’m willing to evaluate all arguments.
• I will attempt to minimize intervention in the evaluation of a) the selection of framework and b) the fulfillment of the framework's demands.

Theory/Topicality

• I believe the topic can provide debatable ground, but I don't think that should necessarily be exclusive of other arguments and approaches.
• On questions of framework, USFG, etc. I strongly recommend grounding arguments in academic literature whenever possible. I am particularly interested in how debate shapes agents of change.
• Consistent with my view of competing frameworks, for example, there is no difference in my mind between "competing interpretations" and "abuse." Abuse is a standard for evaluating competing interpretations.

Defaults/Disads

• If the framework for evaluating the debate involves a disad, be aware that I generally determine the direction of uniqueness before the link, and these arguments together speak to the propensity for risk.
• If forced by lack of comparison to default on framework, I will consider time frame, probability, and magnitude of your impacts as part of cost benefit analysis of endorsing the affirmative advocacy.

Counterplans/Counter-advocacy

• I don't believe I have strong predispositions related to counterplan types or theory.

Kritiking

• The division in the community between "kritik people" and "policy people" frustrates me. We should constantly seek more effective arguments. Questions of an academic nature vary from method to application.
• A working definition of "fiat" is "the ability to imagine, for the purposes of debate, the closest possible world to that of the advocacy."

Rebuttals/How to win

• You should either win in your framework and show how it's preferable, or simply win in theirs. This applies to theory debates and impact comparison as much as anything else.
• I find that many debates I judge are heavily influenced by the quality, persuasiveness, and effectiveness of warranted explanation and comparison.

Lincoln Douglas, specifically

• While my background in policy debate leads me to a more progressive perspective toward LD, I have evaluated many traditional debates as well. You do you.
• I am open to theoretical standards in LD that are different than those in CX, but understand that my experience here affects my perception of some issues. For example, I may have a predisposition against RVIs because there are vastly different standards for these arguments across events. I'll do my best to adapt with an open mind.

Public Forum, specifically

• PF should transition to reasonable & common expectations for disclosure, evidence use, and speech doc exchange.
• Email chains and/or speech docs should be used to share evidence before speeches.
• Evidence should be presented in the form of direct quotes and accompanied by a complete citation. If you must paraphrase, direct quotations (fully cited with formatting that reflects paraphrased portions) should be included in the speech doc. If I feel you've abused this expectation (e.g., pasting and underlining an entire article/book/study), I won't be pleased.
• Time spent re-cutting evidence, tracking down URLs, or otherwise conforming to these conventions should be considered prep time.
• Regardless of the way the resolution is written, I think teams should make arguments based on how the status quo affects probability. Uniqueness and inevitability claims, therefore, would greatly benefit the analysis of risk in most of the PF rounds I evaluate.

Congress, specifically

• I have a surprising amount of congress experience, including placing at nats in HS and coaching a TOC champion. That said, I'm not sure I can say a lot here that doesn't likely seem intuitive to most.
• Remain active in the chamber. Move things along. Stay engaged.
• All speech & debate should be rigorous. I'm interested in quality of research and depth of content. If you're one of those kids who makes fun of prep that happened before the round, I'm curious why you're here.
• PO - be efficient, kind, firm, and cover any unfortunate mistakes well. Be aware, though, that mistakes with respect to precedence or procedure can be devastating. Also, speak. I loved to PO, but it's hard for me to imagine winning a big tournament without ever giving a speech.

Note: I've been off the circuit for quite some time so be mindful. Not familiar with current topic literature.

Flay <------------------*Me*------------------------------------------->Ultra Elite Tech Judge

*I'm somewhere in between Flay and Tech prob

General

E-mail chain: minhhyt@gmail.com

With that being said I am most comfortable with trad/stock/policy arguments.

DA’s - not much to say here other than case-specific stuff is always great.

CP: CP needs to be very clear and obvious, for example, net benefits need to be explicitly extended, explained, and repeated.

Theory: go slow, make sure to clearly articulate why I should vote off of any theory arguments. Winning all parts is needed. If the abuse is not really clear and you're doing something sketchy, I'll be annoyed. I have very limited experience with Theory so if you don’t dumb it down to ELI5 levels i’ll be lost :( Run at your own risk (of me not understanding). On a personal level, I actually do enjoy evaluating theory arguments and want to get better at judging them but alas, my experience is limited. I'm open to arguments about how the way we debate impacts the activity.

K- Not familiar with K literature so take time to explain. If you talk in a bunch of jargon that I don’t understand I will not evaluate it. Run at your own risk. GO SLOW. If you don’t go slow, and I mean slower than you think slow means, I will inevitably vote “wrong” cause I’ll be lost.

If you are still absolutely keen on engaging in a prog debate despite the caution, I will of course still consider evaluating the arguments given. However, please do the following and don't be annoyed if I give a, in your opinion, "wrong" RFD. If that worries you, please strike me.

1. You MUST make sequencing arguments and emphasize them (ie. opponent conceded RoB so evaluate X argument first, theory comes prior to K because X, fairness is important so let me weigh case or else entire AC is mooted). If this is 1 point in a list of 15, that's not what I mean. Specifically, call out the argument. I need to know the "hierarchy" of which level of the debate I should be evaluating first.

2. Absolutely go slow. You don't need to slow down to a conversational level, but please slow down significantly. If you read off a file with 15 different points in 20 seconds, I'm not going to absorb anything. I will not absorb file dumps, you must pick and choose which arguments to prioritize and slow down. Especially slow down when you are collapsing to round-winning points.

3. Do not go in with the assumption that you can blitz through a pre-prepared shell or file and that I will automatically understand everything. You have to dumb things down for me. This is especially true for dense K literature or complex theory args. What do I mean by this? Use more everyday language and if throughout your entire speech, you never look up and try to explain things to me from the top of your head, you're probably doing things wrong and I will absorb nothing. If you choose to blitz through a file dump, at the very very least summarize at the end and highlight your best points.

4. If any of this confuses you just clarify before round.

____________________

Other notes:

Speed is fine but as always, slow down when appropriate such as during tags, theory, analytics. Especially take time if what you’re saying is crucial to winning the round. If you’re going to rapid-fire through analytics pls include it in the speech doc because I’m a poor typer.

Assuming the debate doesn't devolve into condo good/bad, you cannot kick out of an argument by simply saying the magic words "kick" and then it disappears. This is mostly true if your opponent has read a turn that generates offense for them. Be specific about your kick. For example, if your opponent reads multiple turns and includes terminal defense, then concede the terminal defense as a way to kick out of the arg to avoid evaluating any of the turns as offense for your opponent. Of course, different situations require different kicking strats but you should get my point. At the very least you can just argue that your cleaner pieces of offense outweigh any of the turns from your kicked argument. TLDR answer any offense.

Impacts should definitely be framed so I want comparison and impact calc. I need to know how timeframe, probability, and magnitude all compare w/each other.

Overall, I really like case debates but that doesn’t mean I won’t evaluate other stuff.

Again, because of my limited experience evaluating progressive args, don't assume I'm at all familiar with any K literature, common Theory args, etc...

Open CX is okay with me.

Tech > Truth most of the time

No Tricks

ON prep time, flashing/email chain doesn’t count as prep but don’t make it ridiculously long.

PF Specific Notes

I don't have experience with super progressive arguments so run them at your own risk. I will always prefer traditional arguments. If you do decide to engage in K debates etc..., refer to my points in the general section. I am capable but not the best at judging more common theory arguments (ie. disclosure), evidence violations, and problematic author indicts, and am terrible at judging non-T Ks, High Theory, tricks, among others.

Make sure to properly weigh. If you just say, I am winning on timeframe, magnitude, scope, etc... without actually explaining anything, that is not weighing and I will be annoyed. Also meta-weigh when necessary. If both teams claim that they're winning on time-frame and don't do anything further to breakout of the gridlock it's a wash. Make sure to collapse when necessary. Smart collapsing will win you the round.

For final focus please provide clear voters and weigh your impacts. Whatever you bring up during final focus should have been extended cleanly throughout the round. The more you outline for me why you are winning, the easier it is for me to vote for you. Judge instruction is critical in this speech.I will be hesitant to vote for any 1-liner arguments that are dropped on the flow unless you spend the time to properly contextualize and implicate why that argument matters for the ballot.

Open CX/ Flex Prep is fine.

If you don't signpost properly I can't flow your argument and thus I can't vote on it.

IE

All aspects of the performance should have a purpose, whether that be body movement or the use of various rhetorical devices. In the same way, just as things can be underdone so too can things be overdone. For me, I prefer if speeches do not feel over-performative or dramatized. Though this may change depending on the event, I generally like to see more natural gestures. In all, I really want to be drawn in as a part of the audience rather than spoken at. Your speech should be able to immerse me into the topic. Part of doing that is making sure to have a clear organization (distinct points, thesis statement) and always staying on topic. As a side note, my biggest pet peeve is if you talk in a completely monotone voice for the entire presentation, so be mindful of that.

Update for Nationals 2021:

I am a math and philosophy major in college as of right now. It has been months since I last judged LD.

I listen to all arguments and judge the round solely based on arguments provided in the round, unless I deem an argument outlandishly false or offensive.

If you make the ballot easier for me to decide, your speaker points are going to be higher. This means to make the round clear.

Do not assume that I am familiar with your position. A good overview and thorough explanations are always appreciated. They will likely win the round for you.

Please don't spread (that means don't speak like Eminem in Rap God).

Have fun! I always welcome paradigm questions before round.

Update October 23, 2020:

I won't say slow or clear on the internet environment. It is too distracting. So you should ere on slower

If you don't try to steal prep and instead start your speech right after you "end prep time", you get extra speaks.

If you are debating online, don't go as fast as you would in in-person tournaments! Slowing down a bit will only help you. Spend your time on the cards. Slow down on taglines.

Update Feb 14, 2020:

Have fun debating! I listen to all kinds of arguments. I was an LD debater in the national circuit two years ago. I am now a philosophy major in college. I am slightly tech over truth, although I believe they are really inseparable. If you have any other questions, ask me before round.

In Short:

1. Slow down on taglines and analytics. I will say "clear" and "slow", but if I have to say multiple times it will reflect on your speaks. I would like to be on the email chain. My email is yancheng_wang@northlandchristian.org

2. Speaks are given mainly on how clearly you interact your arguments (voters) with your opponents', and how you explain your arguments in context. Also, a clearly articulated presentation will probably beat a fast but muddled speech on speaks.

3. I will generally only vote on arguments and voters given in round. That being said, please don't run offensive or stupid arguments to extend that I have to consider my responsibility as a judge to create a safe academic safe.

4. Ask me questions before the round if you are uncertain about things.

5. Explain. Explain. Explain. Reading a prep-out from your coach doesn’t mean you are the better debater, hence it won’t mean you are entitled to win automatically. Argument interaction is key.

6. Respect everyone in the room and have fun! LD is fun :)

Specifically for 2018 Apple Valley Tournament, it is likely that I am not super familiar with the topic, so don't expect me to know your topic specific jargon. Explain well.

Full

I debated for 3 years at Northland Christian School in LD. I went to both local and national circuit tournaments. I never considered myself an excellent debater, but I think I have a solid understanding of arguments. I might ere on tech over truth, but only to an extent.

General

-I default to comparative worlds

-I prefer a more moderate/slower debate. I am ok but not great at speed.

-Give me voters.

New Positions

I love new and fresh arguments! If you bring up something new to debate and interesting, i.e. an inspiring framework, a unique diagnostic kritik, I would be happy and you could get more speaker points. I do this because I think it is good to encourage adding something new to LD.

I will rank how I like the following types of arguments from 1-5. 5 means it is my favorite to judge/vote on, and 1 means I would have a headache.

Theory--3

Theory should be an observation of what a good LD round should or shouldn't look like (your interp) and its justifications(standards) and the impact in this round. Hence, I would vote on potential abuse. Your standards/voters need to justify why your interp is a good normal/rule to have in debate.

Theory debates tend to be very muddled and unclear. There can be a lot of information in a short paragraph. That being said, if you can make the theory layer very clear, I would be more likely to vote for you. The following are my defaults, but they only play a role when there is no argument made in round about them: Competing Interps, Fairness and Education are voters, Theory is a higher layer. For RVIs, it is up to the debater.

Frivolous theory is fine, but I prefer not judging a round that has thirty standards and fifty subpoints and ten voters. Again, make it clear why you should win. Pick one voter to go for.

Topicality--2

I do believe that the aff needs to be somewhat topical, but you still need to tell me why—it is about you debating. If you want to win on topicality, it is vital that you tell me why your definition is better than your opponent’s. I think T and theory are the same layer, which means you have to do weighing.

Kritik—1

I like kritiks, and I think they are really important, but the interaction between dense Ks sometimes throw me off. I am more than willing to judge good K debates because they tend to be very clear and thoughtful. What I don't like is when you run stuff you don't even understand, which is shown when you keep repeating yourself without explaining it in depth or in context. In general, I am not a good judge for you if you expect to run something that no one understands and just win because of it.

I am fine with radical kritiks. I also like it when you are enthusiastic about your Ks. But if you are running any K outside of the realm of the common ones, PLEASE articulate and explain it well for me to understand. That means, I encourage you to run new, but you need to be good at it.

When I evaluate K debates, the most important thing is how your criticism applies in context. If you are criticizing your opponent’s position, it should be more than generic. What does it mean in context of the aff? How does the aff advocacy/methodology fall to your criticism specifically? What does it mean?

In addition, I do think the impacts of the K need to be weighed. I think K is a higher layer only because it re-defines what the ballot means. That doesn’t automatically mean that your IMPACTS are more important. Your opponent still has a chance to outweigh you under your framing, so winning the ROB doesn't mean you automatically mean—you need to explain how you meet and outweigh, even if it is just a brief extension.

Framework/Philosophy—1

I think philosophy debates are very interesting and educational. I think it is also the best form of debate to allow a good debater to win, not just good case positions or good cards.

In philosophy debates, I won’t vote on blippy arguments or arguments that are poorly explained. Reading a bunch of short arguments is fine, but you have to extend and expand them into voters to put weight in them.

I like weird philosophies, but again, you have to understand it first and be good at it. Especially for phil—I won’t vote for you unless I see your harms clearly linked to your framework. I consider skepticism as a philosophy (sort of), so you can run skep in front of me. But I don't like when you run it as tricks—I think that is what has earned it such a bad name.

LARP—1

I like judging LARP debates. They are usually pretty straight forward. Telling a good story will probably get you good speaks and a win.

There is not too much to say. Your extinction impact won’t automatically outweigh, unless it is the only weighing in round. A dropped or under-covered turn is not a guarantee for a win. You need to make weighing arguments.

I am Dyspolity@gmail.com on email chains.

NSDA update:

I love judging here. Principally this is because the schools who compete the most robust circuits have to slow down and I get to be a meaningful participant in the debates. I am not fast enough to judge the TOC circuit and even my home circuit, TFA can have me out over my skis trying to follow. But here, my experience has been that the very best schools adapt to the format by slowing their roll and this allows me to viscerally enjoy the beauty and rigor of their advocacy. Do not confuse my pace limitations with cognitive limits.

Who I am:

Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.

I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools and currently I coach at Athens in East Texas. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments.

I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.

Likes:

Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.

Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is almost never one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.

Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.

Dislikes:

Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.

Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?

Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.

Circuit level speed.

I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.

Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you are functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.

One More Concern:

There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.

Policy Debate:

I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.

LD Debate:

Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.

I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.

PF Debate:

I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.

Congress:

1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. 3)I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. 4)If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. 5) Your language choices should reflect scholarship. 6) All debate is about the resolution of substantive issues central to some controversy, as such clash is critical.