I am a Double Diamond retired debate coach.

I'm a LD purist. I believe there are three ways to win an LD round:

1. You argue how your Value Premise (VP) is more important to the topic than your opponent's Value Premise.

2. You argue how your opponent's VP is not important.

3. You make arguments showing how your VP can do both your VP and your opponent's VP.

Use any methodology you choose to achieve 1-3.

How to lose:

Don't make voters clear for me.

Muddling the round with extraneous crap.

Not defining words in the resolution. (Remember definitions are intrinsic in supporting your VP.)

Not speaking clearly.

Make sure you avoid the post hoc ergo propter hoc error.That is, x follows y so y caused x.

I am a coach and a traditional type of judge.

Generally, while I don't mind a debater talking fast, I loathe spreading or spewing. I do not think there is any skill in just talking fast. If i cannot keep with your arguments in my flow, you risk losing the round.

In LD, because it is a value debate, I tend to focus on Value and value criterion in judging rounds. Your contentions should be connected to your value and criterion. I don't see a problem with counter-plans but they should be presented in the context to prove your value and value criterion.

In PF the winning team will have a well researched, well organized case. A strong framework is important, and the team that can show, through their evidence and their arguments, impacts will likely win.

When I was a High School student at Mountain View H.S. in Orem Utah. I participated in Policy Debate. After graduating, I then went on and was accepted on the University of Utah's debate team and competed in the NDT Circuit for a year. After graduation, I volunteered several times to judge high school debate tournaments as an alumnus for MVHS. Much later I became involved with debate again with Skyridge High School as the assistant coach.

I love a good policy debate! I have come to appreciate and respect Public Forum. I also have a fondness for Lincoln Douglas as I was initially a Philosophy and Political Science major at the UofU before moving into Computer Science. I will judge Individual Events, but I feel inadequate at times in this area.

Speed of speaking is not an issue for me. I will flow the entire round save perhaps the rebuttal speeches. I do request that the speaker is able to face the judges and also have their mouth be visible. I am somewhat hard of hearing and having a visual indicator of speech helps me understand better. Clarity should not be sacrificed for speed. If you cannot speak clearly at high speed you should slow down. I will not penalize teams who speak more slowly and thus are required to group arguments. The most persuasive argument should win regardless of speed of delivery.

I try to be a Tabula Rasa style judge and leave my personal political leanings outside of the room. I will vote for arguments that I find distasteful if I believe that they have been presented clearly and persuasively and the alternate team has not defended well against them. I count myself as a politically moderate independent.

I will vote for Topicality arguments if they are presented well. I will vote for a Kritik. I will vote for a Counterplan. I would prefer to have clash though and see a good policy debate. I do not mind tag team cross examination. Please be respectful of one another.

I prefer to disclose and give oral critiques if I am allowed to by the tournament organizer.

Best of luck to the competitors and participants! My goal is to help spread debate and critical thinking. Even if I vote against your team, I hope that you have a positive experience.

For email chain exchanges please use vbillings@entangling.net

Do not speak too quickly as it does not allow me to fully grasp what you are saying. I understand that sometimes a lot of information needs to be shared, but not at the expense of understanding for those listening.

Pretend that I know nothing (but I do, I have a lot of judging experience) about your topic, which sometimes may be true, and explain what you think I may not know for clarity (i.e. abbreviations, acronyms, jargon, etc). Then convince me why your side should win.

For LD:

I'm a value based judge. I expect to see you discuss the value and to tie back your contentions to your value. Although you do not have to win the value to win the debate you can adopt the other debater’s value and argue your side achieves their value better. I will be flowing the entire round. I will expect you to tell me why to vote you and when to vote in your favor. I expect you to argue for your contentions as well as rebutting the other debater’s argument. I did foreign extemp and LD in high school so I understand the rules and you can feel free to use all the debate jargon you want. I expect you to use evidence cards as well as logical arguments. I try to be as objective as possible and base it on what you guys say not my own opinions. I can keep up with fast speech fairly well as long as we don’t get so fast we start speaking like policy debaters. Overall be thoughtful, clear, and well spoken and give good arguments grounded in your value.

For Foreign and National Extemp:

I’m a foreign extemper in my heart still. I expect for extempers to use evidence by quoting sources by stating the the newspaper tile as well as the date. I expect the sources to be in a least a year preferably 6 months of the day your speaking. I will be counting them and they will affect overall ranking. I will look for clear organization and for you to fill between 6 and 7 mins but you do have a grace period. I expect an AGD or hook and a conclusion as well as your points. I will look for a thoughtful clear organization of your speech. I want you to speak with confidence and with emotion. Be funny or be powerful, let yourself and your opinions come through your speech.

For all the other IE’s:

I’m looking for a logical and thoughtful organization. I’m looking for a speaker with good eye contact and a voice with emotion and enunciation. A speaker whose emotional when they need to be, and logical and argumentative when they need to be. I’m very familiar with theater and speech so I look for the arguments as well as the performance for the overall rankings.

I was primarily a PF competitor with background experience in Policy and Mock Trial; though, I am generally well-versed in most speech/debate events.

General Debate Paradigms:

-When judging, I will look at the flow and consistency of contentions and points, but I value competitors weighing your points, evidence, and impacts over hitting the line by line. Both are important, but I recognize that the time limits make that difficult.

-I appreciate both good case prep and noticeable arguments based on what has happened in the round. I don't mind fast speaking as long as it is clear and coherent (exceptions made for policy), and I also don't mind passionate debate and clash as long as it remains based on the case and resolution, not character arguments. Don't be a jerk.

-Please signpost. It will help me flow and compare arguments and help you organize your case.

-I will pay attention during CX, maybe even take notes, but I will not consider CX as a part of the flow. If you make a point in CX, make sure to bring it up in your later speeches if you want me to consider it.

PF Specific Judging:

As I am most familiar with PF, when I judge it I am looking for a couple of specific things.

- Public Forum should be exactly that, public. If a person of reasonable intelligence walks in with no background in the topic, they should still be able to understand your points and arguments.

- In addition, I am typically tech over truth (no matter what I know or believe about the subject, I will only judge based on how you present your case), at least in terms of cards or evidence you bring up. But if there are blatant falsehoods, or you claim something questionable with no cards to back it up, I will not weigh it in the flow.

TL;DR: Walk me through your impact chains and warrants step-by-step, and don't lie or make questionable claims without evidence.

If you have any questions before the round about me or anything in my paradigm, feel free to ask.

In addition, if you have any questions about ballots or want elaboration of critiques, you can contact me at: meilanidowns@gmail.com

I like logical arguments that make sense and are easy to follow. Originality is great as well. Please do not spew, I cannot follow it. You can still talk fast, just make sure I can understand what you are saying. Try to avoid filler words as much as possible .Eye contact is also important. Voters/impacts are also great. Tell me why you win the round. For LD, I enjoy a good traditional round, don't lose the framework (value/criterion).

I am more traditional. I enjoy statistics from reputable sources that support your case. I judge based on who persuades me to their side. I prefer you not to spread. I can follow most of your case if you spread, but i have had people go to fast and they only way I understood their case was on cross ex. If i cannot understand you it will be hard for you to win. I have been judging speech and debate events for 7-8 years and have judged most events.

I have little experience in judging debate, but I will try my best to evaluate your arguments. Framing the debate as a narrative and engaging your opponents' arguments will make it easier for me to vote for you. Clarity and organization are also very important, and will be rewarded with higher speaker points. I will try to evaluate arguments based off my "flow," but, also, I have little experience in recording debate rounds.

I have long experience in formal and informal speech and debate events. I debated in high school and college. I teach critical thinking and ethics at university. Perhaps you could say that I'm a traditional judge. As such, I'm very objective and will judge impartially, based solely on the merits of the debate. I generally have the following judging philosophy for Policy (CX):

Framework - Framework is necessary. Tell me where you're going and how you're going to get there. If no framework is provided, I'm left to making up my own mind what you're arguing. Impact calculus is crucial, because if the "problem" has no measurable impact, your policy is not necessary.

Topicality - For me, this is the foundation of Policy Debate. Establish, and root in the topic. Make sure all arguments have a claim, warrant, and impact. If your plan does not address the resolution, that's bad news for your case.

Solvency - Did I just say that "Topicality" is key? Okay, well, honestly, Solvency is the most important. You must convince me that your approach will effectively resolve a real problem. And when I say "resolve," I mean that real people are really affected.

Speed - I have no problem with your speed as long as you slow down a bit on identifying tags/authors for signposts. Clarity is far more important than speed. I personally prefer a slow, deliberate, thoughtful speech over a speech that is simply trying to wedge as much as possible into a short window of time.

DAs - Go for it, as long as your disadvantages are specific and topical. Nothing is worse than vague generalities.

Ks - Not a fan. But give it a go if that's your thing.

CX - Although I know other judges ignore and/or hate cross examination, I actually prefer it. A good CX demonstrates an intent to understand the opponent's point of view. Engage (don't accuse) in CX, and seek to understand. Understanding your opponent's position makes for a far more compelling debate.

Critique - I feel it's entirely appropriate to question the resolution itself. Just be sure that you can substantiate (with evidence) your critique of the resolution. The people who create resolutions are pretty smart folks, too, and the resolution deserves a fair shake.

Don't Drop Arguments - You drop, you lose.

Evidence, Evidence, Evidence - But reason, argumentation, and passion employing the evidence (quality) is far superior to a bucket-full of evidence (quantity). Substantiate all arguments with evidence.

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos - balance. Aristotle's views have persisted for 2500 years for a very good reason.

Off-time roadmap - No. Just. No. (Is this a thing in Policy?? It's a terribly annoying thing in other events.)

Bottom Line:

No Ad Hominem attacks; you must treat your opponent(s) with the utmost respect and civility, or I will penalize you. Be nice. Argue the issues, not the opponent. Speak plainly and clearly -- speed is fine, but not at the expense of understanding. I can easily see through "snow jobs"; I understand the reality of you reading a position that was originally written by someone else, but if you haven't bothered to study and understand the issue(s), the arguments, and case for yourself, you will not win and you're wasting everyone's time.

More specific paradigm will be given in round.

More of a tech. judge.

I prefer if you include me in the email chain or flash me your case. It makes it easier to flow, judge, and guarantees that I'll actually be able to judge your case. I can handle speed and spewing, but it's especially courteous to email chain or flash me if you're going to use speed. In the new online world of debate, the file share system works just fine, too.

No preference between progressive or traditional policy. However, word of warning, progressive policy is still based in the fundamentals of debate (unless you theory shell or off-case that) and so progressive policy is still expected to be in based in reasoning, argumentation, logic, and evidence.

LD - I am a traditional judge, I do not favor progressive LD. I look for clash and a good morality debate. I also favor good communication. If I can't understand you, I can't flow.

PF - I am a traditional judge, do not favor progressive PF. See above.

I compete in APDA with the Smith debate society, but in high school I did policy/congress

you can run anything and I'm fine with spreading

DEBATE GENERAL: I am not a fan of spreading/spewing; if I cannot understand the speakers, I cannot judge based upon the arguments. Fast is fine as long as enunciation is clear. If it gets to the point where I cannot flow, I will judge you based upon presentation alone. During cross, I want to know that you can answer the question, not only rely upon cards. I prefer a civil debate; it makes my job more difficult if I have to discern between what you're saying and how it's presented.

CON: I expect a debate. Unless it's the first aff/neg speeches, I do not expect canned speeches. I am not a fan of voting blocks to keep people low on priority because I think it's important to see how everyone is doing, not just the select few who are better at networking. That being said, if the debate is not being furthered because there are no new arguments or clash and the same speeches are given over and over again, I welcome a motion to PQ to move the session along. I expect the Chair to know the basics, like Robert's Rules, as well as the Orders of the Day, and keep everything running smoothly.

PF/LD: I am looking for evidence but I also want to know that you understand your cases. In LD, if you are going to run a CP, make sure all of the components are there. While a criterion is not required, I do prefer that you have one. In PF, if there is a framework, I expect it to be upheld.

CX: While the biggest impact is important, it should be a realistic one.

Traditional, no spreading.

I am a sophomore at the U of U. I did debate for four years at Summit Academy HS. I started out with PF and ended with LD so I am well versed in most debate styles. Don't be afraid to run what you want. I don't flow cross so if something comes up make sure to bring it up in your next speech. If you do spread add me to your email chain @omarfkhan14@gmail.com.

Currently a sophomore at Vassar. I did pf and ld for 4 years at summit, but I've competed in every debate event including BQ, as well as numerous IEs.

Tech > truth

As a general, I don't care about speed but or general aggression but be respectful. I will not tolerate rude behavior, slurs, racist or homophobic statements, etc. Also, please read a trigger warning for sensitive topics such as sexual assaut and other forms of violence.

For PF:

Evidence and analysis is what I look for most in a public forum round. I look for clear, correct citations combined with solid analysis. Don't just spew out cards, I need the reasoning behind it as well. I personally don't have an issue with speed or anything progressive, so you can do whatever you want in terms of that. I will flow. However, I will not flow cross examination. If there is something said in cross that you want to be on the flow, make sure to let me know.

For LD:

Similar to PF, I like to see a lot of evidence and analysis. However, I am okay with less evidence and more philosophical based arguments when it comes to LD. In terms of theory, I love theory and enjoy judging it but make sure your shell isn't abusive. Also, if you run T be sure to commit to it, don't just drop it mid round. I'm also good with Ks, counterplans, etc. Anything you want to run is fine by me.

For Policy:

You can do whatever you want when it comes to policy. I'm comfortable with you running everything, so just enjoy your round. However, as stated above, I am a very evidence heavy judge. At the end of the day however, I will take good analysis over evidence but please don't make me come down to that decision.

If you have questions after the round you can email me at mae.long.2016@gmail.com. Have fun!

I am a big fan of rhetoric. I believe and vote primarily off strong links and proofs. If you’re going to make a claim make sure it has a good foundation and connects to the rest of your arguments. I don't care how pretty or cohesive an argument is if it's only tangentially related to the topic being discussed.

I’m fine with spreading as long as it’s understandable.

I don't mind theory or Ks, but if you decide to run one make sure you can justify it. Above all I care about the merit of your argument and the impact of what you're saying.

I am currently the assistant coach at Layton High, this is my second year coaching and fifth year being involved with debate. I am an English and Philosophy major in my junior year of college. I have competed in every event except for policy and interp, but am familiar with all of them. I judge off of the flow.

Add me to the chain - Aidin123@berkeley.edu

ASU LD: Do what you do best. Though within progressive-based arguments, I have a better understanding of some arguments over others; below is a quick look for prefs:

1 - Policy/Traditional

2 - Theory, Common K's (Cap, Set-col, etc..)

3 - Phil, Whacky K's (Need more explanation for me to evaluate fairly)

5/Strike - Non-T K Aff's, Tricks, Friv Theory (I do not have the background that I think I need to have to evaluate all arguments fairly and to the quality that you deserve, and friv theory is just an incredibly annoying nuisance)

- Scroll to the bottom for some additional specifics about things

- I haven't judged fast debate in like a year so please please start slow and build into it I need to adjust back.

LD at the bottom:

Just call me Aidin

UC Berkeley Chemistry 23' GO BEARS! BOO PINE TREES!

LD Coach Park City (2020 - Present)

TLDR;

I'm a very expressive person if my face says I hate it. It means I hate it. If I nod or smile, I like what you're saying. Follow the faces

I hate extinction level impacts! I think they create lazy debating where there is a convoluted link chain that will never remotely happen, BUT UTIL!!! So you can run extinction, but to your opponents say MAD.

Impact turns anything that isn't morally repugnant -- corruption, terrorism, oil prices -- because there are two sides to every story

I will say clear three times before I stop flowing altogether. Whatever is not on the flow is not going to be evaluated. PLEASE SIGNPOST!

Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh a little more, and then after weighing, weigh again for good measure

Write the ballot for me in the last speech; the easier it is for me to vote for, the more likely you are to win

Utah Circuit: I debated a lot on the local circuit and now judge a lot. Have impacts and weigh.

- One rule: An extension is not an extension without an explanation and warranting behind it. I will not flow "Extend Contention 3," and that's it.

PF:

Follow my dearest friend Gavin Serr's paradigms for a more comprehensive look at how I would judge PF.

BIGGEST THINGS

- Don't steal prep - It's not hard to start and stop a timer.

- I default Neg. If there is no offense from either side, I'll stick with the status quo

- It's not an argument without a warrant

- A dropped argument is true, but that doesn't mean it matters. I need reasons why the extension matters. I'm not voting on something that I don't know the implications of it.

- Reading a card is part of the prep, without a doubt.

- If you want me to read a card indite, it's not my job as a judge to win you the round.

- If you will talk about marginalized people, framing and overviews are your friends.

- Please have link extensions in both the summary and FF

- Weighing requires a comparison and why the way you compare is better. Which is better, magnitude or timeframe? IDK, you tell me.

LD:

LARP

Solvency

DAs need to have solid internal links

Offense on the DA needs to be responded to even if kicked

Perms need to be contextualized

K's

A flushed-out link story is fabulous; do this every time you run a K.

line by line analysis is of the utmost importance

explanation and quality is better than quantity; I do not vote on things I do not understand, so take the safe route and spend a little more time explaining 5 arguments than dumping 15 that are all blippy

Use a framework and weighing case as your friend.

AFF - please extend and weigh case

Theory

I love the theory. Few caveats, however.

1) I hate frivolous theory. If you run condo bad on 1 or 2 off, I will likely drop your speaks because you're annoying. That being said, please respond to it, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses to it.

2) Disclosure is a MUST. Don't run disclosure theory if your opponent doesn't know what the wiki is. You don't need to disclose new aff's. 30 is enough time to prep.

3) Please WEIGH as much as possible I don't know the difference between an opponent winning time screw and another winning on the ground.

4) Competing interps - The less I intervene, the better for y'all, especially on the highest layer of debate where the round is won or lost. So I try to limit "gut checks" and reasonability unless otherwise told to in the round.

5) No RVI's default but can be changed with hearty effort

6) Please slow down on theory; it's hard to flow everything at top speed, especially if it's not carded and has 5 sub-points.

How I write my RFD's: “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence and I don’t even know where it’s going. I just hope I find it along the way.” - Michael Scott

How I give my RFDs: “I talk a lot, so I’ve learned to tune myself out.” - Kelly Kapoor

How I feel judging: “If I don’t have some cake soon, I might die.” - Stanley Hudson

What I want to do instead of judging: “I just want to lie on the beach and eat hot dogs. That’s all I’ve ever wanted.” - Kevin Malone

What happens when no one weighs: “And I knew exactly what to do. But in a much more real sense, I had no idea what to do.” - Michael Scott

Have questions about chemistry or Berkeley? Ask away

Debate is something to be proud of, win or lose, and have a smile on your face.

Hello, I am a Freshman at the U. I Competed mainly in Extemp but also have congress and debate experience.

Philosophy for debate: I am a bit old fashioned and traditional but can follow any speed/ theory if that is where the round goes for pf/cx. As for LD I am a bit more strict and believe k's and spreading don't belong here. For the most part, I'm cool with whatever just be respectful and don't make it just all about your evidence I want to hear your own words/ arguments.

Philosophy for speech. Speach is about Speaking so do that well. Put it in your own words add that personal touch.

Extemp: I am most versed here so I know and am looking for proper structure and correct sighting of evidence.

Other IE's: Be engaging speak with power and passion I care about that more than your words.

Congress: Please know what you are talking about, don't speak just to speak have a purpose with your speeches/questions. It is apparent when you don't know anything about what you are speaking on and that will hurt your rank. Also, be respectful there is rarely a need for break-in debate.

Throughout my entire competitive career, I believed that the judge is always right and there is always something you could have done for the round to of ended more favorably for you. With that being said please ask questions and know what I am looking for and adapt to that, judge adaptation is a huge and often overlooked aspect of Debate.

Andres Torres (he/him)

Rowland Hall '20, Pomona '24.

email: attorres02@gmail.com

General/Topic Notes: Debated policy for 4 years at roho and now study Politics, philosophy, and economics at Pomona. I haven't judged much if at all on the CJR topic so please explain technical acronyms and the like as much as necessary. Also, I understand tech issues might be rampant during the online process, and while I'd like to think my connection is quite good, I'd still respect it if you all could respect and extend the community expectations of dealing with tech issues to everyone involved in the round.

Generally: Offense is good. Debate is a game. Tech mostly better than truth. Ev quality >>>> quantity.

Ks/K affs.

Simply put, if you run them, run them well. I have some background in the literature but not a ton, so please don't expect me to instantly understand the super-specific thesis of an offshoot of a niche philosophical theory. That said though, Ks should ideally have well-articulated links contextualized to the aff otherwise it'll just be really boring--engagement is good. And while I might still vote for a generic K shell with hyperbroad links if you debate it well enough, I won't be the happiest about it.

Neg Framework should be very clearly articulated and be well contextualized to the K in order to justify why the aff can't weigh their impacts. I generally think spending a decent amount of time on FW is good especially if your alt is weak.

Make sure you talk about your impact. Turns case or root cause can be convincing.

For the affs -- I'm cool with them as long as you convey a good reason for why you do not defend the topic. I'll say that I was generally a very policy person for the entirety of my high school career, but I can respect and understand the pedagogical value of K affs if done well (and I think they can be done very well) but my threshold might be somewhat high. Also/subsequently, please engage Framework in an in-depth manner honestly that's probably the thing I wish for most out of these debates.

Theory

Somewhat neg leaning. Initial predispositions are condo good, judge kick default, reject the arg, not the team typically true. All of these can change depending on the round.

T

Given that I am not versed well in this topic, T might not be the best strat in front of me. Although, I can be convinced by a direct interpretation/violation with offense for why the aff's model is bad. For affs, I think we meets and reasonability can be quite convincing, but please defend your model as well.

Please no ASPEC.

CPs

Go for it. Always love a good adv counterplan + da combo, but sometimes process/somewhat cheaty counterplans with internal net benefits get the job done. Still, solid ev and solvency advocates are greatly appreciated and will put you far ahead in my books. Just prove the aff's not the best possible idea and establish competition and you're set. Affs, prove the opposite.

DAs

Love 'em, most of my debates in high school centered on them. Neg teams should tell a concrete story with your DAs. It's more than likely you might not have the most specific links or contextualization to a specific aff, but I always appreciate some solid spin on a generic DA as long as it's argued well. Impact calc is necessary. Turns are good for both teams. Just have a solid back and forth debate on both sides that tells a coherent narrative. Zero risk probably a thing, just rare.

TLDR: You do you just do it well. Be nice AND competitive. Also, open source is cool.

My paradigm is good sportsmanship is key to winning. Please be respectful of your competition. Don't talk over your fellow competitors, don't roll your eyes or other rude gestures. Poor sportsmanship will cost speaker points and may be the tipping point for choosing the winner in a close contest.

I am looking for confidence matched with a clear, understandable debate for the round.

I have judged Policy yearly for the past 15 years. I prefer LD and PF, but I am familiar with the ins and outs, but I don't know them intuitively as I have never competed in Policy. I am willing to try and follow whatever you present. However, I expect you to communicate with me. I am the judge, not your opponent. What that means is this, you need to tell me what you are doing and why. Slow down and communicate with me. When I say slow down, what I mean is this:

1. I don't follow speed. I try, but I won't get most of what you say if you are going a million miles an hour. However, I understand the strategy and need. If you spread, you need to slow down and tell why I should care about what you just said. Give me a quick, slowed down summary of what you said, and why I should care.

2. Make taglines very clear! Don't assume I heard your 'next DA' when you're going a million miles an hour. If you want it on my flow, make it clear what it is and where to put it. Spread the rest, but slow down for taglines and summarize what you just said! This is especially important for the 1AC and 1NC.

3. Email chains are helpful, but not. It is nice to have an email chain, but if I have to read the email to understand what you are saying, why give speeches? Also, trying to follow evidence because I can't understand you makes it difficult for me as a judge. I will refer to reference, but will not pour over it after a round to determine a winner. Doing that means I don't need to hear from you. I could sit at home and read your evidence to determine a winner. Don't rely on chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I prefer traditional LD Debate with a Value/Criterion. I have voted for flex-negs, and other more progressive type arguments, but I prefer debates that use Value/Criterion. Don't spread! If you spread in LD, I won't flow. You can go at a crisp pace. In fact, I prefer a crisp paces, but...spread and you will most likely lose.

Add me to the chain at zeeht@duq.edu or use SpeechDrop.

At the outset, I debated three or so years between Policy and Lincoln Douglas (LD) debate in high school, three years on the NFA LD circuit in college (Utah), a little bit of coaching here and there (CCHS and Harker), and am currently a (1L year) law student at Kline.

At a high level,I generally view myself as prioritizing technical concessions over truth, and a well-developed technical debate with in-depth analysis is always encouraged.

As far as arguments and "unconventional cases",arguments are arguments; performance, advocacy, non-traditional, soft left, etc. are all arguments. Questions such as "Does policymaking outweigh individual resistance?" or "Does activism come before ground?" are questions that are usually answered on a round-to-round basis.

I love critical evidence arguments (huge speaker points here), whether it's arguing a team's evidence doesn't say what the team claims it does, a parallel compression between two pieces of evidence, or even a comparison of the persuasiveness of the authority behind the evidence. You gotta go further than, "their evidence is power tagged ... next!" No no, explain the warrant as to why it does so.

On topicality, ever since I entered law school, I've warmed up to T debates. As a prior issue, you must actually prove abuse. For example, when you say negative ground, the negative team must actually be suffering from a lack of readiness, and explicitly explain why that is. Or, if you say fairness, why is it unfair and why should I be willing to vote a team down for being unfair? With that said, I will tend to apply either 1) the most widely accepted reasonable interpretation of the word in question (community reasons) or 2) the most legally and academically sound definition.

Next on the K, I enjoy the K. When judging the K, I generally analyze the round through framework. Each side should have a well-warranted framework argument as to why I should view the round their lens (e.g., policy making over epistemology, ontology over individual resistance, or even government fiat over subject formation). I will filter the rest of the Kritik through the lens of whomever team wins framework. Oh, and I frankly have no opinion on whether alternative fiat's a thing.

Finally, the DA/CP. I tend to avoid voting on a 1% risk of the disadvantage means a negative ballot argument. I find that debaters generally lack the warrant development and explanation as to why their disadvantage matters and I won't do the work for them. If you're going for a disadvantage, timeframe and likelihood matter. Actor, consult, etc. CPs are great, while well-developed analyses on actor CPs with warrants are even greater.

On LD and PF, the inclusivity of LD debate means that speed must be agreed upon between debaters. If you ignore the accessible standard of speed that your opponent has set up for you, I have no problem dropping you off of a ten-second speed theory shell. PF calls for an accessible and public-based style of communication. This means eloquence, persuasion, and easy-to-flow argumentation will be rewarded far more than tech and speed. Of course, this does not mean discounting the role of warrants in your argumentation.