I debated in CX all four years of high school and I just graduated so it's still pretty fresh on my mind.

I'm primarily a tab judge. I'm comfortable with any argument, just debate it well and tell me why you win on that argument.

I'm okay with spreading, just make sure to make the tags clear :)

Topicality, Theory, and K's: I'm okay with these arguments, just make sure to explain them and how they apply to the debate and not just read cards.

Counterplans should have access to the Net Benefit for me to vote on it.

Overall, just have fun!!

Consider myself a tab judge, but lean more towards policy making style.

Fine with all arguments presented, but find that Kritiks/CPs can be easily lost in the round if you don't do enough work explaining/proving your case. As a result I have a high threshold for these (Ks and CPs)

Please slow down on tags/authors/dates

Fine with speed, but be careful that it doesn't hinder communication. If I miss a tag because you're going too fast it won't make it to my flow.

**For LD Debate, would appreciate slower speed (don't want to miss criterion/values/etc)**

Impact Calc/Framework goes a long way; if you're not telling me how to vote I will end up choosing based on my preferences of the round.

If you have anymore questions, please do not hesitate to ask in round before beginning.

Put me on the Email Chain- debate.taylor@gmail.com

Currently Debate at the University of North Texas in NFA LD, similar to a one person policy debate.

About me: I competed in Policy debate for 4 years at Princeton high school, primarily on the TFA circuit. Better with policy debates because that is what I did in high school, but please do what you are most comfortable with. Tech>truth most of the time.

Speed: Slow down on tags and authors, I am generally okay with speed, since every judge is different I will say clear twice before I stop flowing.

Evidence: I might be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis. That being said my reading of the evidence will have not have any weight on my decision unless both teams make it a point of contention. It is not my job as a judge to vote against a team for reading bad evidence it is your job to tell me their evidence is bad and why that's important.

AFF: Plan less affs are fine. I enjoy ones that relate to the topic in some way but if they don't that is cool too. Fairness could be an impact but I am usually persuaded by the impact turns.

Disadvantages: The more specific to the aff the better. I am good with politics disadvantages, fiat does not resolve the link ever. Saying "Uniqueness overwhelms the link because of how many cards the neg read" is not an argument. I am okay with hearing rider/horse trading disadvantage. You should always be doing specific impact comparison with the aff, disad turns the case arguments are convincing.

Counter-plans: Any counter-plan is fine, but if you read a delay, consult or any other counter-plan that may be seen as cheating by some, be prepared to defend the theoretical objections against it. You need a net-benefit to the counter-plan internal, a disad, or a case turn there must be some net benefit. Judge kick- 2NR Needs to tell me other wise I default to no judge kick.

Topicality: Topicality is fine. I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. The most important thing in these debates are the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts.

Theory: Fine go for it if you want. Only theory I have a bias for is, conditionality, it's good in most cases. You should have an interpretation for your theory objections, absent that there is no violation.

Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am less familiar with the literature than you. In these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff, examples are good for me. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou and aff. I believe that long overviews that explain the kritik are okay, and for me important. Kicking the alternative is fine. I have gone for cap a lot.

LD:I do not know what tricks are. Please read an impact to T-FW.

DOF @ Athens High School (TX) 2023-Present

Debated Collegiately at Texas Tech University (NPDA)

whonea@athensisd.net

Please have specific questions about my paradigm if curious. Just asking, "what is your paradigm" is too broad of a question and we don't have time before a round to run down every little detail about how I feel about debate.

Speed - I think there is a place for spreading, I don't judge enough super fast nat circuit rounds to be accustomed to it right off in my first round of the tournament. But, I do think I can adapt rather quickly. I'm flowing on paper without the doc, so do with that what you will.

Analysis of the Circuits: I have come to develop a philosophy that between UIL & TFA/TOC CX debate; they are not doing the same event entirely. The best way I can describe the split is; UIL is focused more on eloquence & persuasion and TFA/TOC CX debate is the best representation of debate being a "game". When teaching students the difference I always compare TFA/TOC to a version of chess. The pieces represent the arguments, the first constructive's goals are to get as many pieces on the board as they can. Thats why spreading exists. Then they commence a technical game of moving pieces, absorbing the other side's, until one sides remains supreme. That being said, I believe there is immense value in learning to do both versions at a high level & will always encourage debaters to practice the skills needed to do both.

IP Topic Specific: I still believe the debate is yours and I will evaluate it how you tell me to. However, its disingenuous to deprive you of my sub-conscious opinions about the topic. I have found many of my debate opinions challenged by argument availability on this years topic. On a general level I think process cps. multiplank cps, & the use of conditionality should be restricted in debate. HOWEVER, I have become a lot less adamant about that given the lack of good generic disad ground on this topic. For T debates, interps that are contextual to the topic area are preferable. If your reading a hyper restrictive interp please be ready to answer case list questions. Especially because I don't think there is an aff currently on the topic that can meet T-Penalties.

TLDR:My overall judging philosophy can be boiled down to, I am going to take the path to the ballot that takes the least amount of judge intervention. I don't want to do any work for you, that means any warrants analysis/extensions. You do what you do best, I am pretty familiar with just about any argument you want to read. I will make my decision based on a metric established by the debaters in the round.

Flowing - I will flow on paper, usually with my laptop only open with the ballot. If I do open a speech doc, its to read evidence during cross. I will apply arguments in the line by line where you tell me to, however, if you start spewing information without telling me where on the flow, I'll just flow the speech straight down, and some arguments will get conceded without ink next to them.

Policy -

Affs - Read one..... I'm probably better suited for affs with a plan text but you can decide that based on my analysis below on K affs & performance. Advantages need to materialize into impacts. Saying "This collapses the economy" cannot be the end all to you advantage. Explain why that matters. Whether its war, structural violence, etc.

K Affs - The K aff needs a point. Don't just read one to try and throw your opponent off their game. I like K affs and have read them a lot in HS/College. The aff should always have some FW/Roll of the Ballot for me to evaluate the round on. Also, if your kritiking the World, Debate Space, Topic, etc. explain the utility in doing so rather than taking the traditional route of reading a policy aff with a state actor.

Performance - I haven't judged much performance at all in the last 2 years, so I'm not up to date on the deployment of it. However, I did defend identity performances in high school & college. Don't just read you poem, play you song, or do a performance at the beginning and then forget about it for the rest of the round. Tell me why you doing what you did has significance in this debate and how it should shape my decision making calculus.

T- I default that the aff is topical. The neg has the burden to prove otherwise. I default to competing interps weighing offense in the standards level debate. I often find that competing interps and reasonability require essentially the same amount of judge intervention. Competing interps relies on a judges individual metric for "how much offense" is needed to win an interp, this is mirrored by "how much of a we meet" is needed to throw out T. Fairness is my favorite impact, I think education that is specific to debate can only be generated when both sides have equitable access to clash.

FW - Policy FW against K affs can be a useful strategy to have. However, i often find debaters constantly reading generic standards like Ground, Predictability without any in depth impacts to those standards. Have specific warrants about why them reading their K aff in that instance specifically is bad. You probably have little risk of winning a collapse of debate impact. K's have been read for decades and yet, here we are. Probably should go for a more proximal, in round fairness lost scenario.

DA - The more intrinsic the better. I will not evaluate links of omission unless it goes completely dropped. While I like intrinsic/specific disads i also recognize the utility in reading generics and will vote on them.

PTX - By the time I'm at a tournament again, the election will have passed. I think congress is back in session so maybe some rider da or agenda politics might be relevant. Please just update your evidence; i'm tired of judging politics debates with uniqueness evidence that is multiple months old.

CP - I like counterplan debate. I have come to accept that planks are going to be a circuit norm nowadays. I guess I'm fine with them, the only thing I ask is that if your reading more than 4+ planks and forsee it being the 2nr, you need to start collapsing in the block. Make sure you pair it with a net benefit AND solvency deficits to the Aff plan. Additionally, spend time explaining how the CP resolves the deficits you say the aff solvency has. The CP needs to AVOID the link to the net benefit, not SOLVE it. If the CP solves the link, the permutation probably does as well.

K’s - I am not as well read on k lit as I used to be. When I debated it was a lot of Cap, Baudrillard, Queer Theory, & Trans Rage literature I found myself delved into. My teams usually stay pretty basic with Cap, Security, other basics. This year I have a debater learning to read Afropess so I have begun reading that lit base to understand it better. In all K debates I will always start on the fw level to decide if they get to weigh the aff. Also, don't be afraid to kick the alt and go for it as a disad if they have good alt defense. Too many debaters ignore this as the strat and I won't evaluate it that way unless you tell me to. Not a fan of the Mehrvand evidence, but again, you do you, debate is a technical game.

Theory - I have voted in and debated some of the wackiest theory positions. As long as you have good warrants as to why your interpretation is better than you should be good. Please do interp comparison between you interp and your opponent's. That being said don't get too out there with you theory positions. I feel like you and/or your coaches should know what is a winning theory position and what is hot garbage.

Condo - I will evaluate the condo debate objectively through an evaluation of the standards argumentation. If your going for it in front of me, you have a better chance of winning it if you read a perf con standard. I've had interesting conversations with people about what it means to be "going for" an argument. Does it mean you can't kick it? Does it mean it has to be the position your staking the round on? If you could clarify this in your interp that would be great.

LD

I have the majority of my experience judging traditional LD with values and criterions. I prefer traditional LD debate and do not typically enjoy policy arguments being brought over into this event. If you are a quote "tricks debater" please strike me.

PF

I have not judges PF since doing it online in 2021. I have no idea what the modern norms are. If the debate has devolved to shortened policy, please see my paradigm above.

I am primarily a CX judge, but I am familiar with most forms of debate.

alrjns@gmail.com

Speed- I am good just be clear on tags and I want the evidence sent beforehand

DA- Good (I don’t see why you wouldn’t be)

CP- Again good

T/Theory- I want good evidence of in and out round abuse

K/K aff- I will not pretend like I go home to read literature on my off time, but I am familiar with a lot of common Ks (like cap) I am not a judge that will just vote for you if you run one, just do it well. Ks should not be ran just to pull one over on your opponents

Please ask me question if you do not understand. I do not take kindly to rudeness. Trust that I know what is going on in the round. I do not need you to humiliate you opponent to understand that you are winning.

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

I'm open to hearing pretty much anything (as long as there is good clash), except I really don’t like Ks or super theoretical debates. I'll vote on topicality, but only if it's dropped or not adequately answered. I'm a fan of DAs with a good impact cal and counterplans if they are real world and have a clear net benefit. In the final speeches, I like to see debators clearly and convincingly articulate the things they think they are winning. I value quality evidence and solid arguments over a large quantity of unexplained or unapplied evidence.

I evaluate the net impacts of the affirmative vs. the net impacts of the neg as presented in the provided framework in the round. Please be sure to sign post and label your arguments. I would rather tags start with A, B, C or 1, 2, 3 instead of AND. I do not vote on topicality often, but will if it becomes the main issue in the round. If you want to go for T, really commit and go for it. I think DAs are essential for the neg. Please make sure there is a clear link story that gets us from the plan to the impact. CPs should be competitive. I do not vote on multiple world arguments. I don't hear kritiks often, so please be sure to clearly explain them. I want to know exactly what the alternative is and how it will work. Slow down some on theory arguments. Please provide clear impact calculus. I really want to hear how to weigh your arguments in the final rebuttals. Please speak clearly. Please do not spread so fast that your breathing affects your speech. If you have any other questions before the round, please ask.

cquinto815@gmail.com

She/her

**

Tl;dr paradigm

1. Clarity/speed, and I don't care how the round is run, just don't get me in trouble with tournament officials.

**For online debate, just be mindful that technology tends to make a mess of things.

2. I don't care what you run (within reason), just make sure you can run it well.

3. Specificity is key.

**

Please give trigger warnings before the round starts if necessary and don't be a jerk without reason.

Tell me what my role is in the round and I'll do it. I judge based on what main issue/question is in the round and who best answers it given that framework. If not, I default to whatever world is "better." The form and content of the argument do not matter to me, and I encourage you to run arguments you are passionate about and believe in. That being said, I don't like "cheap" arguments, let alone voting on them. I prefer voting on developed and warranted arguments, so interpret this as you will.

I do, however, draw the line at intentionally racist, sexist, and/or anti-queer arguments. Essentially, don't be discriminatory. Argue with the wall.

Argument specificity, impacts, and interaction are necessary for me to evaluate the round. I want to know how your arguments interact-- how the K or DA links, how the offense on your K/DA interacts with the aff/alt, how the alt or CP solves, et cetera.

Additionally (and this goes for everything), don't assume I'm 100% familiar with everything you're reading. I don't keep up with everything that happens in a season or in a topic, so some abbreviations, arguments, or policies can be unfamiliar to me. ----- (Update: 3/3/21: That being said, don't assume I know much about the specifics of your topic. Because I don't.)

For K's in particular, don't assume I know/understand your theory of power and how it's being applied specifically in the round. That is to say, make sure you're particular about the link and alt level because I won't do that work for you-- especially if I don't understand the K you're running. I think it's good practice to explain your theory of power anyway, but please keep in mind that I don't consistently read lit.

In terms of what I find persuasive, I prefer offense over defense and truth over tech.

I did four years of CX, so I'm okay with tech/theory stuff on the flow. However, if I'm your judge for LD/PF, I don't really know all the other things that go on outside of CX, so if you want to get super technical/theoretical, I'm going to need some more explanation/impact calc than a regular LD/PF judge.

As for evidence, I'll read it if it's necessary for me to make a decision, but the evidence and its warrants should be explained for me, ideally, in the round.

Good luck with your rounds! :)

email: adebatejudge@gmail.com

I debated in high school for four years and competed at UIL State, among other high level/international tournaments. Additionally, I earned over 700 NSDA points during my time as a competitor. With that said, I know debate and am prepared for any type of debate you throw at me. As a judge I am what most people would call a gamemaker, I believe debate is a game and I'm prepared for whatever you give me. However, there are some exceptions:

1) FOLLOW THE TOURNAMENT RULES, I don't care if my preferences contradict the tournament rules, ALWAYS FOLLOW THE TOURNAMENT RULES FIRST AND THEN FOLLOW MY PARADIGMS.

2) Absolutely no racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/xenophobia. If you raise any argument of these themes, you will get as little speaker points as I can give you as well as make you lose the round. However, I will not accept baseless accusations that your opponent is racist, etc. I have a similar definition about my perception as Justice Potter Stewart said in Jacobellis v. Ohio, "I shall not attempt to define... and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it." Although his subject matter was different than what I'm talking about, the sentiment is similar when defining what is and what isn't offensive.

3) Insults, Teasing, and being aggressive are a no go. We're here to learn and have fun, don't be rude.

Like I said, I will judge anything. Just contextualize it, if I want to hear some funny case I can just read it, don't run it just because you know I'll listen. I want a good debate and I want you to bring the best you have. I love speed and you can go full speed with me, just stay clear. I believe debate is free-form art, do with that form as you like.

As for specific notes about args:

- I like advocacy/non-plan cases but I need it contextualized for the real world. Show me what the world of the advocacy looks like, saying the case is a good idea isn't good enough.

- Method vs Method debates are fun, one of my most important values in judging that sort of round is root cause.

Additional notes to make me like you:

-Always Roadmap

-I love wild kritiks and kritik affirmatives (but you must explain it well enough, i.e. don't throw some crazy kritik plan out there without contextualizing it with impacts, etc)

-New in the 2 is fine, I'm not going to buy any abuse arguments unless they sandbag like 5 new args in the 2

-If you make good puns I'll give you more speaks

-I love speed but if you go supersonic get me a copy of your speech

-I'm a sucker for quality analytics, beyond just blocks that you've written down. Show me that you know what's happening in round.

-disclosure theory always sucks

email: megansnopik@gmail.com for the email chain

Summary:

I am a tab judge - I ask everyone is kind to each other and does not use any racist/sexist/transphobic/abelist/classist/ etc. language or arguments in round.

My background is in K debate, I prefer truth over tech, but I need you to understand your arguments to convince me of this. I am generally happy to evaluate anything, but find it hard to vote on big-stick impacts without an appropriate framework.

Cheap shots and "gotcha" moments are not voters for me usually - I won't vote on your ability to outspread the other team. Clash is important - generics are not very pursuasive to me.

I'm okay with speed but please make sure you slow on taglines and the important stuff, I am rusty.

Argument specifics:

K: love em! know your lit, and make sure you have relevant links/ framing. Don't run it, just to run it. I am a big fan of performance. I am not opposed to voting on sketchy alts and K affs.

CP: Fine, I am not a fan of "gotcha" moments and wacky planks. Make it worth my time.

T: I can vote on it, but not my favorite. I usually default to debate is more than a game.

DA: I am not the biggest proponent of big stick impacts, but again, if convincing, I can vote here. I don;t really like politics DAs,

FW: One of my most important ballot issues.

Coaching History:

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

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

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

Disclosure:

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

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


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

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

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

Miscellaneous Stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I used to have a longer paradigm, I deleted it because it'd been a while since I made any substantive changes to it and I think my relationship to debate has changed. People are on here looking for prefs and pre round advice for how to persuasively frame their arguments. I'm not sure what the ideal paradigm for answering those questions is and doubt that this one comes close in many readings.

i just want to see a debate. I want full argumentation relying on complex and nuanced understandings of interesting and innovative evidence sets. I want to see debaters taking research and connecting the dots to develop a complex understanding of the world. I love that strategy is a part of debate and like to see people make bold choices with clear and clever strategic goals, and for those things to be communicated in an effective manner.

I think that arguments should be complete (having a claim, warrant, and impact) on the flow when they are made. I appreciate well organized debaters who engage in a method that creates a clear structure for the flow. I think that there has been a lack of emphasis on argument explication. I guess what I'm trying to say is it seems like debaters are either being held or are holding themselves to a lower threshold when it comes to fleshing out the implications of any particular argument and it's relationship to all the other sub debates and ultimately the ballot. Maybe one thing that causes that is debaters wanting to go for too much in their final speeches. Being confident in being able to narrow the debate down to what you believe to be the key issues is I think what I mean by making bold choices. I think it's good when these things happen earlier (as early as the 1ac/1nc) rather than later(I'll put "condo" here so people can control f that and surmise my opinion about big 1nc's in LD by reading the preceding sentence).

As long as adequate time is spent implicating ur argument and telling me what to do on it then you shouldn't be afraid to say anything in front of me. (Except bad and incomplete arguments).

Speed? I can do it!! I think this is something that should be negotiated between debaters but I'm a pretty alright flow! Pen time between pages and vocal intonations and speed changes for emphasis are good things.

Evidence should be like, words highlighted that when read together approximate at least an attempt at a sentence. If I read the highlighting and come away thinking "what is bro yapping about" I'm gonna lower your speaks.

Conversely will award decent speaks for interesting and good quality research.

Spin is important but so is your ev, but remember when making args I'm probably not looking at it till after the round.

I think I might have a higher threshold for explanation than a lot of judges. I'm at the risk of being repetitive here, making bold, specific, and strategic choices/ sticking to your guns to take them to their logical conclusions is great for you in front of me.

My email (which you should put on the chain) is: debatethek@gmail.com

I currently do policy and competed for four years in NFA ld for the University of North texas. If you're interested in debating in college, and in particular at UNT hit me up, we have scholarships!

Online debate stuff:

I like email chains over other kinds of sharing methods- it lets us get in contact with ppl in case of technical difficulties.

I think Jackie Poapst said this first, but I absolutely hate “is any one not ready” because if someone is having a tech problem then they may not be able to indicate they are not ready. It is the equivalent of “if you aren’t here raise your hand.”

There have been several times when debaters have asked “is everybody ready” and then proceeded to give their speech without a response from me- I missed several seconds of those debaters’ speeches. Please wait for me to respond I’ll usually say that “i’m good” verbally. If I see that the debater about to give a speech can see their camera- i may just give a thumbs up. If I have not done either of those things- I AM NOT READY.