-Tab Stock Judge

-Speed: You can spread through cards as fast as you like, but anything you want me to know and understand should be spoken clearly and not rapidly. Rebuttals should never be spread.

-I vote strongly on Stock Issues, so any main ones dropped by the Aff result in a loss.

-I hardly EVER vote Neg on Topicality. Unless the Aff is blatantly not following the resolution, Neg should not run this as I see it as a time suck.

-Not a big fan of K, but if you really want to run it as the Neg, just make sure it is well done and makes sense.

I enter every round as open-minded as possible, be it a congressional debate, policy, or public forum, although I will say that I typically prefer a qualitative to a quantitative approach to building arguments. When approaching policy and public forum, I will flow every speech the entire round but it is up to debaters to help me weigh the arguments that flow to the end of the round by giving me voters.

Policy Debate

I love and appreciate seeing creativity in argumentation. I just need to see a specific and clear link to the case. I also love seeing personality shine through in the debate round, leading to unique rounds, but be careful of wandering into the territory of disrespectful behavior, bullying, or unprofessionalism.

I have no issue with speed but, as a judge, I like to flow everything and really appreciate clear taglines. Slow down a bit as you read these and I'm good with speed elsewhere.

I don't count flashing as part of prep, but prep for flashing (organizing files, trying to find the right speech, deleting other files, etc) are. It shouldn't take more than about 30 seconds to flash. Going on 5 minutes is a bit excessive.

I am relatively new to critical debate. I am not opposed to it, but I am not well versed, so be sure to really explain any kritiks and how they impact the debate. Counterplans, disadvantages, topicality, and solvency/advantage debates are great. Again, I flow this so give me good taglines.

LD Philosophy

I have judged and even briefly coached LD but was never formally trained in LD so I approach every round as a blank slate. Because of my CX background, I have a preference for evidenced debate but I want you to debate it out. Spell it out for me with clear taglines. When we get to the end of the route, give me voters and the paradigm I should view the round in.

Again, I love a unique round and personality but I have no tolerance for debaters competing without respect for one another.

Background:

2019, CX Debate State Runner-Up Conf. 2A

4-year CX Debater, Slocum High School

I was a Theory-debater in high school and am very well versed in the world of debate. I have debated at both the high school and college level. I have coached four CX teams and sent all four to State. I hated (and still do hate) Open-Evidence with a passion. I frequently ran kritiks and theory in high school so I will understand them fully if you decide to run either.

---

Gmail: kasendebate@gmail.com

Please include me on any and all email chains.

---

Overview:

• I am a Games Player.
• I view the debate as a game and I believe in the rules and points that come along with the game.
• I heavily value MPX Calc and rebuttal crystallizations.
• I don't listen to Performance Affs.
• I default new in the 2 unless the Neg provides theory on why it shouldn't be permitted.
• If you argue in CX, I will stop you. If it becomes excessive, I'll stop CX.

My background in debate is pretty intense and up-to-date. In my experience, there is nothing that you can argue that I haven't seen/heard/debated against/debated with. If you manage to confuse me, that's probably a sign that something's gone wrong.

For old-schoolers and debaters from State pre-Tabroom:

K: 5

T: 1

CP: 4

DA: 5

On-Case: 4

Conditional: 4

Quantity of Args: 5

New in 2: 4

Communication = Resolution

Quantity > Quality

Theory & Framework:

• I love Theory: most theory arguments go over well with me, so long as you know how to use them.
• Back-and-forth Framework bores me — I appreciate good framing but the framework debate itself is repetitive and tiresome.

Topicality:

• I am not a fan of Topicality. (T) arguments often are filler arguments and I would rather not listen to them.
• If you have strong (T)s that aren't fillers, then go for it.
• (T)s MUST include standards and voters, otherwise, I wash the (T) on my flow.
• I have never, and probably will never, vote on Funding/Agent/etc. You can still run it, but I doubt it'll be enough to win.
• I don't care for F-Spec in the slightest -- I will (basically) never vote on a funding argument.

Kritiks:

• I love K debates and interesting Kritikality.
• If you don't know how to run a K, then don't.
• I expect the Neg to understand their lit base and author.
• If the Aff doesn't know how to respond to a K, I either expect K Theory to follow or the Neg to explain the significance of the K and why it should remain on the flow. If neither happens, it gets washed.
• Props to the Aff if they can K the Neg...

CPs:

• CPs cannot, under any circumstance, be topical.
• PICs are fine with me as long as you know what you're doing.
• CPs should assume Aff solvency in its entirety and contain net-better MPXs in the Calc.
• CPs should be net-better.
• Mutual exclusivity is a novice argument. Mutually Inclusive CPs are legendary.

DAs:

• Must be warranted
• As for MPXs, ANYTHING >>>> Nuke War.
• I don't bother with Race War MPXs.

Evidence:

• I am not a Democrat nor am I a Republican -- I will not vote for you just because you read a card on racism or something.
• I consider debaters that play to a judge's political affiliation to be among the lowest of the low.

Speaks:

• I consider myself hard to impress but that's just me.
• I reserve my 30s for the best of the best; I average 27-28

Disclosure:

I will offer oral critiques to anyone who wishes. I will disclose my RFD so long as 1) the tournament permits, 2) there's time, and 3) all debaters consent to my immediate disclosure.

If any debaters object to the immediate disclosure, then I will accept that and not disclose. If any debaters have any questions, my email is free to those who wish.

Online Tournaments:

I expect all debaters to have your cameras on throughout the entire debate. This ensures clarity as well as fairness. Do NOT communicate with your partner during your speeches/CX.

——

If proper debate decorum is consistently violated, I'll stop speeches/CX/etc. Debaters, especially at district/state should be able to properly adhere to debate decorum.

---

I wish the best of luck to all teams present and expect great things from you all.

~ Kasen Hobson '23

Texas A&M University - Classics

---

In my judgment, the team that I award my ballot to is chosen based upon their skills and arguments presented in the round. I do not judge individuals based upon their race/ethnicity/sexuality/gender/political stance/etc. I believe in an open discussion in the debate space and place resolution and communication above all.

What you say matters more than who you are.

---

I have about 7 years of experience in speech/debate and my pronouns are she/her. Please don’t hesitate to ask more clarifying questions if you need to but here’s my paradigm:

DEBATE

ALL EVENTS: Yeah ok you can go fast, I really don’t mind but if you guys decide to run some wacky arguments really fast please tag and cite clearly so it actually goes on my flow instead of getting lost in the sauce.

Being catty is okay because I kinda like a little drama but if I feel like you’re being unnecessarily rude, that may have an effect on the ruling albeit I would only use it as a tiebreaker.

Framing is key. Always.

I will always listen AND flow your last speech of the round so please don’t give up or halfheartedly do it because you feel like you’ve already won/lost. I’ve seen and debated rounds where the last speech completely changed the outcome of the ballot so please, try.

POLICY: I did policy actively throughout high school and have also debated the current topic. I would say tab/games. I’m familiar with most common K literature (Antiblack, Security, Baudrillard, Cap, etc) and will listen to anything but blatantly racist, xenophobic, homophobic, or sexist arguments. All arguments must have warrants and theory has to be explained.

LD: I’ve competed in it before but I’m unfamiliar with this topic so please tell me what your abbreviations mean. My policy paradigm is pretty much the same for progressive LD as well and if it’s novice, then just do your best and I’ll follow.

PF: I’ll listen to anything. I’m unfamiliar with the topic but familiar with PF and so dw I got you. Weighing is good! Structured flows and rebuttals are even better! FF and Summary are not just mini rebuttals! Please wrap up and give me voters in the last speech!

EXTEMP: Definitely need to hear sources and citations and they MUST be relevant. If you quote extremely biased news sources at me, I will be a little sad. Humor is an EASY way to get 1 in my book, however, make sure we’re staying on topic.

Any other event: just ask! I’m usually not that nitpicky so I’ll view the round however you want me to.

I debated at Princeton, TX and I'm a CXer by trade, though I've been judging often for the last five years since I've graduated so I know my way around all the other formats. I am a "games" judge so I accept anything and everything so long as I've been given proper reasoning. If nothing fancy goes on I default to a policymaker position. "Conservative" and "Progressive" styles are equally valid in my book.

My three top level principles:

• Framework is King: I cannot evaluate something like American Hegemony vs Human Rights without being given a philosophical underpinning on what's a higher concern. Framework is not an end unto itself, but to be used as a tool for establishing priority of impacts. I highly recommend both sides run something on this.
• Competition over Truth: As a judge, I want to intervene with my own knowledge and logic as minimally as possible because that's your job as the debater. As long as you get the technical performance down 80% I can be flexible on the remaining part.
• Evidence Quality over Quantity: I'm less interested in the number of cards read and more in the reasoning of how they come up with the conclusion in the tagline. I'll only intervene here when there is disagreement on what's written. I understand there are cases when a good argument for the situation cannot be prepared in a card so I accept analytics within reasonability. On areas of significant clash I give it to the side that delves deeper into the warrants. When the competing claims slide over each other, I may end up evaluating it as a wash.

One more request: when you invoke innovation, please elaborate what you mean by that. It's the biggest, most annoying buzzword in all of speech and debate.

Onto the line by line:

Speed - I can accept it as long as it's intelligible. If you get to the point where you're wheezing substantially I'll tell you to clear up. Slow down on taglines and authors. If you spread on analysis and they aren't written down on the file, then I can't guarantee I'll have them down on the flow.

Topicality - I take a layman interpretation on what ought to be topical so my threshold is rather high. That said, the affirmative must still have a good technical performance in their answer.

Theory - It's okay with me, though I think it's of a lower priority than material issues and mostly evaluate it as a tiebreaker.

Turns - Link turns, impact turns, and case turns are all very powerful, but please substantiate what's going on materially. There's nothing more confusing than when both sides claim they subsume the other.

Counterplans - The viability of a CP lies in the net benefit that's established. Mutually exclusive plans are the clearest for clash and competition. I accept PICs but there better be a good reason that the aff can't perm. Unless otherwise specified or kicked, I view CPs as part of the negative's world advocacy that can be held against them. Running multiple CPs or CP and K may obfuscate the neg's advocacy, but it's up to the aff to point that out.

Case - If offense is lacking or well defended I often let the affirmative access the try or die argument. I'm not strict on case architecture on either side, but stock issues will always be fundamental and we can't forget that.

Disadvantages - On economic related impacts, the way to break beyond surface level claims is to actually tangle with competing economic theories. Is the Keynesian, Neoclassical, or the Marxist school most accurate on the scenario regarding recessions? I don't know, you tell me. On politics, I think you're obligated to read political capital theory or else it's easy to defuse with thumpers, but I don't accept that you can fiat out of it. Generally I value strong and specific links when it comes to the impact calc.

Kritiks - I can follow along with the theory, though if you start using buzzwords and jargon you'd better be able to elaborate on that. If you run a K you should understand it well on a conceptual level. Like disads, specific links and contextualization to the aff are very important. On the aff side, I'm willing to follow along with K's bad theory, counter-kritiks, and really all bets are off here.

Send the email chain to yashkhaleque2@gmail.com, I'm also available for questions and case advice.

I firmly believe policy debate should focus on the policy - and that the point of the debate is education.

Simplified: The resolution was chosen for a reason. All teams have spent countless hours (hopefully) researching, thinking critically about, and formulating a plan that answers the resolution topic thoughtfully and intelligently. Don't muck up a debate about criminal justice reform talking about LBTQ rights or increasing teacher pay (I'm all for both of these, by the way) unless it somehow legitimately ties into criminal justice reform. I don't care if you think the resolution is not the most important issue right now - it is the most important issue in this debate and should be given it's due respect. I'm good with CP's DA's and even the occasional K (though I rarely vote for the K), but let's keep it real and on topic. I want to see that you can listen to and think critically about, then civilly debate one another's ideas about the topic given to you.

It would be hard for me to support that coconut candy is the best because, well, it just isn't. But I can hear someone else's argument, critique it, make compelling arguments against it and then promote my thought that Reese's Peanut Butter Cups are the world's finest food. If someone makes the argument that coconut candy is the best, and I start saying, "Who cares about coconut candy? Big Bang Theory is better!" no one wants to listen to that disjointed conversation. As a judge, I want you to draw me in and show me what you have as far as thinking and communicating, not reading pre-planned arguments that are not even relevant.

Spreading is fine so long as it isn't so fast or unintelligible as to complicate the round and put an unfair burden on the other team. Slowing down for tag lines is good, but tag lines alone do not convey the details of your case. All of it should be intelligible.

Email chain: dylan.scott@utexas.edu

About me: I debated at Hendrickson HS for 4 years and I'm currently a sophomore at UT Austin (not debating in college).

Short version: tech > truth, clarity > speed, condo is probably good, better judge for policy oriented strategies (this is what I almost exclusively read in high school)

Topicality

• Comparison between affs justified under each interp and aff/neg ground division is crucial.

• I prefer topic-specific T violations that define resolutional words.

• Default to competing interps unless reasonability is thoroughly explained by the aff team.

Framework

• I view clash and topic education as some of the most important aspects of debate. Connecting the internal links of framework to your impacts and drawing connections between interpretations of the topic and your internal links is crucial to win offense.

• Be clear with your interpretation / counter interp and what the topic would look like under your model of debate.

• Topical versions of the aff are very persuasive to me when correctly explained. Cut a card from their solvency advocate and give an explanation of how the TVA connects to the aff, instead of reading the resolution as a TVA.

Kritiks

• The link debate of the K is extremely valuable in creating turns case arguments and external impacts to the main section of a K. Please number/label your link arguments.

• K tricks like root cause explanations and floating PIKs are silly, but I will vote on them if they are dropped.

• Avoid long overviews with irrelevant buzzwords that have zero relationship to the aff.

Counterplans

• Explain how the CP solves each internal link/impact of the aff. Reading a generic card and saying "sufficiency framing" is a quick way to make me ignore your CP.

• CPs that are constructed from aff solvency cards or 1AC evidence is great and will allow you to get away with theory/fiat arguments.

• I lean aff on condition and consult CPs.

Disadvantages

• Explain your impacts clearly and include turns case arguments that interact with both the impacts and internal links of the aff.

• Specificity on the link debate is extremely important for winning the story of the DA.

• If you are debating a politics DA, you should always be reading rehighlighted evidence and going through every card your opponents read (90% of politics cards are trash)

Miscellaneous

• Impact turns are great - everyone should go for them more and punish teams for reading bad add-ons to their aff or DA scenarios.

• Be creative with your theory arguments. Adapt them to specific counterplans/Ks and contextualize theory to the round instead of reading outdated arguments. Ex: Consult CPs without a solvency advocate is far more persuasive than a generic Consult CPs bad block.

• Evidence quality is important and can be the deciding factor in close debates.

I have coached all events, including directing One Act Play. I understand the value of performance. While I love interpretation and public speaking events, I am a debater at heart. Below is my paradigm for judging policy. 80% of what I say here can also be applied to LD and PF debate.

No matter what I say, I truly believe the round is what YOU make of it. Affirmative gets to set the scope, Negative gets to pick the arguments. Debate the way you were taught and in a way that will make your coach and your community proud of you. I love organization. Tell me what you are doing and include me in the round. Remember, I am an educator FIRST. I love policy debate, which means that by default I like weighing measurable impacts vs intangible ones. While I do find the K arguments to be valuable negative tools, I rarely vote on the K alone unless the impact is just that compelling or there is a framework argument that demands me to re-evaluate my policy-making mindset.(Sorry, not sorry.) That does not mean that I rarely vote on T or on framework. I see those issues to have tangible impacts in the debate as they shape what should or should not happen. Using offensive language will earn you a quick loss (I don’t like it and I don’t tolerate it in my classroom). At the end of the round, I look at what issues were clear and the rationale behind them. I expect the debaters to explain why I should vote on something/ not just give me issues. As a result, I urge Negatives to pick their issues and Affirmatives to tell me a good clear story of why I should prefer the 1AC to whatever the neg argument is. I like when debaters compare the world of the affirmative vs the world of the negative. Have fun and be nice.

I prefer debaters stand and face me. I don't like debaters to turn their back on each other or stand over each other in the round (I know this is really not relevant in the virtual world of debate, but it does clue you in on how I feel about decorum in the round). I can usually keep up in a fast round, but I am finding myself more aggravated with the behavior of debaters than performance in the round. Maybe I am just feeling my age. Also, the whole flashing issue drives me nuts. I don't believe in giving extra prep time. Work out a system that is fair in the round to all. If you want to impress me, actually flow and listen to your opponents. I have been told by my own students that I give pretty good non-verbal indicators as to how I am feeling about the debate or issues in the round. Hint- it might help you to pay attention to those.

I'm an old school policy/stock issues judge, who likes to see debate over the resolution, & prefers your speech speed to be slow enough to where you can pronounce every word clearly & I can understand you.