Background: I competed for the UNT debate team, mostly in NPDA and NFA LD. In high school I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate. I qualified for nationals three times in high school and three times in college, best finish was top 40ish one year.

I am fine with anything (Obviously excludes any argument based in rhetoric that disparages any marginalized groups) but in terms of what I weigh with each individual argument here is how I view each of them:

K - If you run a K I want to know the specific role of the ballot and why the alt will solve for the problems manifested within the K. It's a lot harder to get me to vote for the K if the alt is just a way to reshape thinking or the way we talk about things, for me a K needs a tangible way to fight back against the impacts. For example instead of just having the alt be a shift towards communal thinking I want it to be a way that we can effectively mobilize that. This doesn't have to be through the USFG.

T - Standards and voters in terms of the real world are how I vote on topicality.If there is ground loss but you do not talk about why that is a voting issue, I am not going to vote for it. For example if the topic is on climate policy the t shell should tell me why it’s important to debate about in regards to our world and lives.

DA - Big on impact calculus, make sure to weigh the impact of DA’s vs the advantages of the aff. Generic links aren’t as persuasive as links based in specific policies.

CP - I need a flushed out method on why the Net Benefit of the CP should outweigh the case. Not a huge fan of plan-inclusive CPs but I'll still vote on them in some cases.

Theory- I'm fine with theory, just gotta win proven or potential abuse. Proven abuse is definitely an easier way to get the ballot than potential for me.

Speed - I am fine with speed, if you go to fast or your diction isn't keeping up with your speed I'll say clear. Cards you can speed through fine because I'll still have those to read over and check in round, but please either include analytics on the doc or slow down on them.

If you choose for the round to be a more traditional V/C setup I tend to vote mostly on impact calculus that is made at the contention level. I love seeing these impacts used in conjunction to try and turn the other sides value. If you give me another framing argument up top on what my role of the ballot is I will default to whichever side wins framing though.

Feel free to email me with any questions- Josiah.atkinson@westhardin.org

When judging CX I prefer a stock issue style debate but I am open to any argument. As long as you make your case I will flow it and make my decision on which team makes the better case and arguments overall. I do vote on Topicality but it's got to be a clear violation and you must win the "better definition" debate. I will also listen to K's and CP's that are ran correctly. At the end of the day which case makes the greatest REAL WORLD impact should win.

LD I prefer a Value debate over framework. Neg side should clash with Aff so if you are trying to argue a different format than aff it is like two ships passing in the night. LD by design is a debate over morals and philosophy (what is better for society) but again I will listen to any well structured argument.

Extemp Make me laugh, use crediable sources and only walk if you know how to do it. Don't let the walk mess up your speech. I want the sources but I am more intersted in your analsis of the topic.

Spreading: If you spread and it is clear good for you but I will always believe in quality over quanity. If we can not understand your arguments are you really getting to the essence of SPEECH and debate? In person if i visablly drop my pen I am no longer flowing your speech, online I will simply say clear, please adjust.

Hello! My name is Alexander and I've been in the debate world for about 10 years. I view myself as a note-taker and I will do my best to evaluate the arguments on the flow. Here are some of my personal likes and dislikes as a judge. I like lots of warrants, clear explanations of arguments, and impact comparison. I dislike frivolous theory arguments, speed for the sake of speed, and claims without warrants. As a debater I competed nearly 100% of the time using kritikal arguments, so feel free to do your thing, as long as you explain why you deserve the ballot and how the other team can engage in your argument.

Traditional LD judge. Rate and tone are important. No drops. It is value debate so debate the value. Use of philosophy is a must.

I judge and coach primarily LD Debate and Public Forum, though I have coached some CX, and I married a CXer! I have an Extemp Debate paradigm at the bottom also.

LD Debate:

I consider myself traditional. I do not like what LD has become in the TFA/TOC/National circuit.

I do not like speed. Debaters who spread their opening cases because they are not ready for a traditional judge have not done their homework. Speeding up at the end of a rebuttal because you are running out of time and want to get to the last few points is somewhat forgivable.

I do not like you spouting 27 cards and trying to win the debate just by having more evidence and more points than your opponent. I want you to explain your position clearly. I want you to explain how the evidence you are providing is relevant and how it helps to make a logical argument.

I dislike debate jargon. Debaters tend to develop bad speaking habits as they go through their careers. I like a debater that can talk like a normal human being. For example, rather than saying, "Counterplan" as some overarching title, say, "I want to suggest we do something different."

I do believe that LD Debate is at its core still a values debate. I want to hear you talk about values and explain how a value is reached or not. That said, I prefer a contention level debate to an overly long framework. Think about it...we call it FRAMEWORK, yet some debaters spend nearly the whole speech on it! Give a brief framework and move on to explain the argument that supports your V-C and connects clearly to the resolution.

I like a summary at the end of the NR. For the 2AR, please do NOT think you have to do line-by-line. Stick with a simple explanation of why you won.

PFD:

See the LD paradigm on speed, etc. PFD is about simply convincing me your side is right. If both of you have contradictory evidence for the same point, then point that out, and try to win the argument somewhere else. Presentation matters in PFD more than in any other debate event, except maybe Congress.

CX/Policy:

I'm a stock issues judge. Slow down! Give me clear Harms--Plan--Solvency. Provide clear funding if applicable. I'm good with CP's and like disads. However, I think the nuclear war impact is rather silly and could be destroyed by someone that got up and pointed out that it hasn't happened and likely won't happen just because Russia gets mad. T's are okay, but I don't suggest you put all your eggs in that basket. Knowing that I'm an old LDer, the best CX teams will appeal to my logical side, rather than my "I think I have a card around here somewhere" side.

EXTEMP DEBATE

This is NOT a shorter version of LD or Policy. You have two minutes. Just give me a clear explanation on why your side is correct. Essentially, this is a crystallization debate. Brief evidence is necessary, but this is not a card v. card debate. Don't chastise your opponent for not having evidence for things that are generally known. Don't chastise your opponent for not addressing your case in the Constructive; they don't have to. Don't provide definitions unless it is truly necessary. Don't be FRANTIC! Calm, cool delivery is best.

Background

I am a former assistant debate coach from Texas. I debated in Lincoln-Douglas for four years in High School, and I did four years of both NFA LD and Parliamentary Debate in college.

Email: Mroets@princetonisd.net

Judging Philosophy

I'll vote off of pretty much anything as long as it's weighed.

I will judge traditional rounds, I will judge progressive rounds. I've debated in both worlds and have little preference.

Speed

Speed is fine. I will say "clear" or put down my pen if I can't keep up.

Kritiks

Kritiks are fine

Please explain the literature you read. If you name-drop authors and don't clearly explain through evidence/analytics what their theory entails, the argument is tough to land. Assume I am not familiar with the author you're reading.

I care about the alt. Make it make sense, please.

If you tell me in the first speech that some major real-world abuse is happening to a marginalized group in the aff advocacy and then abandon it a speech later for strategy, I will take speaker points.

Topicality

Full disclosure: I love good T debates.

The preference is for in-round abuse to be demonstrated.

Theoretical abuse is sufficient for a ballot if properly demonstrated in the shell.

I want the violation to be as specific as possible.

Standards and voters are essential.

All other arguments

Generally, I am okay with any argument. Give me impacts, an explanation of the literature, and a reason why it warrants a ballot.

Cross-Examination

I don't flow it, but I pay attention.

If you want points for C-X on the flow, put it on the flow during your speech, please.

Be respectful and polite where possible. Rudeness will lose you speaker points.

Ask specific questions in-round and you shall receive specific answers in-round!

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.

Please add me to the email chain: hstringer@princetonisd.net

CX Philosophy
As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes to framework and argument. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round.

I enjoy topical affirmatives and unique arguments from the negative that link to the affirmative case. If an argument applies to any topical affirmative, I tend to not vote for it (provided the affirmative shows that it is non-unique). Really good impact debate is my happy place.

In regards to speed, I would say I am comfortable with mid-high, however it would be smart to think slower on procedurals and tag lines. Go ahead and add me to the email/flash chain and then do what makes you happy.

My facial expressions are pretty readable. If you see me making a face, you may want to slow down and/or explain more thoroughly.

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

In terms of 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. One of my students called me a lazy progressive judge. That fits. I don't read the literature or envelope myself in the K. Do the work for me; I don't want to.

Counterplans, disadvantages and solvency/advantage debates are great.

I think topicality is necessary to debate, but tend to skew to the aff as long as they can show how they are reasonably topical.

All that being said, I will flow anything and vote on anything until a team proves it isn't worthy of a vote.

LD Philosophy

I have been near LD Debate for about 20 years, but have never been trained in it. So, I am knowledgeable about the event, but not about the content within it. You will probably need to explain more to me and why I should vote on a particular issue. As a policy debater, I tend toward evidence and argumentation. However, I will vote on what you tell me is important to vote on unless your opponent makes a more compelling argument for me to vote on something else.

Public Forum Debate Philosophy

My favorite part of public forum debate is the niceties that are expected here. I love to watch a debater give a killer speech and then turn to politeness in crossfire. Polite confidence is a major selling point for me. Not that I won't vote for you if you aren't polite, but I might look harder for a winning argument for your opponent. In PF, I look more for communication of ideas over quantity of argumentation. I don't coach public forum, so I am not well versed in the content. Make sure you explain and don't just assume I know the inner workings of the topic.

SPEAKING AND INTERPRETATION:

I look for the three "P's" when judging events of this type:

(A) Is PRACTICE/PREPARATION evident?

(B) Is the delivery POLISHED?

(C) Is the delivery of the speech (and the behavior and attitude of the speaker, especially towards other competitors) PROFESSIONAL?

If applicable to the event, I also look for a deep and solid analysis of a topic. For example:

(A) Were objections to the speaker's position/thesis thoughtfully considered and addressed in a serious manner (i.e. not just mentioning an objection and then dismissing it outright as ridiculous without further argument)?

(B) Are statements overly general or well-supported by facts, evidence, or specific examples?

(C) Does the speaker, in their speech, contradict themselves or fall victim to the very biases or errors they are advocating against?

DEBATE:

You are there to persuade me, the judge. This means three things:

(A) You must speak clearly and at a rate that I am able to flow as you speak. This means DO NOT SPREAD. It does not matter how many arguments you have, if I as the judge cannot follow and understand them, I cannot be persuaded by them and you will not have time to sufficiently explain and defend them.

(B) You are there to persuade me that your argument is better than your opponent's, not to make your opponent cry. That does not mean you cannot be firm in defending your case and attacking your opponent's, but there is NO excuse for being rude or unprofessional.

(C) Never assume anything about your judge or audience. Do not get caught up in jargon or assume that your listeners know what Kant's categorical imperative (or anything else for that matter) is. If you're going to throw a term or thinker out there like that, you must define and explain it.

For LD, argue from your value and criterion, and use evidence (as needed) to support your arguments. Do NOT turn the debate into a debate over evidence. Persuade me that your value, criterion, and arguments are better than your opponent's, not that you have a “better” or more recent source/card.

Finally, you MUST keep to the allotted time limits, including prep time. "Brief off-time road maps" should be no more that 3 seconds. Period. If your prep time has ended, do not proceed to take 20 more seconds to collect your notes, stand up, and take a drink of water. If your prep time has ended, your prep time has ended.

For CX Debate, I am a stock issues judges; I love stock issues and think they will guarantee a fruitful debate. However, I really am willing to listen to any argument as long it makes SENSE.

Please, do not force me to listen to some overdone kritik that does not link any way to the affirmative teams case. I also think that debate should be a communication activity; I think every word is important and I would like to hear all of them. If you can make yourself understood while spreading, go for it. If not, that is ok; I believe in quality of arguments over quantity.

Most importantly, have fun and be respectful to all in the room.