Congress

Evidence should be properly cited, personal anecdotes or opinions will not suffice as evidence. When using previous arguments, it should be done to directly to refute or add to the the argument, not just rehash the same information again. Debaters should have a strong understanding of the arguments you make. I also expect everyone to be respectful in round, especially during questioning periods. POs should make sure they are not rushing to get through the session, which can result in mistakes. Clarity and strength of arguments count the most, but your presentation does factor in.

email: vadajanak@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her/hers

About me-

My name is Vada Janak :)

I currently coach at LBJ Early College HS in Austin. Go Jags!

I competed for Tuloso-Midway HS (2016-2020)

I did CX, LD, WSD, and Big Questions on the debate side in high school. I also did Congress and Extemp. I've placed state and nationally in WSD and placed at the state level in CX. I qualified to the national tournament each year of high school, and collected bids to the TOC & NIETOC.

TLDR:

First, do what you're good at! I would much rather judge a round that you are comfortable having than judge one where you are trying to match my paradigm word for word.

Given that you:

1) explain the claim, warrant, and impact to your arguments. You will have a better chance of me correctly evaluating your arguments the way you want me to.

2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario, K jargon, or weird philosophies. Help me out, so that I can help you out

3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and/or performative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.

4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.

-Please note: there is a clear distinction between persuasion and passion and being rude. I do not take kindly to rudeness, and it will show in your speaks.

5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech, tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “When what they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]". If you tell me how to vote, why I should vote that way, and why it matters for the round, it will be an easier ballot for you.

6) It has also been a while since I have judged policy in person so please read slower (faster than convo speed but slow enough that you're not gasping for air every 4 seconds), at least on analytics. If you want to sample a speed for me before the round, just ask and I will let you know if that is too fast.

The real one:

1st: policy

2nd: WSD

3rd: LD

Policy:

I was most comfortable doing a blend of traditional and progressive CX in high school. I ran PTX DA's, T, and Cap K the most out of every argument on the Neg. I ran soft left policy affs on the China, Education, and Arm Sales topics, but I ran a K Aff on immigration.

Affs:

You can run either a plan, K Aff, or a performative aff. I am more familiar and understanding of plan text aff's, but I really appreciate the literature and concepts behind the K aff's I have seen. Given that, I will probably need those types of aff's to be explained more in the later speeches and probably read at a slower speed.

DA's:

DisAds are probably my favorite cup of tea. My go to has always be the politics DA. I am familiar with probably every DA there is. Case specific links are always preferred. Don't just read 4 generic DA's unless that's all you have. However, if it is pretty generic, it will take less work for the aff to tell me no link. Also explain the internal link! The more you tell me about how we really get from the plan text to nuke war the better time we will both have. And please please please do real impact calculus and evaluation. Don't just say "The DA outweighs the case." Tell me why.

T:

I am a firm believer in the idea that a well ran T can be voted on in the 2NR. Given that, if you go for T, it should be the ONLY thing in the 2NR, and it should be easily explained and have voters.

CP's:

Tell me how the CP works, why its mutually exclusive, and specifically how it actually solves the aff and prevents the DA. And if you're going to put 8 different planks, tell me how each of those is important. If the Aff doesn't perm the CP or give me a good reason why it doesn't solve, I'll more than likely vote for it. If it is not specified by either team, I assume the CP is unconditional.

K's:

Like I said above, not my cup of tea, but I would like them to be. I'm familiar with Cap and Neolib, so anything out of that area will need to be explained. Please use case/resolution specific links. You can read your "state action links" cards, but the aff has a pretty good footing to tell me why that's a bad link. UNLESS, state action is unique to your K and you explain to me how this isn't the same thing you read every round. Typically, the impact to the K and the Aff are drastically different so please tell me how to evaluate your systematic oppression impact to their nuke war. I hold K's to their alt's. Unless the Neg tells me why, how, and when the alt happens/who can engage with the alt/how the ballot plays a role in facilitating the alt, the Aff pretty much has free reign to tell me that the Alt doesn't solve.

Theory:

If your opponents have given you a real reason to run theory please do! I strongly believe in debaters having discussions with each other about how one of their actions was bad for debate. I also will vote off of Condo bad, especially if you read more than 5 off :)

WSD:

This was by far my favorite event to compete in in high school. I think that it offers the most real world skills and provides the most real education

I started competing in WSD in 2016. The event has drastically changed since then, but I believe how it was 2016-2018 was the best version of it. In 2020, I was 2nd top speaker at TFA state and 12th top speaker at NSDA Nationals to give you some perspective.

I'll evaluate the round in the three ways the ballot allows me to: style, content, and strategy. I will take into consideration the "flow", but just because you "lose the debate" in a technical sense does not mean you automatically lose. Nor if you win the technical parts does it guarantee that you will win the ballot.

Style:

Persuasion, tone, speed, and attitude in the round are things I will consider for your style points. Use your ethos, pathos, logos. This is WSD so do not spread. I also will dock your style points if you're rude or disrespectful to your opponents or to me. Also, don't just read off your paper for the entire first and second speeches. This event has lots of extemporaneous elements to it.

Content:

The first speech is super important to make sure that you can get full content points in the whole round. If the meat of your case isn't good, then you're going to have a rough time in the other speeches. If you're not defining words in the motion, explaining how your model works (if there is one) or giving synthesized examples in the different points, then you're going to have a hard time getting points here. Believe it or not, it is easy to tell when words are coming out of your mouth but nothing is really being said, you know? Just be logical and thoughtful with your words.

Strategy:

This is the most undermined point area in WSD in my opinion. It might be the lowest about of possible points, but most people rarely get them. If you set up your different points in a strategic way, ask POI's that you'll use in your next speech, and organize the debate to tell me not just why your opponents are losing, but also, reasons that you're winning, the points are yours to have. I appreciate organization and I believe that the way you set up your speech is a strategy of itself, so keep that in mind too.

POI's:

Please please please ask/state POI's!!!!!!!!!! Far too often do people not ask enough. A good POI will help get you points in style, content, and strategy. Even more so, ask POI's when your opponents are on a roll because you don't want to let them talk for 8 mins uninterrupted. BUT. Please note, there is a very clear difference in a good "aha! gotcha" POI and a rude uncalled for POI.

Also! you don't have to take every POI you get asked, but if you ignore every single one I will think you do not know what you are talking about or that you are not paying attention.

GDS RFDs:

R1- voted neg, triggered presumption

R2- the aff had the only offense left

R3- novice round

R6- I voted for a fem k aff against 2NR cap k on no link and risk of aff method solvency in-round

Novice semis - I voted for neg case turns

Novice finals - I voted for a conceded disad

I don't know if people still read these, but if you are here welcome! This is updated for Georgetown Day School 2022.

email chain: uva234@gmail.com

People who's thoughts I generally agree with on debate: Gabriel Koo, Michael Koo, Sooho Park, Viraj Patel, Holden Bukowsky, Patrick Fox, Gabby Lea, Phoenix Pittman, Megan Wu, Evan Alexis, Khoa Pham

I have not been active in debate since the 2021 TOC where I coached and judged. I currently work as an economic analyst for Congress after graduating from UC Berkeley in 2020. Previously, I was active in debate for 8 years as a competitor/judge/coach in Texas and California primarily in national circuit LD. I will be admittedly rusty, but you will have my full attention and focus in round. I know nothing about the topic meta or what arguments are being run, but I am familiar with issues in the topic area. 

If you're doing prefs, I have no preferences for any kind/style of argument. As a coach/judge/competitor, I took a flexible approach in terms of k/policy/other kinds of arguments (You can read below the line to see what specifically I judged and voted for in 2020-21).

Things that will boost your speaks: specific and contextual k or DA links, good strategic decisions, quality evidence, logical advantages and link chains, clear impact calc and weighing, clear explanations of k concepts, taking strategic risks and all or nothing strategies like 26 minutes of framework/one off k or going all in on impact turns or something like condo in the 1AR.

Things that will make me unhappy: Poorly explaining arguments, reading bad evidence, long overviews, more than 3 condo, not collapsing as the round progresses, making me vote on arguments that don't make sense, being mean or dishonest in-round.

Be respectful of those in the room, and best of luck!

(Old paradigm below is LD focused, but left up for transparency)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*TOC 2021 running update*

(copied from megan wu's paradigm)

"given that toc is often the last tournament of the year/debaters’ last tournament, and also an unusually stressful tournament, i am happy to honor the wishes you may have about my rfd—i am happy to do anything from giving compliments instead of critique, to only sharing the decision with your opponent, etc. if you want me to do this, please communicate this to me before i begin with the rfd!

enjoy the toc experience—you deserve it!"

I work for the government--better explanations of inter-governmental processes or policymaking would be much appreciated.

R1, F2: Voted for Scarsdale ZS on their moral non-naturalism, intuitions good aff

R3, F1: Voted for Immaculate Heart BC on 1 condo bad.

R4, F1: Voted for American Heritage Broward EM on their contracts/internalism NC.

Conflicts: Garland (TX), Lindale PP, Westlake (TX)

Pref Shortcut: K: 1-2; LARP: 1-2, Phil: 2-4, T/Theory: 3-4, Tricks: Strike

If you'd like to see what rounds/who I've judged, how I voted, my side bias, average speak stats and what kinds of args I've judged, here's a spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vs4kAHB-mdhbm7QInTPOX-Jp8KAZeO1s7WsGGX1m3fs/edit?usp=sharing

Past 2NRs that I've voted for this year (2020-21):

jan-feb: sgr-a1 PIC w/ korea NB, terror DA + case defense, queer pess k

sep-oct: T-"a", prison abolition k, disability pess k, anti-blackness kritiks [4 times], sortition cp and elections da, a multi-plank voting improvement cp and case turns, presumption

Past 2AR's that I've voted for this year (2020-21):

jan-feb: the aff itself [3 times]

sep-oct: AFC [:(], multiple dispo bad, vague alts bad, ableism independent voting issue on a spec shell, the aff itself [only once though *shockingly*]

I'm going back to (in an attempt to be a better listener in round): a) flowing on paper b) flowing what you say, not the doc c) re-tracing the round using relevant parts of the doc only after the round.

Speaks: I'll default to the tournament's speaker point scale if given, otherwise I'll start at a 28.6 and go up/down from there.

Things that will get you extra speaks:

---Writing my ballot in the 2NR/2AR.

---K 2NR's that have aff-specific links, use specific in-round issues to evaluate the debate, and generally explain the K well.

---Executing an aff-specific LARP strategy with robust argumentation.

---Explaining philosophy well. (I'll be super impressed with this specifically)

---A well-researched and well constructed aff.

---Strategic choices and concessions that get you ahead in the debate.

---Weighing

---An all or nothing strategy and winning it. Examples: a) the 2NR goes all-in on impact turns to the aff and nothing else b) the 1AR straight turns the 1nc's disads c) the 2AR only goes for their Kant framing and precluding all the neg's offense d) the 2AR goes for a 1AR discourse K

Things that will make me unhappy and likely lose you speaks:

---Poorly explaining arguments or reading bad evidence.

---Making me yell clear multiple times

---Going for everything in the 2NR or 2AR

---Making me vote on tricks, a random truth-testing argument, an RVI, or on a theory shell that doesn't pass the common sense test.

---Being mean or saying something awful in-round. [I reserve the right to intervene if what you said is truly awful]

---Long 2NR K overviews.

---Being overly reliant on blocks, or not utilizing the flow/issues that happened in-round.

Some thoughts I have on debate that reflect my thinking and may affect how I judge the round:

1] I prefer to hear smart, well-researched, good quality arguments. The bright line for this is whether or not a school administrator/sponsor would view debate positively after seeing/hearing the argument. This matters because all too often people are willing to vote on illogical, poor quality, or dumb arguments that reduce the value of debate as an activity. I would prefer that debate becomes a stronger and more vibrant activity, and to that end, I will strive as a judge to promote that goal.

2] At the end of the round, I want to only vote for arguments that I can explain back to the debaters. As a judge, I feel that this is only fair so that I can give a coherent RFD and not leave one or both debaters confused and/or angry. That means that in your 2NR or 2AR, you should explain the position/argument that you're going for well, in addition to winning the position/argument on a technical level.

3] Defaults I will use (in the absence of argumentation or being told otherwise):

Framing: Util

Competing Worlds > Truth Testing

Presumption: Neg

Theory paradigm issues: 1AR theory is legitimate, No RVI's, Reasonability, Drop the Argument

T paradigm issues: No RVI's, Competing Interps, Drop the Debater

Role of the Ballot: Vote for the debater who did the better debating.

Role of the Judge: To decide a winner, a loser, and assign speaker points if this is prelims.

4] While the 1AR or 2NR might be time-compressed or skewed strategy-wise, I believe that granting an RVI is not the right correction to make. Instead, reasonability and/or drop the argument make way more sense to me to correct the abuse incurred by skews or frivolous theory shells.

5] I find that unless there is substantial demonstrated in-round abuse, I'm skeptical of voting on theory and tend to think that it's a reason to reject the argument, not the debater.

6] Evidence ethics is a stop the round issue. If a challenge is initiated, I will evaluate it and nothing else in the debate. A successful challenge will result in an L20 for the evidence offender, and an unsuccessful challenge will result in an L20 for the challenge initiator.

Old paradigm (that's still true, but was scrapped for length and being overly complicated): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bxnud-Adkse3iBuHL3LW6WOx-tPHHxUHGVLSLpjTSO0/edit?usp=sharing

Spoiler alerts

Pronouns: Call me whatever you want but I have always gone by John Henry (he/him/his)

I have a nerve condition that can make it hard to listen to debating that is exceptionally fast-paced (>350 WPM), high-pitched (>350 Hz), or loud (>78 dB). Please do not take this personally, but if you plan to exceed any of these ranges at any point in the debate at least let me know in advance.

If your opponent is being problematic plz call them out I have a bad habit of not realizing these things until they're out of hand.

Do you know me?

WB Ray 2015-2018

Tuloso Midway 2018-2019

Washington & Lee c/o 2023 #change the name

I have been debating since 2013. Although I have done every form of debate under the sun I would say my areas of expertise are Policy, LD, Big Questions, and PF (in that order) although I'm sure I could get by in any debate format. I qualified to TFA and UIL State every year of high school (2016-2018 in policy, 2019 in LD) I have debated on local, state, and national circuits and I won NSDA Big Questions my senior year.

Put me on the email chain: stearnsj23@mail.wlu.edu

TL:DR

Do what you love

Love what you do

If you're having fun

I probably am too

Quick Prefs (LD)

K - 1 (anything from PoMo goo to Cap to Interpretive Dance)

Policy/"LARP" - 1 (hard right or soft left)

Traditional - 1 (here for it)

Phil - 1/2 (would love to see more of these)

T - 2 (good T debate is a 1, bad T debate is a 3)

Theory - 2/3 (a dropped arg = a dropped arg but an unwarranted argument ≠ an argument)

Tricks - 3/4 (see Theory)

Quick Prefs (Policy)

K - 1

Policy - 1

Stock Issues - 1

Aff specific strats - 1

PTX - 1/2

Topic DAs - 2

Framework - 2 (I don't like these debates but they are valuable and I could be persuaded either way)

T (not framework) - 2

Theory - 2 (a dropped arg = a dropped arg BUT an unwarranted argument ≠ an argument)

Things I don't understand - 4/strike

***Full paradigm***

K

Surveillance topic I read an internet freedom aff, China topic I read space, Education topic I read an emotional intelligence policy aff and Queer X-Men Magical Realism, senior year I competed in LD and read a combination of Heg good, the USfg is a fascist state, and disability performance. What does this mean for you? I don't know.

I typically divide Ks into four sections (all of which are arbitrary personal preferences) 1) structural 2) post-structural 3) performance & 4) other

1) Structural Kritiks: Who doesn't love a good cap debate? Eat the rich? Sure. Is cap key to space col? Maybe. Nothing here is a given. Antiblackness can be a structural or more identity-oriented argument. Please make it clear which route you intend to pursue and stick to it. Most alts don't solve their own impacts, but nobody said they have to. I ran anthro once but it was actually just Agamben so I'd like to see more of this

2) Post-Structural Kritiks: You hawaiian shirt and chino pants wearing buffoon. Nietzsche is logical but unappealing, Baudrillard & Co. are cool but you have more explaining to do. I have a soft spot for Biopower authors, but I still don't know what the alt does / how it solves the impacts. I feel like everything I learn about Deleuze makes me know less. Schopenhauer, Heidegger, Psychoanalysis are topics I probably would have read/debated more if I understood better.

3) Performance Kritiks: Junior year I read an X-Men queer performance aff and senior year I wrote and read disability poetry in rounds so I love this kind of debate. Do this if you are passionate about performance. Avoid this if you're just doing it to get some dubs. If your arguments get extra textual make sure to spell out what that means and why I can/should vote on it. I don't know if spillover is real or not. Poems are can be arguments. FYI I find these arguments more persuasive when you don't spread but if you want to let it rip, go for it.

4) Other Kritiks: Ks of debate, Buddhism, or like Ks of your opponent's performance all fall into this category. Feel free to run these. I do not understand them well, so please do a lot of explaining.

Role of the Ballot: I mean I guess, but if it's super arbitrary it will only make my vote more confusing

Presumption: Does it flip neg? I don't know. Convince me.

"ThE aLt Is ThE SqUo": Debaters often use this phrase. If it is, then why did you read a card on it? I think I know what the status quo looks like already.

Things always seemed to work out for me when I explained my alternatives as if my judge had never heard of debate before. This doesn't mean you have to, but it seems to help. LESS = MORE

Framework

SLOW DOWN. I view Framework much in the same way that I view Eminem's Rapping. Sometimes it's really good, in fact some of the best ever. Sometimes it's really bad and makes me want to tear out my ears. I can tell good Eminem from bad Eminem, but I never enjoy listening to it.

Policy Affs

Big stick affs are cool. One advantage affs are cool. IR theory affs are cool. Small affs are cool. Non-topical policy affs are not cool. If I don't know what your aff does I will have a hard time voting for it. Please slow down on plan texts.

Soft Left affs: If you spend 5 minutes of the 1AC explaining what extinction doesn't matter please provide me a metric to weigh other impacts.

On Case Neg Args

yes yes yes and yes

Internal link work: underrated

Impact D: honestly my favorite argument in debate

Impact turns: these debates are so fun [unless they're against soft left affs :( ]

DAs

There is such thing as zero percent risk. If you make eye contact with me for more than 3 seconds during these debates you will probably be able to tell whether or not I'm buying your argument. If you're aff, please read offense on these pages.

PTX: I don't think you can perm the DA. Prove me wrong. I don't care if the line item already passed, I care if your opponent knows that.

Turns Case: Read it. This usually has a HUGE impact on the round.

CPs

Counterplans are great.

PICs: I would prefer if it was plan specific, but wouldn't we all. They might be bad, let me know if they are.

Advantage CPs: My second favorite argument. If you have enough of these that are well researched and have fleshed out net benefits you can answer any aff no matter how small. Extra spice points if you impact turn the other advantage(s). If you have a reason these are bad please let me know

Word PIKs: Alright i guess, but the more nitpicky the argument, the less persuasive it will be.

Multiplank CPs: Probably fine if the planks aren't conditional. Probably problematic if they are. If you have a love or fear of multiplank counterplans ask me about "the condo trick" after the round

Judge Kick: I'll default to sticking you with the counterplan but if you tell me to judge kick and win the arg I'm down

T (not Framework)

Good T debates are good. Bad T debates are bad. Debaters often overlook the importance of the difference between topicality as what the topic means and topicality as what the topic should be (to be clear I am not partial to either of these interpretations).

Impacts: I always sucked at T debates because I have a hard time concisely describing why they are actually important. Don't be me.

Competing interps vs. Reasonability: Competing interps is probably true, but I really don't like what it does for debate. Exploit my biases accordingly.

T is an RVI: I can not imagine myself voting for this argument but it's a time suck I guess.

Theory / Tricks

I like theory arguments like conditional Ks bad or 14 off is an unethical strategy. I do not like theory arguments like must spec the status of the alternative in one off debates during the 1NC. If in round abuse has actually occurred please read theory, if it has not please avoid hedging your bets on it

Impacts: I always sucked at theory debates because I have a hard time concisely describing why they are actually important. Don't be me.

Competing interps vs. Reasonability: Competing interps is probably true, but I really don't like what it does for debate. Exploit my biases accordingly.

Drop the Team vs Drop the arg: my default is case-specific but please don't make me revert to it

Theory is an RVI: I am partial to the idea that theory is an RVI if in-round abuse has occurred from the use of theory. Otherwise, this argument makes very little sense in Policy but a little bit more in LD.

Phil

Being a philosophy major I love this stuff but like slow down. I would love to hear your analytic Post-Keirkegaardian anti-furry weeaboo slime but if it justifies racism it's probably bad.

Speaker Points

*modified from Ali Abdulla's page, will update as I continue to judge*

Will modify for tournament quality/size. My speaker point scale is:

<27 - you probably did something offensive

27-27.4 - You made good arguments but never explained why they matter

27.5-27.9 - You had a coherent strategy in this round but it was not executed effectively

28-28.2 - Expect you to be solidly in the 2-4 bracket. Probably a newer team who has some stuff figured out but isn't quite there yet.

28.3-28.4 - Expect you to break even. All the pieces were there but you were lacking a higher degree of argument interaction.

28.5-28.6 - Expect you to go 3-3 or 4-2 and be on the verge of breaking. Good arguments, but you made some broader strategic missteps.

28.7-28.9 - I expect you to break/clear. I liked your well thought out strategy but still need to work on implementing that strategy and you made some great arguments but could have made the debate clearer, more organized or more nuanced.

29-29.4 - You were great and on the threshold of being amazing. You had a well thought out and implemented strategy and great arguments but were somewhat lacking in some form. I expect you to be in later elims.

29.5-29.9 - You were amazing. I expect you to be the top speaker at this tournament and most likely win the tournament or at least make it into deep elims. Any problem I found in your speeches was probably nit-picking.

30 - You have cured my depression.

Affiliation: Winston Churchill HS

email: s.stolte33@gmail.com

*I don't look at docs during the debate, if it isn't on my flow, I'm not evaluating it*

**prep time stops when the email is sent, too many teams steal prep while 'saving the doc'**

Do what you do well: I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments these days. The most enjoyable rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. You are likely better off doing what you do and making minor tweaks to sell it to me rather than making radical changes to your argumentation/strategy to do something you think I would enjoy.

-Clash Debates: No strong ideological debate dispositions, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. I think there is value in K debate and think that value comes from expanding knowledge of literature bases and how they interact with the resolution. I generally find myself unpersuaded by affs that 'negate the resolution' and find them to not have the most persuasive answers to framework.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I often find this to be the biggest issue with with politics, internal link, and permutation evidence for kritiks.

-Speed vs Clarity: I don't flow off the speech document, I don't even open them until either after the debate or if a particular piece of evidence is called into question. If I don't hear it/can't figure out the argument from the text of your cards, it probably won't make it to my flow/decision. This is almost always an issue of clarity and not speed and has only gotten worse during/post virtual debate.

-Inserting evidence/CP text/perms:you have to say the words for me to consider it an argument

-Permutation/Link Analysis: I am becoming increasingly bored in K debates. I think this is almost entirely due to the fact that K debate has stagnated to the point where the negative neither has a specific link to the aff nor articulates/explains what the link to the aff is beyond a 3-year-old link block written by someone else. I think most K links in high school debate are more often links to the status quo/links of omission and I find affirmatives that push the kritik about lack of links/alts inability to solve set themselves up successfully to win the permutation. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation as the debate progresses is something that strategically helps the negative team when it comes to contextualizing what the aff is/does. I also see an increasingly high amount of negative kritiks that don't have a link to the aff plan/method and instead are just FYIs about XYZ thing. I think that affirmative teams are missing out by not challenging these links.

FOR LD PREFS (may be useful-ish for policy folks)

All of the below thoughts are likely still true, but it should be noted that it has been about 5 years since I've regularly judged high-level LD debates and my thoughts on some things have likely changed a bit. The hope is that this gives you some insight into how I'm feeling during the round at hand.

1) Go slow. What I really mean is be clear, but everyone thinks they are much more clear than they are so I'll just say go 75% of what you normally would.

2) I do not open the speech doc during the debate. If I miss an argument/think I miss an argument then it just isn't on my flow. I won't be checking the doc to make sure I have everything, that is your job as debaters. This also means:

3) Pen time. If you're going to read 10 blippy theory arguments back-to-back or spit out 5 different perms in a row, I'm not going get them all on my flow, you have to give judges time between args to catch it all. I'll be honest, if you're going to read 10 blippy theory args/spikes, I'm already having a bad time

4) Inserting CP texts, Perm texts, evidence/re-highlighting is a no for me. If it is not read aloud, it isn't in the debate

5) If you're using your Phil/Value/Criterion as much more than a framing mechanism for impacts, I'm not the best judge for you (read phil tricks/justifications to not answer neg offense). I'll try my best, but I often find myself struggling to find a reason why the aff/neg case has offense to vote on

6) Same is true for debaters who rely on 'tricks'/bad theory arguments, but even more so. If you're asking yourself "is this a bad theory argument?" it probably is. Things such as "evaluate the debate after the 1AR" or "aff must read counter-solvency" can be answered with a vigorous thumbs down.

7) I think speaker point inflation has gotten out of control but for those who care, this is a rough guess at my speaker point range28.4-28.5average;28.6-28.7 should clear;28.8-28.9 pretty good but some strategic blunders; 29+you were very good, only minor mistakes

Add me to the email chain: c.albertovillarreal1124@gmail.com

While I understand there is no such thing as a 'real tab judge' I'd still say I'm tab. I don't hold anything against certain arguments, but I have debated and it's no secret that some arguments aren't as serious or as effective as others. I'll start with a general overview if you're reading this right before a round and then go argument by argument and/or speech by speech.

I debated policy for four years in high school and did some LD off and on. I'm a tab judge so run what you want, just make sure you know what you're running. i.e. if you run set col and don't know what it is, there is a possibility you could win the argument, but it won't be good. In other words I won't vote you down if you don't understand it completely but if you go up and say a dog is obviously a cat, it'll show on you speaker points. If you run theory it needs to be the biggest voter or don't read it past the 1NC. Same for T. If you run T, run it correctly. I understand that the neg likes to use time sucks, and that's part of debate, but don't waste everyone's time reading a time suck in the 2NC. Case turns are fun, so are DA's. If you run a CP it needs to be functionally competitive and mutually exclusive for me to vote on it. Needs to solve part of the aff and some outside of the aff. Don't read your plan text as a CP, some of you may not think it happens...It happens. If you run a K, I'm familiar with all the basics from cap to set col. Don't expect me to know everything you read from every K, I'm not familiar with every author, but I do know a little bit about a lot. (This is not to discourage you from reading certain K's, but don't rely on talking about how you know what the literature says the entire debate round because I don't know you or what you do and don't know). I will vote on framework, but do more than the one line "We get to weight the 1AC against the K because otherwise it moots 8 min of the 1AC", I know that. I usually always assume that unless the K goes directly against the case, you need to put some work into that K Framework if you want me to bother flowing it. Do not read any racism good or slavery good arguments. I understand there are some derridian ethics on infinite hospitality that have some overlap with the topic, but don't flat out say that racism and slavery are good.

Now for the meat:

T:

I love T debates, I also hate the way a lot of people read T. Topicality is not just a question of being withing the topic, but the nature of the resolution, what areas are worthy of discussing, and sets a precedence for what topicality is for the rest of the debates to be had. I also believe that as the year goes on, I start to vote less on the argument that the case may be topical but justifies untopical affs. That being said, there is a way to prove not that fx t is good, but that your fx-t case is good for debate or this debate in particular. If you're confused on this ask me about it.

As I said before, you need to run T correctly, but as long as that it done, you can be creative as you want in running those arguments. That doesn't mean I love every single T. It's almost obvious when you run it as a time suck, judges can see that. If you're going to go for T, I need to see it in the 1NC and 2NC. There are some very minuscule T arguments that were written for specific cases that people decide to run for other cases, that's fine but you need to pay extra attention to this rule that applies to all T. This is basic, but a lot of people forget it. There needs to be a CLEAR violation. Establish the violation and everything else it straightforward, just do the work and don't cut corners.

When it comes to voters, never say framers intent, because I don't care what the framers wanted us to talk about, I care what you have to say about the resolution and what you can contribute to the developing interpretation of the resolution. Other voters/impacts are good, In round abuse is your best bet.

Spec: You need to ask them to specify in CX and draw a clear and straight line from the violation to impacts otherwise I won't flow it.

DA/CP:

I like them together, if you run a CP, it needs to have a DA as a net benefit, other than that it's the same as the general overview.

DA's are pretty basic and pretty fun. The more unique and link specific it is, the better the debate. I'm not a huge fan of ptx disads, but they can be run, you just need to do A LOT of link work to make me believe that this case is going to trigger that disad. Other than that run DA's the way you want, do what you need to do in round, just make my life easy when you're going for the impacts and do some impact cal.

Theory:

Like I said, if you're going for it, then it needs to be GOOD, for me to vote on it. There are some theory arguments that can be very compelling, but if you're going to go for it, then it needs to be your only argument.

K:

I love a good K debate, I especially love a very viable and clear link. If you're going for an epistemology link, then you better have a lot of direct quotes from the aff or the aff case to prove it, otherwise it's going to be hard for me to vote on that. Links are crucial because if they're not then I'm most likely to err towards the aff Framework on how I should evaluate case before the K.

When it comes to the alt debate, it always gets messy because it does. I don't always need a specific picture of what my everyday life will look like in the all, unless you're alt is built like that. EX: if you run the communist hypothesis or something like that then I will need a clear picture, this isn't just for cap, but every alt structured like that). I just need enough to know that you know what the alt looks, acts and feels like. If you're confused on that then you should probably work on you alt debate, because at the end of the day debate by nature is trying to convince me of something, so convince me that you know the alt and believe in it. I will listen to judge kicks on the alt, I even appreciate it when the alt debate gets waaaayyy too muddled, but you need a specific link and good impacts.

When it comes to the impact debate, usually they are specific to the K, but you need to prove that your impacts are clearly bigger than the case or link/spill over to the case. I appreciate in round impacts but they're not absolutely necessary.

Like I said I'm not familiar with every K, but I know a little about a lot, don't treat me like a policy/stock/lay judge, but don't assume I've read every piece of literature you have on the K.

If you want to run identity and performance K's that's fine, but try to keep it as clear as possible. I get you don't want to say that the K has advocacy or anything like that. But I need to know what the K does, what you're doing, and what the point of you reading that right now is. I hated in debates when people didn't clarify any of that until the 2NC/2NR, and I hate it as a judge.

Framework:

I'm not very invested in framework but I strongly believe that as an argument it has a place. I very much relate to the small school who just needs a way of defense, but I also like when you actually run framework to it's full extend. It's hard to how I evaluate it since every interpretation requires a different way for me to evaluate it against certain arguments. You just need to debate it out and just make sure your voters and interpretation(s) are clear. Explain why yours are the best or biggest.

Framing/Case:

I feel like framing is good to have in every case and/or speech. It's never bad to have but isn't always necessary. I grouped the two because framing should be included in the rest of the arguments I listed, and the only way I will vote on framing without an off case position is if you go for framing and case. Case is pretty basic and I'm not going to go too deep into it. Framing is just your was to give me an evaluative lens for the round, once again you need to debate this out and convince me your right, relate it to the arguments you read and the round if you can.

Hope this helped, if you have any questions feel free to email me, but it may be a late response.