Parent judge:

Hello all, I am a parent judge and I have been judging LD, PF, and other individual events for the last 6 years.

My email israjran@gmail.complease use it for pre-round questions and for the email chain. Sending me your cases will help me flow and adjudicate your round better.

FLOWING: I will flow a line-by-line analysis. Please start out with specific arguments and then summarize at the end. I am tolerant of going slightly over time limits. I am fine with moderate spreading and persuasive speeds. in the case of persuasive debate, I will weigh the argumentation, and will consider intonation, inflection, diction, clarity, and truth of the arguments in question.

DECISION: I evaluate framework, arguments, reasoning and evidence. Please have a clear framework that's well explained, I default to Util but explain how your impacts function under that FW.

OTHER PREFERENCES: For speaking, please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do NOT SPREAD. Speaking marginally fast is okay as long as you slow down at the impactful parts, tags, numbers you want me to flow, etc. Do NOT RUN THEORY . If I do flow part of your theory argument , it will not be a major evaluation in the debate. Pleasedon't read Kritiksor dense philosophical fws. Counter-plans are fine if you explain them well and show why they are preferable to the aff.

Email for chains: chrisbrannen(at)gmail. com (Put the @ where the (at) is)

Teacher in Goose Creek CISD

I’ve been an educator for 15 years and coached Debate for 8 years.

On Policy:

* On Impacts: I prefer real-world impacts. I'm generally deciding the debate by weighing the impacts of arguments at the end of the round.

* On Kritiks: I don't like kritiks much, but I recognize they are a thing and that even the actual government uses the reasoning present as a justification for some policy decisions. Personally, I find K logic to be circular and uncompelling. If you and your opponents really want to K debate, I'll hear it and try to judge it but I probably won't enjoy it much. :(

* On DAs: Make sure that you do solid impact comparison. At the end of the round, I need something to weigh. The link controls the direction of uniqueness/the DA, not the other way around. Arguments like this can be helpful to you

*On Framework: If you give me a framework, and win the framing debate, I will view the round through your framework. You still have to impact the debate and win down the flow. In other words, if your opponents meet your framework better than you and say so they win. If your framework is morally repugnant to me I will reject it. In the absence of framework debate, I default policymaker.

* On Topicality: The plan is what makes you topical. I will view the round through the lens of competing interpretations unless you tell me to do otherwise. I don’t think affs need to specify their agent.

* On Speed: I'm good on most speed. I’m kind of deaf so yell. Please signpost clearly and slow down for tags.

* On Theory: I default to reasonability. I'll hear a good theory argument, though, given that it is thoughtful and has a point. I don’t vote for whining. I really don’t care if your opponent hurt your feelings or offended your sensibilities. Beat them on the flow and we can discuss them being mean after the round. I'll even go tell on them to their coach if they were really bad. :)

* On Counter plans: I like them. I prefer single-actor counter plans to multilateral actor counter plans. I generally believe that if the US already belongs to that organization then the counterplan is plan plus or the net benefit doesn’t have a link. Absent debate, I think PICS are good and dispositionality or unconditionality makes for good debate.

* On Decorum: I award speaker points based on my preferences. I like polite debaters who appear to enjoy the activity and I reward that. I like debaters to stand during their speeches and during cross-examination. I find objectionable language unacceptable as it rarely provides a good warrant.

* On Evidence: If you want me to call for evidence, it must be red-flagged in the 2NR or 2AR. I generally find quality round overviews in the last rebuttal to be helpful for me to understand why you think you have won the debate.

* If you have questions about anything, feel free to come talk to me at any tournament. I’ll do my best to answer your questions.

On LD:

# I expect you to share evidence. Don't even wait for your opponent to ask. Plan on sharing it.

# On Speed: I'm good on speed. I’m kind of deaf so yell.

# On Framework: If you don't provide a scale in the round to judge by, I will (likely) fall back on who argued their Value/Criteria framework the best.

# On Plans in LD: I prefer a traditional debate, but some of the resolutions these days really do lend themselves to plans. I don't love them, but I'll try to keep an open mind if you want to run a plan or a CP.

# On Clarity: Use conditional statements and make your logic clear for me. Don't make me guess. I want to hear your reasoning. Don’t make assertions without backing those assertions. (Warrants? Impacts?)

# On Signposting: Signpost clearly. Make sure you remind me where we are and what the order of the arguments are. Repetition is a skill in speeches. It isn’t bad unless you overdo it.

# On Rebuttals: In your rebuttal, crystalize for me. Give me voting issues. Use debate jargon, I’m good with it. I’m looking for who wins the key issues of the debate. Tell me what you think those are and why you think you won them. (Or why you think your opponent lost it.)

# On Decorum: There are lines of decency one should not cross. LD is about values. I have no problem imposing a base level of my own values to the round. I award a wide range of points in debate based on my preferences. I find objectionable language unacceptable as it rarely provides a good warrant.

# If you have questions about anything, feel free to come talk to me at any tournament. I’ll do my best to answer your questions.

On PF:

% I expect you to share evidence. Don't even wait for your opponent to ask. Plan on sharing it.

% On Speed: I'm good on speed, but PF is about communication. Don't be too obnoxiously fast. If you're going faster than Ben Shapiro, you're going too fast. Also, I’m kind of deaf so yell.

% I like frameworks. If you don't give me a framework in the constructive, I will default to reasonability.

% On Clarity: Use conditional statements and make your logic clear for me. Don't make me guess. I want to hear your reasoning. Don’t make assertions without backing those assertions. (Warrants? Impacts?)

% On Signposting: Signpost clearly. Make sure you remind me where we are and what the order of the arguments are. Repetition is a skill in speeches. It isn’t bad unless you overdo it.

% You have to do the order of the speeches and crossfire the traditional way. Don't negotiate to change the times or skip the grand crossfire.

% Use the final focus to tell me why you won. Crystallize the round for me.

On Congress:

! On Structure: Speeches that have solid structure make me glad. Intro/Thesis/Transition/Body/Transition/Conclusion.

! On Clash: DEBATE!!! It is Congressional DEBATE! DEBATE! Clash with your opposition!

! On Decorum: But be nice about it.

! On Argumentation: I don't like or expect the same speech 4 or 5 times in a round. The flow ought to grow. Call out the names of other reps and agree and/or clash with them! I start giving lower scores for speeches where I just hear the same thing. Bring something new! (CLASH, baby, CLASH!!!)

Coach at Heights High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, Woodlands SP
Judging at TOC for: Heights EP, Heritage WT

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me. The 1AC should be sent before the scheduled start time, and the 1AC should be ready to start their speech by the start time.

If I'm judging you in Policy: heightsdocs.policy@gmail.com
If I'm judging you in LD: heightsdocs.ld@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, am currently a teacher at Heights, and predominately coach policy and LD: my program competes through the Houston Urban Debate League and the Texas Forensic Association.

Pref Shortcuts

• Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2
• Kritik (identity): 2
• Kritik (pomo): 3
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

• Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
• Tech > Truth
• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
• It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
• I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

• Given that I predominately coach policy debate, I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs.
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
• Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters does not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or someone who is genuinely unaware of the wiki.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

• I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
• I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of k-aff v fw debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I don't disclose speaks.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

I am as fluid as the room needs me to be.
I'll gladly accept Impact Calc, Logic, Ks, Spreading, CEDA-style, Theory, FIAT, DAs, Ts, and just about everything else.

I look for the quality of the debate, and mark high in forms of forcing clash and counterattacks.

Understand that I am an expert on this content, so I do not need filler or backstory.

I want to see teams take calculated risks and show backbone.

I WILL VOTE AGAINST ABUSIVE MANIPULATION OF TEXT/CARDS/INFORMATION

Best of luck to all!

Email: shawn.daugherty@nkcschools.org (prefer SpeechDrop to email chain due to school computer 'firewall' from overpaid IT staff...)

Judged about forty tournaments, about two thirds through tabroom. I have exposure in WSD, LD, PF and CX. I've also judged OI, Prose, HI, Domestic and Foreign Extemp.

Do not like spread, as it is too difficult to gleam the details and take notes on it. I feel that if I can't understand the words coming out of your mouth, and be able to jot a note down about it, then you did not say anything.

Speaker points are higher for those that speak clearly, provide well defined citations, use proper voice inflection and appropriate body movement for the event.

While I don't recommend running topicality or kritik, I'm willing to keep an open mind to it if you think you really have a case for it. I have only seen one topicality argument that had validity, but missed opportunity on a few others.

Been catching CX/Policy recently and seeing many Viva Voce violations. Partners, do not interupt/prompt your speaker when they have the floor. It will likely cost you my ballot. Also, even if open cross is agreed upon, the speaker should still respond to all questions after their speech. It provides better speech points for all speakers.

Email: jjenningscrosby@gmail.com

Last updated: 10/4/20

General:

Summary - Read basically anything you want, go for what you're good at, try new things if you want, Don't be rude.

About me - I debated at Crosby highschool and middle school for a collective 6 years and I debated policy at University of Houston for 3 years. I used to help as an assistant coach for The Kinkaid School for about 3 years.

I am fine with almost any argument, so if you want to read it I'll listen, unless it's things like racism or patriarchy good.

Speed - Go for it. I will not say clear if you're partially unclear, unless its egregious.

Edit for online: remember, not all microphones are created equal, so make sure your microphone can adequately pick up how fast you’re going (maybe record you practicing a block to test it), because your mic may only be able to pick up about half of the syllables you say if you’re going too fast for it.

Cx: (LD is below this)

On topicality and theory, I default reasonability if there is no discussion of this in the debate because it's much less of a risk for the neg. Make sure to make it very clear what your interpretation is and exactly what portion of the plan violates that and explicitly apply what ground/predictability/education/etc you lose from their specific interp compared to yours. A lot of T debates get lost in the impacts of standards/voters and don't contextualize it vs the counterinterp.

On kritiks, You HAVE TO explain the alternative, in debate people get away with not doing that too much, which is annoying as a judge. The only exception to "not explaining the alt" is when you kick it and go for just the k as a k of policy framework/policy debate itself (I don't think is applicable to every kritik, but it is to some). I like when the link is contextualized to the aff (give specific analysis about how the aff makes the system of oppression worse or prevents it from changing).

On Counterplans, I love good counterplans, as long as your story on the world of the cp is clear and you're winning a net benefit that you solve, you should be fine. Do clear solvency/net benefit comparison.

On Disads, have a logical story as to why the aff links and how that causes the impact. Do impact comparison.

Non-traditional Affs - I will evaluate any affirmative even if it's non-policy, just make sure if you're untopical, you have a reason to be untopical.

Framework – I am not afraid to vote on this, I think there are benefits and disadvantages to policy debate and benefits and disadvantages to kritik aff debates. Make sure you weigh the Interp vs the counter Interp because a lot of people weigh the debate in terms of there being no counterinterp.

For LD:

I’ve judged a lot of LD debates. I have coached a few students in LD as well. I am a CX coach/judge/debater normally so do what you want with that info.

I will evaluate almost any argument, I tend to think of the debate round on the bigger picture focus (mainly because the 1ar I feel is rough and it allows better debates for LD), although I have no real predisposition against technical debate, the debaters should tell me how to frame the debate in the context they desire.

Framework: I'm fine with policy, whole resolutional or k debates, just debate out how I should evaluate who wins.

Topicality: I will evaluate T, I default to reasonability if no arguments are made but I will evaluate it either way. Make sure to make it very clear what your interpretation is and exactly what portion of the plan violates that and explicitly apply what ground/predictability/education/etc you lose from their specific interp compared to yours. A lot of T debates get lost in the impacts of standards/voters and don't contextualize it vs the counterinterp.

Theory: I will evaluate most theory, but it has to make sense and I tend to have a higher threshold on what I think is a voter, meaning most theory I've seen in LD doesn't rise past the level of reject the argument, while some LD judges would reject the team. I will not vote on RVIs. I also probably won't vote on frivolous theory (which I think is a very subjective term), which all I really mean is make sure theory has a legitimate reason to reject the team. I default to reasonability if no arguments are made but I will evaluate it either way.

CP: I think CPs make the most sense vs plans and I can be convinced Topical Cps are illegit if you’re winning whole rez should be the focus of the debate (all up to debate).

K: On kritiks, You HAVE TO explain the alternative, in debate people get away with not doing that too much, which is annoying as a judge. The only exception to "not explaining the alt" is when you kick it and go for just the k as a k of policy framework/policy debate itself (I don't think is applicable to every kritik, but it is to some). I like when the link is contextualized to the aff (give specific analysis about how the aff makes the system of oppression worse or prevents it from changing).

Updated - 11/18/2023

Email: njenningsuh@gmail.com,

Experience:

Coached debate at HAIS (1), Crosby (3.5), Dulles (3.5), and Niles West (2.)

Debated policy for 4 years at Crosby (2004-2008), In College at UMKC (Fall 2009), and Houston (Spring 2009, 2012-2015)

Non-negotiables

• If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.
• If you think the appropriate response to other people explaining how they need to be included in debate is to say "West is best" or "Violence towards people like you is good" please strike me.
• Purposeful or dismissive acts of misgendering will result in a full speaker point loss and if the other team makes it an argument the possible loss of a ballot.
• All permutations must have a text.

What is Debate?

I think that we need to understand we are a community of people responsible for the activity, We are responsible for teaching and guiding students to make decisions that are descriptive of the community they wish to compete within.

Framework

Framework is very normally in high school debate used as a way of excluding debaters. Framework doesn't have to be this but unfortunately in the vast majority of HS debates it is used this way. The framing is an exclusionary one and doesn't have the nuance to get out of most of the aff offense.

If you read framework this way then I'm not the judge for you, not because I would be upset with you but rather because I will likely be very sympathetic to aff arguments about exclusion. If you think your TVA is a silver bullet it's not, and your SSD arguments a lot of time are overhyped. I think I agree fundamentally that most of these debates devolve into meaningless hyperbole on both sides. The aff is always debatable and somewhat predictable the question is how does the expansion of predictable limits make it so that the debate is worse and how that change is bad. In this way limits are generally an internal link to clash or fairness and I really think that a clear weighing and impacting out of these is of the utmost importance. I am substantially more likely to vote for clash if it is used as an impact filter/impact than I am persuaded by fairness.

Framework is best when it's simply a disagreement about the meaning of the topic/roles and the negative impact and weighing is about the relative change in the way that debate functions. The expansion of limits and the recognition of the affs value is important. Questions about the roles of the sides and preparedness for those roles. About the ground that the negative has under each interp and why one interp is better than the other. To me, the most important question the negative can push forward is "why negate?" a lot of the affs answers to this question seem problematic. This is not a question of value in fact it seems to assume if the affirmative is right about their normative claims about the resolution why should anyone have to affirm it and if that's the case how do we determine what we are debating about? Why is the negation of negation good? This puts a higher burden, in my mind, for the affirmative to win the framework debate. Most affs have great reasons why they are good but they do not tend to have good reasons why they should be negated.

Critical Affirmatives

Critical affirmatives should have a solid defense of both their importance but also the importance of debating it. There should be a clear area of debate that the negative can and should engage in. That being said I really enjoy watching good Kritikal affirmatives deploy the various ways of relooking at debate structures and topics. I find affirmatives that are either very small but willing to engage with whatever strategy the negative chooses, or conversely, very large structural affirmatives that will engage on a theory level with everything to be the best. Be ready to answer the core questions negation should ask you. Why this aff? Why this round? Why negate this? Why this ballot? If you think you have good answers to those then I'm likely going to enjoy watching the debate.

The Kritik

Kritiks need to have a clear link-impact scenario with a way of resolving those claims. That could be the framework Interp, or the alternative in most debates.

Framework debates can be very important. I think interps that ask me to wish away the affirmative impacts are lackluster. I'm more interested in how we should be weighing things than an argument that says we should artificially bracket off the affirmatives 8 minute speech. You can definitely win we must prioritize ontology, epistemology, or Ethics, or we should bracket off certain types of considerations if they are bad, however, I'm not generally willing to bracket off the aff's ability to advocate for their should statement but rather if their impacts are important or not.

I am way more willing to vote for specific instances of link-impact scenarios than I am for an uncontextualized larger theory of power claim. Specificity will almost always be important to win my ballot. I am a bit pessimistic about what we can achieve in debate rounds but also believe the entrance of different scholarships into debate can and do have value. It however is up to the debaters to make those arguments in a compelling way.

Non-Kritikal Debates

Theory

Theoretical rejections of the team have an incredibly high burden in my mind. Theoretical rejections of the argument have a much lower burden. For me to vote for a team entirely on theory they must prove that the debate was borderline impossible. Contrarily to win reject them argument you only have to prove the debate would be better without the argument. To me using theory to force a condensing of the round is a sound strategy. Also, generally, if you're conceding that conditionality is good then you're highly unlikely to get me to vote down the team on another theory argument.

DA's

Disadvantages are the core of all aspects of debating. Make sure you extend all three components when going for a DA. This includes when going for Disadvantages from any perspective.

CP's

Calling into question the legitimacy of many different types of counter-plans should be a portion of your strategy. Too many affirmatives allow the negative to get away with a lot of abuse on the counter-plan that they shouldn't. CP must have a text, a clear solvency mechanism and a net benefit. Please make sure you extend each if you go for the argument.

Former Debater from Barbers Hill High School, TX

I have over six years of debate experience as an LD and CX debater. I spent the majority of my time in CX.

CX:

Impacts: I prefer real-world impacts, but I am open to more kritkal impacts if they are well fleshed-out.

Kritiks: Not my favorite type of argument, but I will vote for them if there is strong link contextualization and the impact suits the situation. Please do not assume I have read the literature. Explain it well and I will be more willing to vote for you.

DAs: My favorite type of argument. A DA with a great link story and a solid impact chain are my favorite ones to listen to. I am not the biggest fan of generic DAs, but you can make them work in your favor with strong link work. The link controls the uniqueness.

Framework: Framework is important to me. Do not be afraid to dive deep in a framework debate. I will view the round through the lens of the framework if you win the framework debate. Keep in mind, if your opponents fit within the realm of the framework better than you do, then they will win the round.

Topicality: I will listen to topicality, but I do not enjoy it as a time-suck argument. Utilize topicality to its fullest extent if you genuinely believe the AFF is not topical.

Speed: I like a moderate speed. I will let you know if I cannot understand you. Please signpost clearly and slow down for tags.

Theory: Like topicality, do not run it if you do not have to. I am open to voting on theory if I see clear abuse.

Counterplans: They are okay. A good DA and CP combo is a solid way to win the debate. Make sure the CP is non-topical, not mutually exclusive, and does not trigger the DA. If your own CP triggers your DA, then I will have a hard time voting for you.

“Performance” Affirmatives: Not my favorite, but if you feel compelled to do so, please convince me why in round.

Decorum: I do not like overly aggressive debates were everyone is rude. Please do not be a rude debater – I will dock your speaker points. Other than that, feel free to have fun. It makes the round more enjoyable to watch!

*Evidence: If you want me to call for evidence, please make it clear in the 1NR or 2AR. I will be more than willing to look at the evidence before I make my final decisions.

If you have questions about anything, feel free to ask. I do not mind clarifying anything that I have stated above or answering more specific questions.

I normally do not disclose at the end of the rounds. This goes for paneled rounds and elimination rounds as well. I also try to let the contestants time themselves, but if a team absolutely wants me to time as well, then I can.

I've judge the TFA circuit for about 6 years now, and judge just about any event there is. Although I only participated in LD and Extemp in high school, I have a grasp of just about every event there is and talk to other judges on the circuit to gain insight on resolutions and paradigms.

I am OK with speed, but not at the expense of clarity, so I'd like it if you could slow down for main contentions, taglines, your values, criterion, voters, etc.. I will also say that it is important to highlight your voters at the end of a round, and to give no more than 3. Honestly, 2 voters is a fine number as well. 1 voter would probably be too little, and 4+ would be too many.

Please do NOT just flat-out spread the entire round. If you must spread, then please do so during a card. I have never had to yell out "CLEAR," and hope I never have to.

I would suggest using all of your prep time and to not yield any unused time unless absolutely necessary.

I really shouldn't have to say this, but based off of what I have seen in the past, I feel the need to remind you that you need to respect your opponents and should not sass them. Please do not be rude or condescending towards them. I have voted people/teams down just because they were super rude, and that's despite them winning on my flow. Also, please do not be rude or unprofessional towards your teammates or me.

I love unique arguments and cases, but don't push too hard just for the sake of being unique. However, ways to be unique include giving me observations, telling me who has the burden and for what, and using clever definitions, standards, and tests. A lot of great work can be done with your framework so do not neglect it.

I also love it when you tell me what the turns are. A lot of arguments do turn on themselves, so if you point that out to me, I'll give you a lot of credence and that will work to your advantage on the ballot.

I do look at how well you work with your partner too (for PD and Policy), so teamwork and chemistry are a part of the ballot for me. Also, I do look at pathos, ethos, and logos. Pathos does not mean you should just yell the entire time. Please do not do that. As for ethos and logos, I will say that I went to law school, so I know a good source when I hear one, and I know how arguments tend to be flawed and I know how they can become more logical. With that said, logic is different from intuition. Keep that in mind. Logical arguments are great, but intuitive arguments can be strong as well.

For policy debate, I'm a cross between stock issues and policy maker. I love a good K and I really enjoy it when you can set yourself up during Cross-Examination and such. I don't like it when people start talking about space, and I think that extinction is overplayed. I have also voted purely off of T before.

I try not to overthink it. I always ask myself "who do I think should go to the next round?" At the end of the day, I do not want to think I let someone down by not voting for them, so I try to find peace and resolution with my final decisions.

A lot of times, confidence goes a long way, so even if you are unsure of yourself, portraying a sense of confidence really helps on my flow. The way I see it, you all are still young, so you have time to acquire knowledge, so what you need above all else right now is confidence. But there is a fine line between confidence and arrogance. Please don't be arrogant or cocky either.

On the whole though, I would describe myself as a pretty laid back person and judge. I am a bit quirky though, so my apologies in advance if I type something out in the chat and it throws you off.

Honestly, I'm almost never swayed by abuse arguments. That doesn't mean you shouldn't present them, but if you are, then make sure they are legitimate. I've seen too many compulsory abuse arguments. Look at the other side's intent. Can you prove it? Was it just an accident? Is your abuse argument about a fundamental issue, or is it just merely procedural?

I'll generally allow anything, but I am a bit old school and think that LD should still be Value-Criterion centric, CX should be policy, and Public Forum should be more communal, values based, and domestic. PF shouldn't just be another way for policy debaters to compete, but I also see PF as more than just LD with teams. I think PF is kind of a blend of the two where evidence and cards can be read, with some actual policies pointed out as well. But please don't turn PF into mini-CX.

Drops happen, so don't fret over accidentally dropping something, and if the drop was major, then please extend it and give me impacts and its significance. Please don't just extend without any kind of elaboration on the matter. Just telling me to extend doesn't really help me out, but an elaboration, justification, explanation, etc. will go a long way.

Crystallization is super important. Please tell me what the 2-3 main areas of clash are in the debate and why you should win on those grounds. These are essentially what your voters should be, but they should also help guide you with your rebuttals and the other speeches you have before the round ends.

Please don't forget to make extensions. Drops happen, but at least extend your own arguments. At times I've voted down a team that had a winning argument mainly because they failed to recognize it as a winning argument, and therefore didn't extend it properly.

Don't overlook the power of sportsmanship and following ethical guidelines.

Please type in the chat box how much prep time you have left and/or how much you have used. That would be very helpful.

I've viewed all of NSDA's Judge Training videos on YouTube and would HIGHLY recommend that all competitors view them as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq8gnbXDO10&list=PLbRmCbS7bdKJn2GAhHcWe6xIRj2NWPpgk&index=1

Sometimes it helps to look at the videos for IEs and such too. Speaking style is a mode of persuasion, after all, and IEs can show deep reflection. Such deep reflection can be important in a debate round, but is likely more important when conducting your research and creating your cases and such.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLbRmCbS7bdKJLJUgov9kj8kGG1A75q5Nl&v=TEWolJf0F2g&feature=emb_title

If you have any other specific questions, then feel free to ask me before the round.

Please include me on any email chains. My email address is kevin.kalra5@gmail.com

I'm a parent judge

- I have some basic experience judging CX & NPF

- Please go SLOW unless you flash blocks

- Please flash whenever possible

Basically: Talk slow or flash analytics, be organized when speaking, explain well.

Background:

-4 years in Policy/Cross Examination Debate (won a multitude of speaker awards all 4 years and often placed 1st or 2nd in local tournaments.)

- About 2 years on and off doing Public Forum and Lincoln Douglass.

-Qualified for State Tournament in my last two years

-Email: adyanna123@gmail.com

Judging Notes:

-I judge off the flow

- Speed is ok, as long as you can enunciate and send me the case before

-Don't be condescending, rude, or interruptive

-Off clock road maps are appreciated. Please signpost as well.

-I primarily vote off of the flow and who has adequately responded and defended their case the best.

- I am a heavy framework judge, if a framework is presented (and extended) throughout the entire round that will definitely impact my decision.

- If a K, CP, or DA is run, I expect you to understand and have all the necessary components in the argument.

- I like critical Affs but people rarely actually know how to run them. Be sure you thoroughly understand your critical aff before you run it with me.

- Other than that I am really open to any and all arguments if they are ran well.

Overall, a tabula rasa judge. If you can provide a framework for the debate and evaluate clear, concise voters then I will be open to evaluating the argument. Clash, especially on stock issues, is an important part of any round. I have no problem with kritik, framework, topicality, alongside typical off case arguments. I tend to not evaluate arguments left in the round, if you do not carry them through to the end. It is up to the debater to carry those through the round and into the voters during rebuttal. I can follow speed while keeping a neat flow, but you will need to be organized and signpost. A great argument poorly articulated is still a poor argument.

I am a former policy debater that competed on the national circuit, and I have coached and judged intermittently for the last decade. I can disclose at the end of the round (if allowed by the tournament) and will be happy to provide feedback and answer questions when the round is over.

UT'24

email- alexanderjamespoll@gmail.com

I debated CX for 3 years and stuck to policy mostly and dealt with Ks lightly. I will tell you right now that my optimal round is policy v policy. If you have a K aff it should ideally not be too critical and I want a plan text.

Stuff you should know

1) You share evidence, unless you have memorized all your arguments, you will be reading off paper or a laptop, share that with the opponent.

2) Don't flex, if you are clearly winning the debate using some convoluted K, you are intentionally vague in CX and are just trying to win by not allowing for any engagement, I'll dock points cause no one learns anything and you're just an asshole.

3) Slow down for tags and analytics, and make the transition from card to analytics clear

4) WARRANT CLAIMS, I'm not gonna buy bold claims with a buzzword thrown in somewhere if you don't warrant it, an unwarranted claim will not be evaluated by me at all in decision making. If you are debating in front of me and someone doesn't warrant a claim, say they don't and move on and the argument is gone.

5) Evidence with no warrants highlighted - if the highlighted evidence is just the tagline, it's bad evidence. This is only magnified within K debates. Also if you are running a K and the tagline has nothing to do with the evidence you should probably call them out, a lot of K debaters seem to be doing this more and more often.

6) Don't be rude in CX, it's just debate

DA - I prefer a specific link but generics can sometimes work just as well when ran correctly. I prefer more flushed out DAs though and I would much rather have 2 DAs that are well articulated then have 8 DAs that took 30 seconds each.

CP - btw consult CPs suck just don't run them, and I generally don't like condo but if you can justify it, go for it. If however the condo CP does contradict other neg arguments I am much more lenient with the aff on grounds of abuse and there is a decent chance I will straight up drop the CP. Besides that I love CPs and think they are super broken if you use them right and can go great with DAs.

Performance - please strike me

Theory/T - Competing interpretations is what I default to, run anything though as long as you can justify it. Really not much else to say but on the topic of voters and primarily fairness I have seen a lot of arguments like "discrimination used to be considered fair" to justify terrible theory shells, if you do stuff like this, I don't buy it and you won't convince me to buy it.

K - The main problem with a lot of people who run Ks is they seriously don't understand the literature, they just spread as fast as they can and usually articulate very poorly in CX, these rounds I hate and will not judge well. If you run a K, run it clearly and accessibly. I will not evaluate high theory like Deleuze with great efficiency so keep that in mind, stick to things like cap if you really want to run it in front of me. Oh yeah, and links of omission aren't real.

incredibly important facts about who i am as a person - I main little mac

Hi y'all! I did four years of policy debate in highschool, 2 as the 2n, 2 as the 2a. I'm not debating in college now, so the extent of my connection to the activity is periodic judging and chatting with current debaters.

For the purposes of email chain: spencer.powers726@gmail.com

Please ask questions before round if you have them. I’m probably forgetting something.

For Dulles 2023:

Haven't judged since nationals of 2023, so I may be a bit slow on the uptake. I should be able to warm back up pretty quick though. Key issue will be a lack of topic knowledge. I don't know the full resolution off the top of my head (although I am vaguely aware of it!), and I'm not familiar with common topic arguments.

Policy:

Sparknotes/before round:

-Less is more—I’ll evaluate a lot of offcase arguments but I will be sad if i have to use a lot of sheets of paper that get tossed in the block

-I flow on paper--I can understand you speaking fast, but I can only write down so many arguments so quickly

-You can run generic arguments, but I'm generally not a fan of entirely plan inclusive counterplans.

-K framework that takes away the plan is fine. Probably more receptive to it than most.

-I'll default to offense/defense framing, but you can persuade me out of that. Zero risk is hard but possible.

-Conditionality’s fine. 2 is probably a good limit, but I'm open to hearing both sides debate it out.

-Tech>truth, but if I can't explain the argument and its warrants it's not going into my consideration

-I don't take prep for flashing.

-I'll shout clear twice. For online debating, this is especially relevant. You are not going to be as clear as you are in an in person debate, so slow down.

-I tend to take a long time to make my decisions. Don't read too much into it, I just like to cover all my bases.

Full thing:

My goal as a judge is to let the debaters do what they do, and judge accordingly based on who most persuaded me that they are correct. "Persuasion" here may be a bit of a misnomer because debaters oftentimes think that their only goal is to sound pretty when the judge wants to be persuaded. Let me be clear: you should sound pretty, but I will be flowing and taking into account technical concessions as well. But the effect that technical concessions have on my decision will be dependent on how well you persuade me to vote in a direction. I am human, I have biases, and you should use your ability as a debater to make rhetorically strong arguments that make me vote for you.

Kritiks:

As a I 2n, I went for mainly very basic kritiks (as I was a younger debater at the time) such as capitalism and security. As I got older, my partner and I experimented with psychoanalysis, gender, and nietzsche. I have a strong familiarity with all of those kritiks, but my ability to understand them in the context of debate has declined over time without the frequency that competing with them brought. I have a passing familiarity with other kritiks, and will depend highly upon strong negative explanation on both the framework and alternative level to give you a win.

I have found as I have judged that I have oftentimes voted for kritiks that I don't think were very strong. I think this is a symptom of affirmative teams that struggle to explain why state policymaking is valuable and why their affirmative is good. I also think that negative teams have moved towards a "meta" of going for framework really hard, which has turned out to be quite effective for me. Framework really is the central question of the round, and I generally find myself not doing what most judges seem to be doing and kind of evaluating it on their own as "aff gets a plan and neg gets discursive DAs." I really will just let you completely void the plan or completely say Ks aren't allowed. But you need to work for it.

Do more impact work. Teams don't do enough impact work on the K. Aff teams should impact turn more. Neg teams should explain more impact work in general.

K affs:

Sure. I've read a few in my time. I strongly prefer them to be related to the topic, and generally look down upon affs that are critiques of debate in general. I think that having a predictable topic is good, and K affs that are closer to a traditional model of topicality will get more leeway with me.

I don't think it makes sense just to impact turn framework. How can you win if you don't have a counter interpretation? Defend a counter interpretation of the topic and explain its standards in relation to the neg's interp if you want my ballot.

Performance:

Sure. It should exist for a reason, otherwise you're just handing links to your opponent.

Counterplans:

I prefer advantage counter plans and PICs that remove something from the plan. Not a fan of entirely plan inclusive counter plans, such as consult, reg neg, delay, or any other procedural counter plan. Agent counter plans only make sense to me when the aff has a clearly defined agent other than "the USfg". I haven’t made up my mind on 50 states. Not a fan of word pics that don't change the function of the counter plan (No "The" PICs please).

If you feel up to it, you can still run all those counter plans I don't view favorably. Just know that I'll probably align closer to aff theory arguments against them if the affirmative decides to go for theory against you.

I don’t default to judge kick, but I will if you tell me.

Disadvantages:

Judging DA and Case 2NRs is difficult when people don’t do impact calculus. Please do impact calculus.

I’m alright with generic politics DAs. I understand that you might not have a specific strategy for every affirmative. But please, try to get specific with the link if you can.

Theory:

Cheap shots make me sad. If you want to go for one, shame me into voting for you because I will likely feel like I shouldn’t. I’ll default to reject the argument.

Topicality:

I went for topicality a lot, both in my 2NRs and my 1NRs. Predictability/precision standards are probably the most persuasive to me, followed by generic limits and generic ground. Remember to connect them to education (I mostly view fairness as an internal link to education) or I won’t know why to vote for it.

I default to competing interps, but I'm not very strong on that. Affs can win reasonability if they work to.

For the neg: I'm somewhat receptive to dubious T interps. Feel free to explain why your interpretation of the topic is so obviously true, even if the aff is also probably pretty easy to predict generally. It's about the interpretations, not the aff specifically.

Neg Framework:

I am more amenable to skills based/“State policymaking is really great actually” arguments than I am fairness based arguments.

I also think limits as necessary for effective topic education is a good argument. I like smaller topics.

Speakerpoints:

I've found that I'm very kind with speaker points. I'll try to turn it down a notch but I'll probably still be above average. Be kind, rhetorically effective, make good arguments, and make strategic decisions if you want to get high points.

LD Section:

Everything above is true. If you’re doing LD in front of me, you’ll have an easier time persuading me if you treat it like mini-policy. I have preliminary knowledge of Kant, Rawls, Hobbes, and some other weird philosophers but I don’t know anything about how they’re used in LD. LARPing is a good idea. I’m much more likely than any given LD judge to wave away theory arguments as a reason to reject the arg. RVIs are not my thing.

PF Section:

PF evidence standards are not great. Paraphrasing is technically allowed in my book but you need to be very careful about it. Don't say the evidence says something it doesn't, or your speaker points will be bad. You should have quick and easy mechanisms by which your opponent can read the evidence you bring up in your speech. Arguments supported by evidence your opponent can't read will be understood as made without evidence. If you provide the full evidence to your opponents and me before your speech with highlighting of what you've read, your speaker points will be dramatically improved.

I will evaluate the debate by weighing impacts at the end of the round, comparing each team's solvency for their impacts as well as which ones are more important.How I determine which ones are more important is up to you.

Email: mxsanchez1211@gmail.com

General

I debated policy debate for 3 years at Heights High School in Houston. I have been judging for the past 3 years at Texas Forensic Association tournaments. I am a third-year philosophy major and I respond well to kritiks because I have read a great deal of the literature. Because it is my third year out of debating competitively, I am not great on speed. However, that does not mean I discourage debaters from spreading at the speed they are comfortable with. I generally ask debaters to slow down and be clear with taglines and authors. When I judge a round, I look for which team weighs arguments the best. The round goes to the team whose analysis of the arguments demonstrate precise reasons why the team should win. I try my best to evaluate the round based on my flow. I tend not to exclude arguments out of the debate and give debaters full agency of the round.

I default to tech>truth. However, when arguments talk about factors outside of the round, then truth becomes incredibly important to me. For example, arguments that talk about issues in the debate space as a whole rather than the one round.

Affirmative:

My personal view of the affirmative is simply that it should push for a positive change in the status quo. I am fine with stock option plans and I am fine with kritikal affirmatives.

Counterplans and Disadvantages:

I will evaluate any type of counterplan and disadvantages although I have a harder time evaluating Politics DAs.

Theory, Topicality, and Kritiks

I have a high threshold for topicality arguments. In other words, I generally do not vote on T. I am very skeptical of topicality arguments. If an affirmative team can make a convincing reasonability argument in the 2AC, I would most likely buy it. This threshold is generally the case for most other theory arguments as well. However, I will evaluate offense on the theory. For example, if the theory shell turns some part of the case, then it demands attention from the debaters.

Kritiks may be the only argument I have a partiality for. They are my favorite type of argument. Although this may lead some debaters to want to run them to gain favor, I am also acutely aware when a kritik is ran poorly. I will evaluate any type of kritik. When evaluating a kritik, I look to see if there is alt solvency. Generally, kritiks tend to have strong links but weak alternatives. I have no problem with in-round solvency, but the debater needs to make that explicitly clear. They also need to be able to articulate why the in-round solvency is key. When running performative kritiks, debaters need to remember their criteria so they have access to their framework. Otherwise, the kritik is harmed without some access to the role of the ballot or other frameworks.

For any other specific questions please feel free to ask me before the round.

HHS 2020 - UT Austin 2024

tpreston1904@gmail.com

I haven't judged anything in about a year, and am not familiar with the topic at all. If you want any sort of technical round, and especially a topicality round, do not pref me. I'm pretty rusty, and on top of that will not be familiar with the definitions. Realistically, if you're new, or otherwise inexperienced in debate, I'm probably a better judge. If you are more experienced, or want a faster, more technical round, then you should probably pref me lower.

This is my policy paradigm. If for some reason I'm not judging you in a policy round, you should still read this, as much of it may still be applicable. However, do not hesitate to ask me any clarification questions, I'll be more than happy to answer.

I'm fairly lenient on speaker points - I'll give a 30 if I think you debated to the best of your capacity, which requires that you make coherent arguments, and are not entirely reliant on premade evidence. I'll give a 28 if I think you did average. I generally won't go below that unless you really deserve it, which I define as: rudeness or condescension towards your opponent (or me somehow), if you were obviously bigoted in some way in a round, or you made some other major error.

Please put an overview, or some other way to framing the overall debate in your speeches. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, and will listen to (almost) any argument.

On the Aff, I need to hear an overview of your plan at the beginning of every speech (except the 1AC ig). If an advantage is not mentioned in the overview, I will not flow it, unless you somehow completely cover the entire logic chain while defending case. If you are going for turns on a DA, then I would appreciate that being in the Aff overview as well, towards the end.

Neg, you need to make sure to clash with the aff. Cards are fine, but they are almost never contextualized, and if you aren't even going to say which part of the aff they apply to, then you probably shouldn't bother reading them. I honestly prefer analytics; read through their card and find what the actual evidence says, because it almost always isn't the tagline.

Disadvantages I'm a fan of. If you have a specific link that's great, and I will be more skeptical of generic links, but I will be more than happy to overlook evidential specificity if you have good contextualization skills. In fact, even if you have a specific link, you should contextualize it, because I guarantee that your link isn't as specific as you think it is. Otherwise, if you can deliver a coherent story with your disadvantage, I will assume tech over truth. I will vote off of any DA, but I really don't like DAs that occur before plan implementation (IE, a horsetrading DA), and will be very receptive to arguments as to why these DAs are illegitimate.

I'm also fine with Counterplans, as they're part and parcel with most good policy strats. I'm fine with conditional counterplans, but have no problem voting on condo bad either. If you want to run a dispositional counterplan, please make it intuitive. I don't want to think too hard on this sort of thing. The same goes for PICs.

Aff, please perm the counterplan, even if it's dumb. Put offense on it as well, but seeing the aff fail to perm is always painful, and it takes like 20 seconds. When you do perm, please make sure to state what the perm actually is. Don't just say "perm do both". I need to know exactly what you're doing. Otherwise, see what I said to neg on the Aff portion. Clash clash clash.

On Kritiks, I am pretty bad. I am not intimately familiar with most of the literature, and have no interest in becoming any more familiar with it. The only exception to this is a Cap K, which I am quite fond of, provided your alternative isn't performative. I don't think debate spills over into the real world in any meaningful way from these rounds, and will not vote for an alternative that tells me that voting negative will actually annihilate global capitalism or something.

Most policy Theory is stupid and frivolous; please don't have a theory debate. That being said, I am ok with the following theories -

- condo bad/good

- topicality (as a general rule, on specific topics I might be bad)

- something specific and egregious (ask me for clarification before round and I can elaborate)

If you don't see a theory you like up here, that doesn't necessarily mean I won't vote off of it. If you're a theory hack who somehow got me, ask before round and I can clarify.

More specifically on Topicality, I think these debates are a headache if done over the most nonsensical word definitions. You're gonna have to assume I have an 8th grade reading level when explaining your definitions. You also need to spell out the implication if your topicality shell is minute - I don't care about the definition of the word "The", and I won't auto drop someone for failing to adhere to this kind of argument. That being said, I don't have a problem adjudicating on T, and if the aff is flagrantly untopical, I see no reason as to not run it.

The only thing I hate more than (most) Ks is Performance. Please do not read performance. I honestly don't think anybody will if they've read my paradigm for even a moment, but if you do, and the opponent reads any sort of T Framework, I will likely vote for them. Otherwise, I will likely just lose interest. The only exception to this is a performative physical competition, like an arm-wrestling competition.

Some other notes

- I am very skeptical of new neg arguments in the block, and I include new links with this as well. If contested, I will only allow new links to DAs/Ks if they link to something said in the 2AC, not the 1AC. If you make a whole new offcase position, I will most likely disregard it. The same goes for case.

- Neg, please collapse effectively in the 2NR. I don't want to sift through like 6 different off for the RFD.

- I don't like profanity in rounds. I'm not a prude, and I won't dock speaker points, but I find it tacky and obnoxious.

- I also don't like Foucault. Please do not refer to people as bodies or the like. It's creepy.

- The secret word is X-Bow. If you mention the secret word before the round, I'll know you read my paradigm, although I'm not sure what that'll do. If you know what an X-Bow is, then congratulations. I honestly just wanted a secret word.

- One of my biggest pet peeves in debate is the commodification and infantilization of various minority groups, such as racial or sexual minorities. I really don't appreciate the way many in the debate community make arguments such as "black people can't be topical", and I will not consider these as valid arguments.

- Class>anything else. If I see a kid from a rich/wealth program telling me that they're institutionally disadvantaged against a kid from some UDL school, I will roll my eyes, and take it with the biggest grain of salt known to man.

- I will not vote on any argument that intends to exclude people from the round based on immutable traits like race/religion/sex/etc. I will exercise this prerogative impartially.

- If you dunk on kids who are clearly less experienced than you, I will dunk on your speaker points.

- Jokes in debate are almost never funny, and they are always never funny when you're trying to make me laugh. It's also almost always band kid humor. The only humor I like is super dry deadpan humor, and I won't give you anything for it, so don't try to shoehorn it in.

- Please clash, even terrible arguments are better than none. Clash is the most important part of the debate, and

- Don't hesitate to ask me any questions.

LD:

1. Speed: I don't like speed in Policy and I certainly don't like it in LD... I will be flowing the round (not following a file share), so if I can't keep up then you are risking a pathway to my ballot.
2. Values/VC's: I am a firm believer that this is a Value debate, and that your Value is the heartbeat of your case in the round. So, without a Value premise still standing at the end of the round it is difficult for me to vote your way.
3. Impact Calculus: A KeyVo for me in every round will be who has reiterated the greater impacts in the round. Show me clearly how your side has the greater impact on the things that matter in life and you'll be set up well for my ballot.
4. Neg Arguments:While I DO believe you can offer alternatives to the Aff stance to make your arguments, I am NOT a proponent of CP's in LD. Having said that, I do NOT consider it a CP if you simply say, "Look at what X country did and it worked well for them" when opposing the Aff stance.
5. K's: While I'd probably prefer we didn't run K's in LD, please see point 3 under my CX Paradigm for my stance on K's.

CX:

While I am an experienced Coach, there are a handful of preferences you need to know about me for CX in particular:

1. Terminal Impacts: NOT a fan... If you choose to run them, it will be in your best interest to link them to something tangible either past or present. If they are based on the future, you better have some serious links that PROVE that they WILL be happening in the immediate future. Basing terminals straight on hypotheticals are generally no bueno for me...
2. Speed: Also not a fan... If you choose to spread, you are risking my ballot. I will not be reading your case through a file share, I will be flowing, so if I can't keep up then you are risking a pathway to my ballot. However, if I am the only one on the panel that doesn't like spreading, RIP me and I'll do my best...
3. K's: Not against voting for them, BUT you better explain them as if you are speaking to a toddler so I can follow it. They also better be impactful.
4. CP's: I will definitely vote for these if you can prove your new proposal outweighs the proposed. I believe that in Policy these are one of the only ways you can gain good Offense as the Neg, so definitely will vote for them if they solve better.
5. Topicality: I will vote on T, especially if the Aff Plan is wacky and untopical. If it's clearly topical, Neg may want to go for something else.
6. Stock Issues: These are the key voting issues in my mind for every Policy Round.
7. Neg Arguments: If you decide to go for multiple arguments throughout the round, I would very much prefer that you DO NOT drop all but 1 and go for only it in the 2NR. This feels like a huge waste of time throughout the entire round. Link the whole round together and tell me how you've won and how the proposed plan fails to meet the standards of a plan worth implementing.
8. Aff Teams: Successfully support your plan throughout the round. Tell me how this plan is the best idea for the USFG. Win the Stock Issues. Make your Advantages outweigh.

brianwinckler@bolivarschools.org