Congress-I used to be a Congress debater, so I am very focused on both the way you communicate your arguments as well as the arguments themself. If you are a good speaker with no clash and non-unique arguments, you will not be ranked over others who have more wholesome arguments. Additionally, I do focus on Parliamentary Procedure, and this can make or break a round. Bad control of the room is reflected on my ballots. Finally, quality is always better than quantity. Just remember, if I don’t notice you in the room, it will be difficult for me to compare you to other debaters.

Debates-I enjoy a good flow of debate, and I must be able to recognize what is being argued. A lack of clear articulation of case arguments will hurt your debate as a whole. Additionally, I am open anything during the round, but be clear when you intend on introducing an obscure aspect to your roadmap. Signposting is not necessary if I am sent your case.

Speaking-I will focus on clarity and articulation of arguments in your speech, as well as your arguments themself. All arguments should work with each other to express one clear idea, and a failure to connect each argument to the topic of your speech will yield to a lower overall ranking.

I am a policy judge. Be sure to weigh the disadvantages and advantages. Hit on the stock issues. When it comes to speed, spreading is perfectly fine as long as I can understand you. Slow down a little on taglines. Topicality is an independent voting issue. If you run T, don't use it purely as a timesuck argument. If you're gonna go for it, stick with it. Counter Plans can be a voting issue, so long as they are competitive. I don't like K's.

Feel free to call me Allie. She/they. Former policy debater, judge/coach of 3 years running.

Current conflict is Jones (Chicago)

Email chain please: allie.gutierrez@live.com - If you have any questions before/after the round, shoot me an email! Especially when the RFD is on a time crunch, I'm happy to give more feedback.

TLDR:

No one is pure tab, but I'm as close as I can be. I'm good with Policy v Policy, Policy v K, and K v K. I lean pretty tech > truth. We're all here to learn, so be good people and have a good time!

If it’s LD or PF, you can probably get most of what you need from my CX paradigm, but particulars are at the bottom.

Some things I find affecting my general philosophy:

I've seen more judges refusing to vote for racism good, etc., and I'm all for it. If your arguments are offensive (racism good, sexism good, etc.) or make the space unsafe, I won't feel bad handing out an L25. What I haven't decided is how to handle cap good, climate change not real, etc. These arguments aren't explicitly offensive, but invalidate very real issues/experiences. As tech as I am, I'm skeptical of the rising popularity of arguments that embrace harmful pedagogy. For now, just know my tech > truth default wavers a little here.

Framework:

I'm not dogmatic about impacts, just prove why your model is best for the round and the world of debate. Bad for "Ks bad for debate", good for solid aff framework vs. neg Ks.

If you have an ROB/ROJ, please substantiate it. I've judged a lot of rounds where a pretty complex and/or self-serving ROB is read, but not A) what it means in the context of the round and B) why it's net beneficial for the debate.

For K affs, I tend to be happier if you debate the aff as is. Meta pre-reqs are a thing, but this too often feels like a way to avoid developing creative/strategic arguments. There are definitely exceptions - I'm sympathetic to the neg when aff literature doesn't mention something at least tangential to the topic. Regardless, don't feel the need to over-adapt to my preference.

I'll vote neg when: the aff has a poor counter-interp, the neg turns aff impacts, the topical version accesses aff impacts, or neg offense outweighs the limits DA.

I'll vote aff when: the 2NR fails to collapse the impact debate, the neg doesn't either turn or access aff impacts, or the aff successfully doubles down on an exclusion argument that turns neg impacts.

Topicality:

Evidence comparison!! If you have a quality definition that's contextual to the topic and fail to call out some nonsense def from Words and Phrases, I will be so sad. But, I don't want to read the size 2 text that makes 5 highlighted words a good definition. Either highlight more or weigh the ev for me.

I'm slightly reasonability-biased, at least for plan-less affs and stock cases. Good debating overcomes this. Please don't waste time running arbitrary, 5-second T shells. "Untruthful" T > 4 shells you kick coming out of the block.

I don't think TVAs are 100% necessary to win T (particularly against policy cases), but they can be useful.

Theory:

I think theory is super underused in high school! Explain why your interp is the best model and sets a necessary precedent, making theory a pre-req to the sub debate. While I don't often see rounds where things like condo and PICs are a genuine issue, I happily vote on them when executed well. Some slight biases:

Disclosure is good. Update your wiki's. No, don't run disclosure against novices or small-school debaters.

Condo is probably good within reason, but dispo is subjective and weird.

"Cheating" CPs are usually fine, but the legitimacy of delay, consult, etc. is iffy.

Perf con can sometimes be bad.

All of this can be overcome with good debating. Same as T, please don't run it for no reason.

DA's:

Case-specific is preferable, but generics are fun when contextualized in specific terms of the aff (yay for knowing your way around political/economic theory). Evidence, story-telling, and impact calc are all of equal importance. Zero risk is possible, but difficult to prove. Minimal risk makes the DA pretty negligible sans a strong framing debate. Some teams focus heavily on the link/impact and disregard uq and internal link chains, but defense here can make a big difference.

"Politics DAs are just bad for debate" isn't an argument. You can explain this and impact it out, but I don't accept the statement alone as a sufficient response. Root-causing and/or outweighing the DA is your best bet.

"DA outweighs turns case" works miracles. Say it more often.

CP's:

Specific and generic CP's both have their place. To quote Allie Chase, “I don’t subscribe to groupthink about which CPs ‘definitely solve' which affs.” So yes, re-highlight that aff evidence, give empirics, etc. but don't expect me to grant you a net benefit that isn't fully impacted out or is barely cross-applied down the flow.

Judge kicks are iffy because most of the time, the 2NR just throws out "and even if you don't buy the CP we have judge kick" in the last 5 seconds of the speech after doing virtually no work to weigh the aff against the squo. I'm not going to weigh multiple worlds for you, so this debate should start in the block.

K's:

I have a B.A. in philosophy and am working on my M.A., so I've read a ton. Feel free to ask how familiar I am with a certain lit base. Post-modernism and high theory are fine, but explain your jargon, contextualize your links, all that good stuff. If you can't do this, I'll assume you don't know your own K. More specific links as opposed to a broad K of the topic are usually best (strong analytic links are impressive). Links of omission are not links.

Strong LBL is much more persuasive than trying to pack embedded clash into a 5 minute overview.

I'm not particularly bothered by intense content. My hot-ish take is that death good has its place.

K affs are dope but should probably be in the direction of the res. At least be able to clearly state why it was brought into the debate space and what I'm doing by voting for you. Performance is fine, but framing and explanation your connection to the res are especially important here. I'm willing to vote on a PIK or attacks on the poetics/music you use, and I'm definitely not above presumption.

Please have some kind of advocacy. Kicking the alt in the 2NR is one thing, but I need to see what differentiates the world of the K from that of the aff/squo - even if it's not real world (I'm cool with utopian alts unless told otherwise). If you just say that the reading of the 1NC is an alt, what am I supposed to do with this without a clear explanation of your project? *cough cough, psychoanalysis*

Speaks:

I really try to give high speaks. Organization is needed, but go as fast as you want if you can be clear (extra important for online debates). I'm a fast flow, so if I've clear-called you multiple times, you're outspreading your own limits. I'm BEGGING you to signpost. I use the docs to read evidence, not flow. So say "and", number your warrants, literally anything.

I have a low threshold for rude debaters. If you hit a less experienced debater and use this as a power flex, your speaks will reflect my disapproval.

Misc:

I read the highlighted portions of ev during prep. I'll only read full text if you tell me to or it's a clear point of focus. Sub & case debate >>> 10 off. You don't have to send analytics, but it's helpful to number or otherwise emphasize when you're listing warrants and stuff. You don't have to send me a card doc - I'll probably ignore it. Tag team is totally fine, but if one partner is doing everything, that's not a good look. Flashing isn't prep within reason, i.e. don't stop prep if you're still copy-pasting, but having trouble with speechdrop doesn't count against you. Mark your own cards and keep your own times (I can definitely time, but you have to ask).

LD:

Prog LD is most familiar to me. I very much see value in traditional, I'm just less experienced. Phil is my second-best. I've read more Kant and util than I'd like to admit. That said, I still default very tab. I've voted on skep, disads, Ks, and good old fashioned framework, so really - do whatever you want.

My framework threshold is particularly high in LD. Interacting with the framework and/or creating value/VC clash is what makes LD unique. Coming down to T in LD is kind of strange, so at least make sure it's done well.

For the love of all that is good, don't make me vote on an RVI. Please. I'm begging you.

"Trix" are fine? I guess? I'm not gonna tell you not to, but I won't say I'd be excited to see it, either.

PF:

I view PF as a debate that is and has always been concerned what change is best, and this is how I'd like the round to be framed. As much as I'm a CXer at heart, I don't think plans have a place here. I often find them to blow the round out of proportion. That said, there are still plenty of other ways to create clash, so please do so.

I think K's and theory are very difficult to run correctly in PF. If you can do it, go off. But, mind that I'm a CX coach - my threshold is high.

I flow citations and paraphrased evidence the same way I flow warrants. If you want me to flow something as evidence, it should be structured something like a card.

I said not to blow the round out of proportion. What IS in proportion is painting a picture of both your world and the opponent's. The best PF rounds I've seen go beyond each individual card/contention to illustrate how the pro/con case would affect society, what they're valuing in society, and whether or not this is something they can and should achieve.

Current: Speech and Debate Coach at Lometa ISD

Overall, I like significant clash, evidence-based arguments, and clear communication. Be clear and concise in speeches, while also being respectful to your competitors. I have no issue with speed, but please slow down on taglines and case components.

CX:

I default policymaker. If there are issues with the AFF, capitalize on them. You are welcome to run any argument, as long as you adequately explain. If you're going to run T, commit to it. I am open to CPs and DAs, as long as they have all components and in-depth analysis. I am not as familiar with Ks, so adequate explanation is needed when running those. Please signpost as you go.

LD:

I like V/C clash, and clear arguments made on cases in the constructive speeches. Signpost as you go, and give clear voters. Drops should be impacted out as to why they are relevant to the debate, and why I should vote for them. I will vote how you tell me to vote, so make it clear.

Howdy, I debated from 2016-2020, and participated in several circuits, including NSDA and TFA, so I am familiar with most forms and styles of debate.

CX: Please for the love of all the trees that are going to die because of the flow paper I use do not run 7 off unless you truly believe they are necessary to the the round. Time suck arguments are bad sportsmanship in my opinion.

Generally, I believe in fair debates and creating learning experiences. I will listen to anything, but you need to show me that you understand your case and neg arguments, not just read from Open Ev. A simple way to do this is strong information during CX time, or giving a short explanation at the beginning or end of your constructive, if you don't have time that's fine. I tend to lean more towards analytical, theory, and case arguments, simply because I think they display critical thinking skills and show you can use common sense.

As far as speed, if you want to spread just make sure that taglines are crystal clear. For virtual tourneys I prefer you not spread only because I have never seen it work out successfully, but spread at your own risk. I don't mind open CX as long as both you and your partner are carrying equal weight.

Finally, sportsmanship is very important to me. I think assertiveness and competitiveness is good, but do not be unnecessarily rude to your opponents, it will reflect in your speaker points. If its clear that your opponents skill level is still developing I will respect you more if you turn the round into a learning experience rather than a power flex. Also, don't lose sight of your burden as the aff or neg. In most cases doubt can be a very strong voter, so keep that in mind.

Case: My only request is that you know what you are talking about. I lowkey like k affs, but dont run if you dont know what you are talking about.

DA's: Truthfully, I roll my eyes at nuclear war and hyperbolic impacts, but as a former debater I know that it's just part of debate, so its fine, but I strongly value empirical evidence and impacts that are happening now(hint climate change, structural violence,etc) its a good way to win on timeframe. Impact Calculus is also good if you have time for it in your final rebuttal. To win the DA outline a strong internal link chain and strong empirical evidence if available and make the link as specific as possible.

Counterplan: Please for the sake of keeping the flow clean do not run multiple CP's I will literally lose my mind especially if they get dropped later in the round. You have a better chance of winning the more specific the CP is. To win the counter plan you need to tell me why it is better than the aff, and how you claim the impacts of both the CP and the aff and solve for any DA's you read. I don't really like you just say "perm:do both" I think you need to read evidence that proves you can actually perm. Aff, literally all you need to do it show me why the aff is better(this is part of your burden anyway) and everything will be cool beans.

Theory: I LOVE theory, but I am not a fan of condo; however, if you make a compelling argument then I will vote on it. Condo tends to get messy, or turn into a time suck, or a non-issue, therefore, I tend to lose interest quickly.

Topicality: As the circuits become more progressive T has become a time suck which I really don't appreciate. Please for the love of all that is good only run T if it the aff is untopical and T is really only important to me if you make it important. Depending on the round my default is reasonability.

Kritik: I will listen to it, but same with the DA's I tend to value empirical evidence and impacts that are happening now. I will listen to any alt, but I tend to favor real world than phil. I value moral obligations, empirics, and understanding. I think it is also extremely important that you run the K as if I have no clue what I am doing, this will help you adapt to your judges and once again demonstrates that you know what you are talking which is very important to me.

Lincoln-Douglas: I will listen to anything, but you must show me that you have a strong understanding. I understand that each circuit is different, but during the debate I would prefer an emphasis on your value/criterion and framing, and once you nail those move onto more progressive ideas. I also want to see you use your brain when you make arguments so be sure to try and display common sense and critical thinking skills. I LOVE clash and real world impacts, its an easy way to meet all the criteria I listed previously. Finally, sportsmanship is very important to me. I think assertiveness and competitiveness is good, but do not be unnecessarily rude to your opponents, it will reflect in your speaker points. If its clear that your opponents skill level is still developing I will respect you more if you turn the round into a learning experience rather than a power flex.

I am a retired speech and debate coach. I coached almost all the events. I was a policy debater in high school and college (a long time ago).

Congress:

Be prepared. It is frustrating to take multiple in house recesses because nobody has a speech. Be active in the chamber (ask questions, make helpful motions or suggestions). Refute and/or reference previous speakers. Please don’t rehash. I love a good synthesis speech but don’t often see them. Good Presiding Officers are appreciated and will get ranked well.

Speech:

Public Speaking: In general, I prefer a more natural/conversational style and audience engagement. Ideas should be well supported. Transitional movement should be natural and appropriate for whatever space you are in. In extemp, the points should directly answer the topic question and the sources should be recent. I'm big on content so I'm looking for depth of analysis. In Info. I like to hear an interesting topic that isn't something everyone already knows about. Visuals should not be static - i.e. just a bunch of small pictures. In oratory, I appreciate good content balanced with humor. The solution section shouldn't just be a sentence or two.

Interp: Again, I prefer natural, believable characters. I appreciate good technique but it shouldn't be the focus. Put me in the moment with you and make me feel.

Debate:

I default policymaker but will vote for critical frameworks. If you are going to run a K, however, you should assume that I have not read the lit. and will need clear explanation. Things I like to see in a debate round: impact calculus, evidence comparison, clear signposting (If you make me guess where it goes on the flow, it might not be on my flow.) Please, please, please extend your offense. Things I don't like to see: blippy theory arguments, reading 5-10 pieces of evidence that all say basically the same thing combined with no analysis of how it responds to the argument, repeating arguments rather than extending them. Don’t go for everything in 2NR. Don’t kick the puppy rule: If you are clearly winning the round against a much less experienced team, be kind. Please feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Speed: Slow down on tags and authors (and anything else you want on my flow). I don’t care how fast you read evidence. I broke my right thumb in a car accident and although it has healed, writing is still painful. Speech drop or an email chain would be much appreciated.