Danae Barkocy - She/her - dbarkocy@trinity.edu

GENERAL:

• Howdy! :) I’m a current college senior who debated for Leander for three years. My two main events were LD and Extemp, but I’ve also dabbled in CX and UIL congress and have done a fair amount of interp. I’m a tab judge as far as argument choice, but as always you need to explain links/solvency/etc very well and tell me the main issues you want me to vote on.
• If there’s anything you would like me to call you (name/pronouns, etc) that hasn’t been shared on Tabroom, just let me know
• I’m okay with speed as long as the case has been shared with me. Please slow down for important taglines
• I will give verbal critiques and answer questions unless the tournament rules say otherwise. Just ask

SPEAKS:

• I assign speaks based on speech organization (roadmap, signposting, etc), and clarity (can I hear what you’re saying? If you’re spreading, can I make out the taglines?). Other than that, just be a decent person - I’ll dock speaks if you’re rude/condescending in cross.

CASE:

• I’m a tech over truth judge in that I evaluate rounds based on who’s winning the flow, not which argument I think is actually ‘correct’. I insert my own opinion as little as possible, so tell me exactly what parts of the flow I’m voting on.
• In a situation that pits evidence against analytic argument, I’ll vote on whoever has the most plausible evidence. If both sides read evidence and neither side is gaining a lot of ground, I’ll vote on well-warranted analytical argumentation that provides good clash and creates a voting issue.

K/FRAMEWORK:

• I really love a good framework debate and find myself voting there often. I don’t default to a particular framing (util, etc), so I’ll let whoever is debating the round frame how it should be judged/decided and go from there (in other words, it’s very important if you make it important)

THEORY/TOPICALITY:

• I’m not opposed to voting on T, but know that I didn’t do a ton of T debate in high school so you’ll have to explain the voting issues very well (e.g., don’t talk about reverse RVIs for two minutes - just explain in Lehman’s terms why the theory creates education/fairness/equity, whatever your standard is)

ETC:

- I'm a simple woman, tell me your favorite Taylor Swift song for +0.3 speaks

Vista Ridge '22 I UT '26

I competed for two years in LD and for 2 years in PF in high school.

Before Round

• Put me on the chain please: kalicarrier26@utexas.edu
• feel free to ask me any questions you may have

In Round

• I am a tech over truth judge which means I'll buy whatever argument is argued the best. For example, in the context of the round, I will believe the earth is flat if you can effectively prove to me so.

• Well-run frameworks are valuable, preferably introduced and expanded upon in earlier speeches; if no framework is given I will default to util
• I do not necessarily evaluate CX heavily but please keep it respectful and productive for your sake
• In the 2nd rebuttal, establish a framework or the beginning of one; don't just re-extend, address and engage with opponents' arguments.
• Defense isn't sticky, so extend; The summary should go beyond repetition, interact with opponents' arguments, and focus on key arguments for the round.
• In the FF, narrow down the round to 1 or 2 key voters with thorough extensions; overcomplicating weakens arguments.
• If running progressive arguments, adapt them to the format of the debate and ensure clarity; speech docs are appreciated.
• I am comfortable evaluating K's, just make sure they fit into the format of the debate and maintain clarity.
• If you run theory as a sole voting issue, persuade me to drop the debater; abusive or unfair theory won't be rewarded.
• Weigh your arguments, especially with conflicting evidence. Please do not make me have to interpret your evidence for you.

Extra

• Be respectful to everyone in the round.
• Any racist, homophobic, discriminatory, and/or derogatory speech will not be tolerated and will automatically result in me voting you down with 25 speaks.

enjoy debating y'all!

*Bolded information is for skimming if you're short on time.

**Online Tournament Notes: I'll unmute and let you know if you're having audio problems. Still comfortable with speed, but ask that we slow down a couple of notches from top speed to account for lag.

Round Info:

Feel free to just call me Kay; pronouns are she/her. I did policy for four years at North Lamar High School and graduated in 2017. I am currently a full-time social worker, so I don’t judge as much as I used to, which means that my topic-specific knowledge isn’t super high this year.

If you are using an email chain, my email is kay.edwards1027@gmail.com. If you are flashing, I don't want the flash and I'll ask if I need a specific piece of evidence post-round.

Attaching to the flash/email isn't prep unless it's excessive. If you're moving stuff between documents or around inside the document, that should be on the clock. If anything gets excessive, I'll let you know to start prep again.

Philosophy (all events):

Debate should be about the arguments you find "best" for you. I am comfortable and equally happy in well-warranted policy debates as I am in well-warranted kritikal or performance debates. When not given another framing mechanism, I tend to default to an offense/defense paradigm. My general answer to what "should" be allowed in a round is that theory read/answered by the debaters will parse that out.

[added on 2/23/2023] - For the sake of transparency, I want to add a few caveats to the above. The more I listen to it, the more I've discovered that I have a pretty high threshold for voting on disclosure theory. Just something to be aware of if you choose to read it in front of me.

Speaker Points (all events):

I assign speaker points on strategic decision-making and organization (including signposting and coherent line-by-line). I will dock speaker points for excessive rudeness, demeaning others in the debate, and intentionally making offensive/discriminatory arguments or comments in the debate.

Easy Routes to my Ballot (policy but also everything else really):

1. You should construct the narrative you want on my ballot. This means that I don't want to have to fill in internal links, test truth claims, or filter your offense through the framing that wins the debate.

2. Consistency across speeches is important. That means I'm not voting on 2NR/2AR arguments from the 1AC/1NC that aren't in the block or 1AR. I also have a pretty high threshold for buying arguments that are shadow extended through the block/1AR.

3. I prefer evidence analysis/extension over card dumps. I very seldom find dumping cards onto the flow in the 2NC/2AC compelling if I'm not getting some articulation of how the evidence functions in the round.

LD Paradigm:

I'm fine with everything from more traditional value/criterion debate to more policy-style debates, performance debates, etc. Have the debate you want and are most comfortable having. That being said, some of the less common LD arguments (skep, NIBs, etc.) are pretty out of my wheelhouse and will require some serious explanation for me to understand them enough to feel comfortable voting on them.

One other thing I like to add for LD'ers: winning framework (morality good, util good, etc.) isn't enough to win the debate if you aren't winning a piece of offense through your framing. I won't do the work of weighing your offense for you, either, so please show me how your offense connects to your framing.

PF Note (updated September 2020): I don't judge very much PF, but you all ask this question, so I'll go ahead and make it easy on you: defense isn't sticky. If you want me to vote on it, I need to be able to track the argument from speech to speech.

Feel free to email or talk to me in person before or after the round with any questions that come up!

Howdy, My name is Daniel Andre Gutierrez, though most people on this circuit used to call me Andy. I spent around 3 years of my High school career debating. I focused on LD and competed in the Austin area so I can handle spreading as long as information is sent. I love all kinds of debate just a few rules for me that would get me upset if you break them is that please just make sure your opponent is comfortable competing. Use proper pro nouns, keep relationships cool in the room and try not to disrespect me or your opponent. I'm A tab judge but I love defense offense debate and if you throw in some impacts you'll have my heart. Other than that you can ask me anything in round.

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with. I will do my best to offer you the same consideration.

Doc Sharing

Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop.

Speed

I am old - likely 10 years older than you think if not more - this impacts debaters in two ways 1. I get the more triggered when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you are using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it to outspread your opponent then I am not your judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time. If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible. 2. I just cannot keep up as well anymore and I refuse to flow off a doc. I only have four functional fingers on one hand and both hands likely 65% what they used to be. This is especially true as the season moves along and at any tournament where I judge lot of rounds.

General Principle

I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).

Speaker Points

This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Do not docbot. If you do not intonate you are not debating you are reading and that is just frustrating to me. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.

Policy

Theory

I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.

Kritiks

A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).

Performance/Pre-Fiat

If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.

Competition

Arguments should be competitive otherwise they are just FYI. This means kritikal argument should likely be doing more than simply reading a topic link and moving on. All forms are perms are testable - I do not default to a view on severance/intrinsic - it's all debatable. I do default on perms do a test of competition. If you want to advocate the perm this should be clear from the get. A perm should have a text, and a net benefit in the opening delivery otherwise it is a warrantless argument.

Condo

In policy, (LD its all debatable) a few layers are fine - 4+ you are testing the limits and a persuasive condo bad argument is something I would listen to for sure. What I am absolute about is the default. All advocacy are unconditional unless you state in your speech otherwise. No this is not a CX question. You should be saying, I present the following conditional CP or the like, explicitly. Not doing this and then attempting to kick it means an advocacy shift and is thus debatable on theory.

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

I note above that I cannot keep up as much anymore. If your approach is to spam theory (which is increasing a norm in LD) I am not capable of making coherent decisions. I will likely be behind on the flow. I am trying to conceptualize your last blip in a manner to flow and you are making the 3rd or 4th. Then I try to play catch up, but argument is in the wrong place on the flow and it is written as a partial argument. I am not against theory - I loved theory as a debater, but your best approach is to go for a couple shell at most in the NC and likely no more than 1 in the 1AR if you want me to be in the game at all. This is not to say I would not vote on potential abuse/norm setting rather keep your theory to something you want to debate and not using it just a strategic gamesmanship is best approach if you want a coherent RFD.

Disads/CPs/NCs

I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.

Philosophy/Framework Debate

I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might be and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.

Public Forum

I have very frustrated feeling about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.

1. Debate

If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.

2. Speech

If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.

If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.

Theory

I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.

Framework

I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.

Finally Word for All

I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.

UPDATE 2024: Have not judged debate in a couple years, so don't spread super fast, over explain the topic for me a bit, and make the round as easy as possible for me to vote for you. Wouldn't recommend you run Ks, theory, dense phil, or any tricks. Happy to answer any other questions.

Hi! My name is Zara, I’m a junior at UT and I did LD for 3 years at Round Rock High School. Please add me on the email chain: zara.inam@gmail.com

I’m pretty much fine with anything that you want to run, but you need to do a good job running it and making sure that I understand. I’m fine with speed, but slow down on the tag lines and cites.

Disclaimer: I have not debated in a little bit and am not very familiar with this topic, so please just make sure to explain your arguments and things like acronyms and plans a little more thoroughly for me to understand. It'll make it easier for me to evaluate the round, and probably easier for you to win my ballot

virtual debate: please go a bit slower than you would normally in person, online debate makes spreading a lot harder to understand. Try to go like 80-90% of your original speed.

I'm not keeping time, so make sure to time yourself and your opponent. Please speak up if they go over time and don't realize.

tech > truth: 99% of the time (the exception being racism, sexism, etc)

signpost and off time roadmap!!

Preferences

1. LARP (DA’s, CP’s) - this is mainly what I read when I debated and what I am most comfortable with. Make sure to fully explain your link chain and impacts. I really want to hear about the impacts and please please weigh, thats the best way for me to understand what you're saying.

2. Theory - I'm fine with theory - but I am not likely to vote off of a frivolous theory shell. I want to see a lot of engagement with the theory argument if you want me to end up voting off of it, it is up to you to explain the abuse and what I should do about this.

3. Traditional Debate - I'm also fine with this, but still want you to focus on everything in the round. If you drop stuff/ spend all of your time on framework, it makes it really hard for me to vote for you. be strategic.

4. K’s: I personally did not read a lot of K's, but I think they are super interesting. If its not a super common K - you'll need to explain the literature well. Pls make sure you are ready to explain the K well - I need to be able to understand it well to vote off of it. Like everything else - just be clear with your arguments, rushing thru super fast and expecting me to understand a complicated K won't go well.

5. Framework/Phil: I honestly think a good framework debate is really interesting, go ahead with this, but be sure to explain if its a complicated framework. However I am not well versed in dense phil or uncommon frameworks - so you will need to do a good job of making it clear to me and how I should evaluate it.

6. Tricks or abusive arguments: i'd really rather you not read these lol

Bottom line: feel free to run what you want, but if its something a little more uncommon, please be sure that you actually know what you are saying and are able to explain it. If I get what you're saying and why it matters - i'll easily vote for you. I typically ran LARP arguments, so that’s what I’m most comfortable with. Again, feel free to run anything, but again, if you are running a complicated FW or a K, make sure to explain it well to me so that I understand.

I’m very focused on the flow so please make sure to extend everything (and give a good extension summarizing why the arg actually matters and apply it to the round) and provide a good line by line. Please focus on the line by line, and I'd like to see you actually attacking the integrity of their cards and ev. If theres some sketchy evidence or the card is not reliable - bring it up!

Use your rebuttal speeches effectively and don’t drop parts of the flow (!!!!) and stay organized so that we all know where you are on the flow. Dropping arguments is really unfortunate in a debate round and I really don't want to have to vote against you for doing this!!! Be strategic, and make sure to make your arguments clear earlier in the debate, because if you come up with completely new arguments late in the debate, I won’t be able to evaluate them.

PLEASE WEIGH your arguments and make it clear how I should evaluate this round and what really matters.

I really don't want to intervene too much in the round and have to interpret things for myself - the best way for you to win the round is to be clear with the arguments that you are winning and why these args are important.

I’ll base your speaks off of both strategy and clarity of speaking/spreading. I'm not too harsh with speaks - just make be strategic and clear.

Debate can be overwhelming and stressful at times - please be compassionate and nice to your opponents!

I don’t really know what else to put on here, so please ask me any questions you have before the round, and I’ll be happy to answer!!

Have fun and good luck!! :)

UT '26

I did high school debate for 4 years and have both local & nat circuit experience. I did pf for 2 years and qualified to TFA both times. I consider myself a pf judge.

If I hear you were discriminatory or bigoted in any fashion at any point, in or outside of the round, you will immediately get tanked speaks for the rest of the season.

Before the round

• Include me in the email chain (knayeon117@gmail.com)

• If you are going to spread (full on ld/cx level spreading, double breathing and whatnot), send me a speech doc. Unless you plan on reading that fast I won’t need a speech doc.

• I don't care about how fast you read as long as you send me all the evidence/arguments. If I miss an argument that is not on the speech doc, I won't put it down on the flow. It is your responsibility to articulate your arguments well enough for me to understand.

In round

• tech > truth.

• If evidence A says sky is green and evidence B says sky is blue, please weigh and tell me which evidence I should prioritize or I would be forced to intervene and believe what I think is true (evidence B). As long as you weigh evidence A over evidence B, yes I will believe that the sky is green.

• I like framework when it’s run well. 2nd rebuttal is too late to read an overview/framework of any sort: the round is already too crystalized for you to tell me what I should prioritize first and foremost when signing the ballot and if you are going to run framework, you should be willing to sacrifice your speech time to expand upon it- aka take the risk of going first. Utilitarianism is the default weighing in round unless you tell me otherwise.

• I don't vote off of cross unless it is completely mind blowing. Most of the times, I won't be paying attention to it. If you want to bring up something from cross in your later speeches, shout "Judge, this is important" or something along those lines during cross so that I can note it down. Don't turn cross into a shouting match and don't be rude.

• Don’t extend your own case in both rebuttals and in 2nd rebuttal you HAVE to frontline or you’ll automatically lose the round. Reextending cards in case isn’t frontlining.

• Defense isn’t sticky

• Whatever goes conceded in summary can’t be brought up in final focus and in summary go beyond just reiterating what went on in rebuttal and be interactive with your opponents’ argument.

• In final focus, the round should be narrowed down to 1 or 2 voters and I honestly don’t like it when you overcomplicate things by trying to go for multiple things when you can just focus on one voter and extend it really thoroughly. A good final focus should mirror summary and quite literally tell the judge how to write their ballot.

• Progressive arguments : I probably won't be able to evaluate progressive arguments to an extent that LD/CX judges do, so keep that in mind whenever running them.

• YALL PLS DON'T BE LIKE "OH THE SPREADING WAS ANALYTICAL" I CAN'T FOLLOW ALONG, ALWAYS SEND A SPEECH DOC

• I don’t want to see a pf round turn into LD 2.0 so if you are going to run progressive arguments, make sure it fits into the format of a PF round. Don’t spread like 5 off and expect me to follow along w/o a speech doc and I honestly don’t think any education can come out of a round that a judge can’t understand properly.

• Kritiks: this is the progressive argument I feel most comfortable in judging, in most cases I probably won’t have any trouble evaluating them.

• Theory: If you are going to run it, do it well. What I mean is if you would like to run theory as a sole voting issue in the round, you would need to put in time and effort to persuade me into thinking that I should drop the debater (which is a pretty high goal). If you are going to read it as a time suck and ultimately end up kicking it (which you totally can), don't expect me to account for the t shell in making my decision. Also, don't be abusive with theory. If you're objectively from a big school with lots of resources running theory to a small school who doesn't even know what theory is, I don't think the round would be very fair. In short, don't run theory just because you want an easy win and don't weaponize it.

• don’t be abusive/disrespectful with progressive arguments

• Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, discriminatory, or derogatory in any manner. That would result in a 25L. If you're going to run an identity based argument(especially afropessimism, orientalism, LGBTQ+ literature, etc) don't do it unless you're part of that community.

• Please weigh. If you and your opponents both do everything right and I'm left with two valid arguments that say the opposite, it is quite literally impossible for me to determine who the winner is without intervening. Tell me why your evidence or logic is better than your opponent's.

WSD Paradigm

• yall pls don't sound like this https://youtu.be/tj7n9Cnbmu8?si=pCJCPt634i-zjD8s&t=76
• the so called "worlds accent" is my biggest pet peeve
• the first speech should have definitions, framing, burdens, a worlds comparison, and the first two substantives. It's fine if you don't have each part, but you cannot bring them up in subsequent speeches (other than substantives)
• the second speech should respond to the first and introduce the third substantive. again, you don't need a third sub, but you can't bring it up any later
• each speech should progress argumentation. i dont want to be hearing the same things in the reply as i heard in the one.
• i have only seen a handful of teams actually weigh. it needs to startat the latestin the three. you need to do more than just tell me what your impact is; compare it to the opponents' and tell me why yours is better using some mechanism
• if you want me to vote on argument, it needs to be in the 2, 3, and reply. if its missing inanyof them, i will not evaluate it

--CX/LD--

-Email me your speeches at lin.andy@berkeley.edu

-Prep ends when the speeches are sent, and talking outside of it will lose you speaker points.

-Spreading is fine, but if you're incoherent I'll let you know only after your speech ends so watch yourself.

-I'm fine with any argument, and I'll almost always weigh tech>>truth, but you'll have a harder time convincing me of the solvency of your kritik alt than with a well-argued disad. If you lose the solvency debate on the kritik, I'm going to treat it like a very weak disad.

-If you read a k-aff, I will default debate is a game unless you convince me otherwise.

-If the flow is unreadable and there isn't enough clash on either side, I will default neg - the 2AR has a chance to clean up while the neg doesn't.

-If you clip cards, that's an immediate loss and zero speaker points.

I'm extremely flow-oriented. Good clash and line-by-line will make your rounds 10x more winnable with me. If there's clash, good weighing will also be necessary to win debates, you'll make me very happy if you do good impact calc on every flow.

Theory- I'll judge theory debates based on the flow, but will ignore it altogether if an in-round impact isn't substantiated. (I always enjoy a well-argued Topicality argument, however.) Don't flood the debate with a laundry list of theory offense though because it will immediately lose you speaks and potentially the round because I'm much less inclined to weigh any of it.

History- I debated for 3 years in Highschool and am starting debate in college as a 2N. I am, however, currently unfamiliar with the literature in this year's topic so I will be judging your evidence on substance rather than otherwise staple tagline arguments.

--Parliamentary/Congress--

-please don't read topicality unless you think it's a very convincing and easy sell. Specifically for parliamentary, I think it's almost always a waste of time.

-Points of privilege and points of order are unlikely voting points for me

-Spreading is fine, but clarity should be prioritized

-If you have time, answer POI's or I'll probably dock points.

-One well-supported link chain is better than several convoluted ones.

Hi I am a parent judge from Round Rock High School and this will be my first time judging.

LD:

1. I would like to be included on the email chain, my email is pallavi_mashelkar@yahoo.com

2. Please do not spread your rebuttals, I will only flow what I can catch so it is really important that you slow down during those

3. I am comfortable with LARP-y arguments (DAs, CPs, etc) but always err on the side of over explanation, make sure everything is CLEAR

4. I am not super comfortable with phil arguments... but if they are explained clearly then I will evaluate them

5. Please don't go heavy with the debate jarrgon

6. Please no theory/T/Tricks or any type of K's or K-affs. If you read them, there's a good chance I won't understand them therefore I will not vote for them!

7. Time yourselves and be nice, I will generally give between 28-30 speaks!

8. Make sure you tie your arguments back to your framework, do the work for me and always weigh/do voters at the end

My Ballot: I evaluate the round based on substantive offense and interaction between the flows. Spell out why this should be your ballot CLEARLY. In other words -make my job easier. I will put all my notes at the end of the round on my RFD and I won't be disclosing sorry :(

About Me:

NLHS Policy 2013-2017

UT 2017-2021 (just judging, no debate)

A&M Law 2021-

Top Level

Email for chain: steelemusgrove17@gmail.com

Email for contact: steelemusgrove@yahoo.com

The easiest thing I can tell you about my paradigm is that I am tab. I'll vote on anything, and I essentially ran anything while I was in high school, so you're not going to lose me in running any of your favorite arguments.

Further in-depth stuff (this is primarily for policy, but can be cross-applied to LD (or PF I guess)):

When I say I'm tab that means that I will vote in any framework you give me, don't mistake that for if you win the framework you win the round (this is especially true in traditional LD). I have voted for teams that lose the framework debate, but still had better offense under the opposing framing. Therefore, you need to both win your framework and meet that framework better than the opponent to win the round. However, if you don't run a framework I default to an offense-defense paradigm where I vote on whichever team has managed to generate the most offense.

If you're baffled by a decision it is because you did not warrant. I am a stickler for warranting, especially in extensions, and if you don't extend a warrant, even over a dropped argument, then I'm not doing that work.

Kritiks

Like I said, I'm tab, so naturally I'm fine with/a fan of Ks. I am NOT a fan of 2NC/2NR overviews of kritikal buzzwords that do nothing to advance debate in the round. I'm not 100% read on all K literature, so if you're going to use technical terminology - define them, tell me how they relate to your alt, to the link debate, and to the aff. Line-by-line is generally much easier for me to flow and understand a K debate.

That being said, I would avoid reading one-off K in front of me. I won't vote down one-off K on face, but I find that it's not terribly strategic, and doubly so if you're the type to concede all of case by going for the one K. All of the eggs in one basket just isn't good strategy, and it's super boring to listen to.

People will talk about how you need a specific link - I'm not that type. If the aff has a good reason that you need a specific link then you should be able to provide one, but a good generic link to the topic, state, or debate will suffice without aff contest.

Presentation

Stylistically I don't really care what you do. I can handle your spreading if you can handle your spreading. If you're unclear then don't spread. Furthermore, signposting is an absolute must between flows and cards. That can be as a simple as saying "next off" or "onto the K," and between cards inserting an "and." If I miss a card or argument that you didn't signpost clearly where I should've flowed it will not be evaluated, and that's on you.

Offensiveness in round is always bad, and I'll penalize any aggression appropriately depending on severity of the aggression. There are instances where you might just be ignorant which will only result in a minor speak penalty and a stern reprimanding in RFD. Above all, be polite to your opponents. You can be competitive, but don't be rude, especially in CX.

Redundancy isn't great. That means reading a bunch of repetitive cards, putting an explanation under a card that explains the card you just read, or just saying the same thing over and over. I get tired of this quickly and it does harm speaks. Card dumps seriously aren't persuasive or strategic about half the time. If you're card dumping like five new impacts onto a undercovered disad in the 2NC that's chill, but just reading like 5 uniqueness cards that all say the same thing isn't.

I evaluate speaks through strategy, not presentation. A 30 happens through really good decisions, time allocation, unique argumentation, etc. I can't tell you what exactly gets a 30, nor will I attempt to define it further decisively here, but I know it when I see it.

Theory

I don't err anything on any argument before a debate, so all theoretical objections are up for dispute. That being said, I've seen a lot of debates where people read two shells at each other (such as states bad v. good) and don't have any actual clash. If that is the ONLY sort of argumentation being put down on a theory flow before the 2NR/2AR, do not try to convince me to vote for theory because it'll end up being a wash, and I'll vote on presumption.

Speaking of presumption; I tend to vote it on it a lot because many people end up not winning anything. So in the case that there doesn’t seem to be any offense for any team I default to presumption. Most of the time for me that means neg, but if there’s an alternative advocacy on the flow then it goes aff. If you have a different model of presumption in mind - make it an argument, but otherwise that's how I vote.

Note about disclosure: I have an impressively high threshold for voting on disclosure, and there are a number of ways that debaters articulate disclosure that I find objectionable. Please do not make arguments for disclosure based on the capabilities of small/rural schools (especially if you are from a (sub)urban/large school). Moreover, please do not read interpretations that mandate your opponent post any sort of contact information on the wiki - I will not vote on this interp no matter how hard you're winning the flow.

T

I wouldn't say that I have a high threshold for T, I will vote on T if you win it, but you need to win each part of the T: interp, violation, standards, and voters. (Theoretically you could get me to vote on a T with just an interp, violation, and standards if you win that a stock FW is good)

The "all three branches T" is really popular right now. I'll vote on it, but it's the worst T argument. Nothing uses all three branches because that's not how government works.

Disads/CPs

I don't think you absolutely have to have either of these in the 1NC to win; if you like em, go for em, and if you don't, don't. I'm not a person who's super convinced that things have to be super specific or anything like that - generic links are fine, just try to contextualize to the aff or give a good scenario analysis.

Misc.

Please, god, do not sit at the door weirdly if I'm in the room waiting for my queue to give you agency. Just walk in. I'm the judge; you are ALLOWED to come in if I'm in here.

I don't care where you sit. I don't want to shake your hand before or after the round (especially true as of March 2020).

“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer, and if you use it it’s minus 1 speak.

Same thing goes for asking questions that are prefaced with "in your own words."

I am timing, my time is the time. You should still time yourself. I do not give signals during speeches, CX, or prep.

This is specifically for UIL tournaments: there's no such thing as "UIL style" and most "UIL rules" aren't actually rules. Any appeal to the UIL that aren't in any UIL handbook will not be flowed and is again, -1 speak.

PF Debate:

- I don't judge this event nearly at all, but please just select sides in such a way that pro always speaks first. I get confused when it's reversed.

- Also, there's nothing I hate more than the PF convention of sharing evidence. Please just flash entire cases.

Update for Penn 2024: I haven't judged a round in 3 years. Please go slower than you normally would. Assume I have no topic knowledge.

Hi I did LD for Westwood for 4 years.

I want to be on the email chain: savmyneni@gmail.com

I likely missed something so if I didn't answer something here feel free to ask me anything at the begining of round or send me an email

Pref Shortcuts

LARP - 1

T/Theory - 1

Kritiks - 1-4 (depending on lit)

Phil - 2-3 (depending on lit)

Tricks - Strike

I tend to agree with Jugal Amodwala and Truman Le.

Thoughts About Debate

I evaluate debates by looking for the highest level and then finding a framing mechanism and evaluating offense under it. This means weighing is important and I won't vote on floating offense.

I believe disclosure is good. I started open sourcing about halfway through high school and I think it's a good norm for debate. If you open source and tell me at some point before I submit my ballot, I'm willing to give +0.1 speaks. That being said, I will not always vote for disclosure shells. You still have to win the shell for me to vote for it, but I am likely to agree with you.

If you are debating a novice or someone who doesn't have a lot of experience with progressive debate, I'm fine if you go beyond the scope of lay debate as long as you keep the round educational and can explain the argument. Your speaks will suffer if you read 7 off with 6 condo PICs. A few examples of things I am fine with: a simple Cap K, a theory shell if there truly is abuse, etc.

If I don't know what I'm voting for I won't vote for it. Make sure you can explain your arguments.

Trigger warnings are good.

Evidence ethics challenges stop the round. If you win the challenge, I will give you the win and give you speaks based on performance until that point. If you lose, I'll give you an L25.

Speed - I haven't flowed in a while so go about 80% speed. If you are going to fast or are unclear I will say clear/slow twice then stop flowing.

If you want more perspective about what I read check my senior year wiki here.

LARP

I love case debate. Some of my favorite 2NRs from high school were 6 minutes of case turns. That being said case defense is not enough to win, you need offense that outweighs the 1AC offense.

DAs are great just make sure to weigh against the aff.

CPs are fine.

I tend to think politics DAs are pretty nonsensical but if you have evidence to support your argument I'll vote for it.

T/Theory

I tend to view these as pretty close to a Plan/CP debate. Give me a reason to prefer your shell and weigh standards that link back to a voter.

I default to competing interps and no RVIs but can be easily persuaded otherwise. I don't presume an impact to a shell, you have to make that argument.

Explain the abuse. I don't care if it's potential or in round but I need to know what it is.

Read out the full interp and counter interp. I don't think just saying CI: their interp plus my aff is a real counter interp. If you choose to read paragraph shells though, I'm fine with a lack of a definitive interp or counter interp. For example conditionality is a voter is enough and the 2NR just responding.

I hate super frivolous shells. I will vote for them, but I will tank your speaks if I think the shell doesn't make sense. Examples: must spec status in speech, can't read CPs, etc.

CP Theory: I think these shells are generally not frivolous. For example, I think one condo is a justifiable shell to read. However, there is a point at which they become frivolous so try not to pass it. If you have a specific question ask me before the round.

I tend to agree that brackets are bad but can easily be persuaded otherwise.

T specific things:

Definitions are good, but not necessary.

TVAs are defensive but one of the few arguments I will consider as terminal defense if you win it.

Kritiks

I think of Ks as a DA + CP with some kind of framing argument.

The biggest issue for me is when a kritik is not explained. If I don't understand what the alt looks like or what the link is I will be highly unlikely to vote for you.

I read a lot more Ks in high school especially my senior year and I am familiar with the following arguments: Security, Cap, Wilderson, Set Col. Even if the argument you plan on reading is listed here explain it thoroughly.

K affs: I'm fine with them. I didn't read any in high school, but I had many framework debates so I am willing to vote for a K aff if you win. That being said, I likely have a bias towards framework regardless of how much I try to ignore it.

Phil

I am unlikely to understand any dense literature.

I think the biggest issue for me is that the contention level of framework debate is often ignored. If someone reads Kant against you, I'd love to see you kick the aff and go for Kant affirms if it's strategic.

Clear syllogisms that explain the framework are more likely to get my ballot than random statements I can't understand.

Phil args I am more likely to understand:

-Kant

-Hobbes

-Virtue Ethics

Tricks

If you read these, I will likely give you very very low speaks and will definitely not want to vote for you.

I have revised my previous opinion that skep/permissibility are tricks just because they are read. However, I still believe that reading nothing but skep triggers is a waste of time.

Things I consider tricks:

A prioris

6 minutes of skep triggers

Extremely frivolous theory shells read as time sucks

Please add me onto the email chain before round if possible (LD, PF, and Policy): rnambala@gmail.com

______

TLDR; be nice, be strategic, word economy > speed

Speaker Points: I start at 28 or 28.5 (depending on if the ballot allows speaks with decimals) and go up from there for good strategy and energy, and dock speaks if you're rude.

Tech > Truth

Speed is fine but not always necessary. Kick out of arguments when needed.

The biggest mistake debaters make is barely extend their case and spread themselves out - only to actually explain the case in the last speeches. Make sure you extend properly. If it's a close round, I'll vote on whoever better explained their narrative.

______

Strategy:

Word economy > speed

Group turns and answer them quickly. Don't drop a turn :)

Warrant your arguments. Don't just tell me "it's non-unique because of the corona DA." HOW does the corona DA make it non-unique? I'll accept blippier answers if there's clear abuse in the round or someone is being spread out, but would prefer well-warranted extensions and weighing for one DA/contention as opposed to going for 4 DA's and winning the turns on the flow. In my view, it doesn't help you win if you win those turns but didn't weigh 'cause you didn't tell me how much it matters. Weigh.

______

For novices:

Be nice, and you'll be fine :)

Don't feel the need to go super fast, try not to drop arguments your opponent made, and you're golden.

______

LD Prefs:

Traditional cases are fine with me as long as the arguments are nuanced. If you're a progressive debater, I'll expect you not to spread them out and focus on quality > quantity. If you're a traditional debater, I'll expect great word economy if you go slow.

1) LARP (CP's, DA's, stock fw + contentions)

2) K's

3) Theory

4) Tricks, badly explained/extended args

______

PF:

Collapse. Warrant. Weigh. Need I say more?

Oh, and cut cards. If you paraphrase and your opponent runs paraphrasing theory, it'll be an uphill battle to win that debate. Your opponent simply saying "prefer our evidence because it gives you an academic's words as opposed to a teenager's interpretation of their work" will give them precedence if evidence is in doubt in most cases. Paragraphing is fine.

Summary needs to extend everything that will be said in Final Focus. Shadow (implied) extensions are fine too. Start weighing as early as possible - it doesn't hurt. Please be civil in CX, as I won't raise speaks based on "dominating" your opponent, and for the most part I don't evaluate it into my RFD.

______

Crossfire/CX in both:

In LD/Policy - I don't really care too much about cross other than for concessions, but you need to point out concessions in speeches, or I won't evaluate anything said in cross. Please be nice.

In PF - CX matters, but I don't believe that "dominating" your opponent is the right strategy. I know it's difficult, but try to be assertive, not rude, and check your partner during CX.

Debated PF & CX and did OO & EXT for 4 years at Oak Ridge High School at TFA, NCFL, UIL circuit. Currently a Junior at Baylor double majoring in Biochemistry and Political Science with a Minor in Business Admin.

I don’t like progressive arguments. Nonetheless, I understand the educational space that debate provides and am willing to evaluate if brought up.

Extend!!! I will rarely consider an argument if it has been incorrectly extended throughout the debate.

I prefer line-by-line in the substantive speeches and big picture with voters for final focus.

I’m fine with speed. I will say Clear if not. If I say it twice than speaker points will be docked :(

Make sure to weigh your arguments. I love clash and love to see how each will weigh against the other.

Don’t misrepresent your evidence. I rarely will call someone out to examine the evidence. However, if the opponent believes you are misrepresenting your evidence, than you should be prepared to hold your ground.

I am a very expressive person. You will be able to tell what I am thinking from the most part - use that to your advantage.

Don’t be rude. Debate should be fun as well as educational. Getting caught up in the moment is understandable but blatant rudeness will not be tolerated and will lead to docked speaker points :(

I am pretty laid back, enjoy the debates!

Hi, I am a parent judge.

I would like to be added to email chains and file drops.

I do not like spreading, please make sure you are not going too fast. I'm okay with any types of arguments as long as you explain it well to me. I'm not very familiar with phil in debates so just make sure you do a good job articulating and making it easy to understand. I really appreciate flushing out arguments and simplifying them. Do not be rude during cx and do not keep cutting each other off. It would be greatly beneficial for you to provide a clear set of voters and would help me evaluate much better.

Please note that you are responsible for setting your own timer, I will not be the one doing that for you.

Overview:I am a tab judge and will vote on whatever FW you put in front of me. If I need to default in stock situations, I will default to a comparative justification framework, prioritizing offense and defense. Across all events, I tend to remain the same on most issues, particularly theory. I tend to put theory at the top of the flow and view it as a procedural argument. Furthermore, I tend to prefer more abstract phil arguments, so if you want to run Ks, go for performance, or ask me to engage in a particular role as a judge, I am alright with that.

Please use spiesva@gmail.com for email chains and any questions.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round starts.

Other prevalent issues:

Clipping Cards:

I consider clipping cards and misrepresenting evidence as intentionally altering the text or highlights in such a way as to detract meaning from the card. I realize that is a pretty broad definition, so if you would like to run some sort of indict and theory argument, here are the standards I hold the card to. Is the alteration of the text germane? Is the alteration of the next meant to recontextualize the article from a different conclusion? I also consider the effects of the change to determine intent. The smaller the difference and impact of the clipping, the more sympathetic I am to the argument that the debater made a mistake.

If you are paraphrasing instead of cutting cards in LD or PF for a more traditional judge or tournament, I am okay with that. Especially if I am the odd judge out on a panel, please do not feel like you need to adapt away from this more traditional style. I would ask that you have the articles accessible if I need to access them to check evidence indicts.

Troll Theory:I would argue 99% of the time, students know what they are doing when they run a more troll-type theory strategy (League Theory, Shoe Theory, Font Theory, ect.). I understand there is value in running these extreme arguments to draw attention to issues in the debate community or a particular debate circuit. However, I also feel that these arguments are run against unsuspecting competitors as an easy way to the ballot. Unless you have, IN FRONT OF ME, asked both your opponent and me if it is okay to run this type of theory, and we have both consented to it, then the round will be a tough uphill battle for you, and I will most likely give you an auto vote down.

Extreme Arguments:I am not very sympathetic to extreme arguments like spark or wipeout. Running these extreme impact turns seems to be a strategy that is used to make an easy way to the ballot when facing a newer competitor or one that comes from a more traditional circuit. Also, I am uncomfortable with allowing students to advocate for things like nuclear war or genocide, so even if your opponent can handle the argument on a tech level, I will still most likely vote you down.

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Theory/ T:Much like in the overview, I tend to put this at the top of the flow; for me, theory has to be procedural as I am resolving a rule to the game to determine who won the game. For example, I can only determine who won a Game of Magic: the Gathering by determining if the goal was to get my opponent's life down to zero or some other win condition.

RVIs:I think RVIs are crucial for getting the theory offense of the flow for your opportunities. When considering the offense of the RVI, I would like to see work done on the voters for the in-round abuse story. I delineate this standard from what I most commonly see: if you give me some unfairness/ abuse story but do not tell me why I vote on it, I am less inclined to provide you with the offense because I feel that point I would be interfering. When answering the RVI, I am not super sympathetic to just kicking the theory argument, especially if the RVI goes for some sort of time-skew argument; I think the much safer strat for me would be to put actual ink on the argument.

The most important part of T and other theory shells:I see many students who focus on the top half of T and do little work when it comes to extending or interacting with the standards (ground, limits, predictability) and voters. For me to even consider T as an issue in the round, I need to see some sort of offense coming from the bottom half of the argument.

Disads:Defenitly okay with you going for disad offense in the round. If you are in front of a more traditional panel and I am the odd duck, do not feel obligated to go beyond this offense into some other argument if the judge will either a) not flow or b) hold it against you in some way. Oftentimes, I see that students will avoid going for straight defense on the D.A. I am assuming that is because I put such an emphasis on offense in my paradigm. If that is the case, feel free to go for defense and indict parts of the D.A. I just ask that you flush it out, or if you are using it as a time suck, avoid making it a huge voter in the back half of the debate.

C.P.'s: As a straight policy argument, I am okay with all C.Ps. What I see students shy away from in the back half of the debate if they choose to go for straight N.B. offense is extrapolating or citing evidence as a reason why I buy the N.B. Be sure to spend some time explaining the evidence. This is not so much because I do not flow; rather, I like to make sure I am not interfering with the net benefit, as that seems easy to do. Of course, I understand that most of you will go for a more theory-oriented argument on the C.P., so here is a summary of my thoughts. Multipleworlds: Yes, I evaluate all C.P.s through a multivariate argumentation lens; however, because these types of arguments create a different space, I buy perms and conditionality as its own space as well. In other words, I am okay with you, waiting to go for the test in the last debate speech.

Kritiks:

These are my favorite arguments to evaluate; however, please do not use them as an easy way to the ballot, which I think can happen in two ways. First, debaters will use the technical nature of the Kritik to overwhelm more trad circuit students or newer debaters. Second, debaters will use identity politics, not their identity, to win the round. Please DO NOT exploit other people's identities and experiences to get my ballot; this will be an auto-vote down if it occurs.

In terms of evaluating links, this is where Kritik debates can get messy for me. I find that most debaters will read literature for the link and focus more on the impact of the K itself. I understand that this is a time choice; however, keep in mind that the more specific the link, the easier it will be to pull the trigger of the K. Often, I think this issue can be solved with a particular FW for the K.

I do put the alt at the top of the flow as a method of framing unless told otherwise. Whether pre-fiat or post-fiat, resolving the impacts of the K requires me to view the round through the alt mechanism of the K.

In terms of authors a literature, I am most comfortable with gender, set. col. and biopower type literature. I am familiar with most other common K lits, but if you are reading someone you want to make sure I know, feel free to ask, and I can give my knowledge of that particular author or literature.

Lincoln Douglass Debate:

Regarding progressive or more circuit-style LD, please see my above paradigm, as I feel this will answer most of your questions.

Trad and UIL Style LD:

I try my best to adapt to students insofar as letting them the types of arguments they would like to run. However, I would discourage you from running highly technical arguments in a traditional LD setting. I totally get that winning on tech is an easy way to the ballot. However, I think especially at smaller tournaments; keep in mind this may be one of the few tournaments your opponent may get to attend within the year.

Value Framing:

I have four standards when considering values as a functional for framework:

1)It's an end in itself and necessarily apropos to another value. This generally means the value should have more terminal impacts (not necessarily existential) coming out of the 1AC.

2) I am generally sympathetic to intrinsic links to the resolution as a form of offense for the debate. I think debaters ought to qualify this offense by telling me what they are bringing to the debate and using that value to meet the intrinsic part of the resolution.

3) Values should impact a world generator, meaning I should have a clear idea of the world I will live in when I sign my ballot.

4) Values should have some inherent competitiveness towards other frameworks unless you go for some permutation or link turn on framing.

Furthermore, values are inherently abstract as they seek to generate space or a world. However, unless you want me to go straight off/def for the round or plan to collapse, I think providing some sort of phil framing for a lens to your impacts is a good idea.

Criteria

Opposite to the value, I think the criterion for one particular framework should be specific. Generally speaking, I would argue this revolves around the brightline of the criterion. Totally understand that bright lines are controversial, and some would even say that criteria do not produce a specific brightline, or if they do, interps and definitions vary. With that being said, here is how I evaluate a brightline:

1) Brightlines should be active as they either decrease or increase sunstance. In other words, criteria should have a verb to describe the action of the framework to achieve the value.

2) The brightline ought to be measurable, even if abstract. Using terms like increase, decrease, and maintain is totally fine; however, I need a metric to determine if the ball moved. The less work I have to do, the more inclined I am to pull the trigger and avoid interference.

3) The criterion should be intrinsic to the value. I think if you do not go for an intrinsic link, I am much more sympathetic toward link turns as a method for gaining access to the framework.

Standard:I am okay with standards; just be sure you give me a way to pref your offense under the standard.

I'm a volunteer parent judge.

I believe that debaters who speak deliberately and clearly when they are presenting their first prepared aff/neg cases are a lot more effective than those who speak at a 100x pace (spreading) and hoping for a technical win on "failing to answer all opposing arguments". If you need more time to go through contentions, we can discuss that at the start of a debate and see if we can come to a mutual agreement. This does NOT mean those who use spreading automatically lose the debate (though it WILL translate to low speaker points), but I prefer to hear clear arguments in a debate - LD is not a speed talking competition. But if you do use spreading to exclude an opponent, know that it is a turn off (low speaker points) as it may indicate that you are unable to debate on the merits of your case.

I also pay close attention to the CX and rebuttals and weigh both the questions posed during CX and the defense to your contentions when questioned by your opponent.

Please set your own time, honor your time limits, and please be respectful of your opponent, judge and any audience at all times before, during and after the debate.

Hi I'm a parent judge for Round Rock High School. However I have judged extensive rounds of circuit LD on the TFA (Texas) Circuit.

LD:

Prefs:

1 -Policy

2 -Phil

3 -T/Theory

4 -K's

Tricks -Strike

A few things:

I want to be on the email chain! Please ask me before you start the round for my email and put me on it.

Policy: I'm good with advantages, DA's, and most CP's as far as LD is concerned. If you're going to read a plan for the aff -please be sure to explain this very CLEARLY to me! Same goes for CP's! -ALWAYS err on the side of over-explanation for me.

Phil: This is probably okay to read in front of me... But again explain your philosophy very CLEARLY if its dense and make your arguments VERY clear-cut!

K's: I know what K's are and how they function in a debate round but I will most likely be unfamiliar with a lot of dense K literature -so read them at your own risk.

Theory/T: Not the best arguments to read in front of me -especially if read frivolously -therefore I will most likely be unwilling to vote for them. That said, if there is clear abuse from one side, I will listen to theory and evaluate it accordingly.

PF: Do your thing. And please be nice.

Please keep the following in mind:

--> If I do not understand an argument, I will not evaluate it. Period.

--> Please be as CLEAR as possible (spreading is fine for constructive as long as I have the doc, but during rebuttal speeches and especially analytics, PLEASE GO SLOW)

--> If I didn't catch an argument because you were either going too fast or were incomprehensible -that's on you!

--> Please time yourselves and keep track of each other's prep time!

--> Please be nice. Debate is an educational activity and if you come off as condescending or rude, your speaks will reflect this!

--> I may not understand your use of debate "jargon" so please be aware of that in rounds.

My Ballot/How to win in front of me: I evaluate the round based on substantive offense and interaction between the flows. Put lots of offense onto the flow. PLEASE impact weigh and do that weighing and comparative worlds analysis for me! Spell out why this should be your ballot CLEARLY. In other words -make my job easier. Please.