Hi I debated LD throughout high school at Westwood (2018), earned two career bids and qualified to the TOC. pls flash jugal1999@gmail.com

~ last edited 11/21 ~

2021 Longhorn classic stuff

1. I am probably going to be late to the room, PLEASE have an email doc ready to go before I get there

2. I have not done anything debate related in the past 7 months BUT I still follow politics and current events very closely and watch lectures on 4x speed so the only issues I will have are topic specific items (jargon, common link chains) and clarity

3. UT's campus can be very confusing, please feel free to ask me for directions or food recs. It has also not been particularly safe recently so I will strongly encourage you to not stray past Guadalupe street.

4. once the round is over i'll finish typing feedback on my ballot and then give an rfd. it really disrupts my thought process if you interrupt me until I'm done with my rfd, please hold off on questions until then (write them down if you have to). I promise I will provide some feedback on speeches but if u have specific questions (after I am done) fire away!

5. I think my paradigm is still mostly true but I am less patient/less willing to gloss over things that annoy me. Yes, my paradigm is too long but I think I've conveyed my thought process well enough that you will hopefully know what you're getting when you debate in front of me.

general

I coached Westwood from 2018-2021, I have not been very involved with debate in the 2021 fall season.

I was coached by Rodrigo Paramo and I think I share similar views with Bennett Eckert, Travis Fife, and Aaron Timmons.

If you're lazy some pref shortcuts:

LARP - 1

Theory/T - 1-3 (depending on the frivolity of the position)

Kritiks - 2

Phil - 2-4

Tricks - strike

My general disposition towards debate is that it's a competitive arena that has educational potential, because of that I really believe in providing feedback on the debate so please feel free to ask questions!

--- a byproduct of this is that if I believe you are doing something that excludes your opponent from learning anything i will be very annoyed. Things like reading kritiks/theory or spreading against traditional or novice opponents just to cheese a ballot irritate me deeply, please treat your opponent with respect. i would hate to judge a round where a debater did not learn a single thing.

I am NOT tabula rasa and I don't think anyone actually is.

I will ONLY say slow/clear TWICE and after that I'll stop flowing.

My favorite kind of debate was a simple plan/disad/cp debate because I think those brought about the most clash and in-depth evidence comparison at the high school level. That said, I don't want to hear you failing to go for a disad when you've never read one before.

I will not vote for anything I don't understand - I think I have a good grasp of the "generic K's" and Kant but beyond that some explanation might be necessary given I haven't read all of the literature. I think this is especially true for links and alternatives.

I am a very expressive person - I will constantly be making faces in round, think of them as you would like, but I would recommend just ignoring them.

I have become increasingly cynical with k debate in LD the longer I've been judging. It is not fun to judge debates with no clash since no one knows what their position says including the ones reading it. I urge you not to read it unless you're CONFIDENT in your ability to explain it.

I love a good case debate - challenge the aff's home turf.

I STRONGLY believe in disclosure - The only exception is if you are unaware of what the wiki is. Screenshots MUST be provided including TIME STAMPS.

I have a HIGH threshold for good evidence - I think it should be about your scenario and as specific as possible. If it's a politics disad or a time sensitive argument newer evidence from reliable sources prevails.

In the case of cheating (evidence ethics, clipping, etc) I'll vote against the debater in question but will continue the debate. Speaks will be awarded based on the round and I'll subtract 2 points for the cheating. See Rodrigo's paradigm for more specific details for things I agree with.

I largely agree with Rodrigo regarding trigger warnings.

I treat theory/T as a kind of disad/cp debate with the standards being disads to the aff's interp. Please WEIGH! I need impact calc on the net benefits or I will probably throw out the shell.

If you intend to read 5+ cards on case, tell me to get another page for them. I haven't quite learned how to copy paste while flowing on paper.

I will wait until AFTER postrounding to give speaks - if you and/or your coach is rude then your speaks will suffer.

_________________________________________

Speed

I don't recall anyone being too fast for me to understand (I watch school lectures on 4.5x speed) on evidence but for short analytics like theory standards you HAVE to go slower bc I can't write at light speed.

Clarity is a MUST, and debaters almost always think they're clearer than they actually are so maybe go slower.

Speaks

I will award speaks based on what I think your propensity to win the tournament is, based on the round I judged. If I'm confident you can win, you get a thirty, and it'll go down from there. My perception for this might be skewed and I will usually end up giving you lower than what your final record will end up being.

Efficiency and good strategy will bump u up.

Try not to 100% BS facts. If you say xyz is polling at 80% when they're actually polling at 40 you will lose speaks.

I WILL dock speaks for being rude and award speaks for being kind.

I appreciate numbering arguments (1. no link, 2. link turn, 3. perm) and labeling offs (next off - econ disad).

Reading interesting and good arguments will also bump up your speaks. I love unique and specific plans or disads but if the evidence is trash I'm not gonna like it.

Theory

I think potential abuse exists and can be an effective argument even if you have aff specific offense.

I think most theory shells that are based on CX are frivolous (ex. must list perms, must spec k over T, etc)

Counter interps and interps must be flashed before read.

I'm persuaded by disclosure, open source, and brackets - but they still need a warrant - I won't hack. Round reports is silly tho, i've never been convinced there's any real abuse

If the 2n is literally 6 mins of theory/T I think the aff implicitly gets an rvi, since the 2n has conceded substance. I see no benefit to forcing the aff extend the 1ac for ten seconds.

I really LOVE specific and in-depth interps but try and make sure it still makes sense as a universal rule and as a sentence.

Topicality

Dislike semantics first (nebel) and generally think it's a floor not a ceiling but will still vote on it. That said, I still don't know what grammar is and the argument must be coherently explained. If I don't get your violation or understand the warrant for the definition, I can't vote on it.

Developed standards and voters are important and weigh between them if you want to have a good debate

I don't think a dictionary definition is mandatory but in T debates it will go a long ways - the more specific the definition the better. However, I am compelled by arguments saying that a counter interp is incomplete without them.

Interps and counter interps need to be complete statements. I treat them like plan texts since they are an attempt at defining a norm, so things like "Counter interp: let this aff in" are not real counter interps. I think paragraph theory like "conditionality is a voter" is fine.

Plans

I strongly believe they should have solvency advocates

frameworks are a must

I'm not a fan of underviews filled with analytics but if you're going to read that 1ar theory paradigm PLEASE SLOW DOWN.

CPs

For whatever reason I'm more lenient on the existence of a solvency advocate here, that said having one could be relevant to theory debates

One condo is chill

Not a fan of judge kick and will only evaluate the arg if it's made in the 1NC

PICs

I think these are some of the most strategic arguments in debate but I am persuaded by well crafted theory shells saying they're cheating.

Phil

The way I've always thought about philosophical frameworks is the same as Kritiks. There should be a way of explaining the world, a link to the topic, and some sort of impact.

I love util but in my senior year I branched out to deontologists like Kant and Hobbes.

Miss me with your justice v morality args - I don't care

Kritiks

Not a fan of Floating PIKs - I think they're cheating but if your opponent doesn't ask it's fair game if your evidence justifies it

I was a big fan of the security, anthro, and cap K's but specific links make a world of difference.

Unwarranted evidence is far too common in kritik debates. I find it frustrating when the NC is basically just 5 minutes of glorified impact cards.

I have a high threshold for afropessimism based arguments. I think they're often read poorly in LD and commodified, therefore I'm persuaded by the argument that white people shouldn't be advocating for it.

NOT a fan of generic links like the state is anti-black - the more specific the better

Kritik's must have SOME form of framing and I believe that the ROTB might precede case but this must be clearly justified. No, a card listing all the reasons why capitalism is bad and therefore should be stopped is not a ROTB, it needs to talk about education or activism or something related to debate.

Big fan of framework against kritiks done similarly to how Policy does it.

Performance

go for it as long as it isn't something that could potentially endanger someone

I do think all of your actions must be justified

I'm strongly compelled by T-Framework, and think plans are good for debate

Skep/permissability/tricks

no. A burden will result in an almost instant loss. I'm more than happy to discuss this with you outside of round but I think practices that focus on winning from blippy analytics are bad for debate.

I define a "trick" as a preempt that prohibits an action, like the neg can't read counter plans. Things like aff gets rvis or allow 1ar theory are ok, but annoying.

Come to University of Houston for LD camp this summer! UH has a great staff, is reasonably priced, and has an excellent staff to student ratio. If you have questions feel free to email me.

Berkeley update not good for strategies that involve upwards of 7+ off case positions.

blakeandrews55@gmail.com email with questions or for email chain purposes.

Head Coach at McNeil.

Short version: Speed is fine and go for whatever type of argument you want( i.e. I don't care if you go for traditional policy arguments versus a K... just debate well) I find debaters do well in front of me that collapse, extend warrants, do impact calc, and give judge instruction when appropriate.

"If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."

About Me:
B.A. University of Texas at Austin 2015

Head Coach at McNeil High School

Worked at some smaller camps in the past like MGC for LD and UTNIF for LD.

I did LD in HS for a small program in Texas. I cleared at a handful of bid tournaments / TFA State but dropped in early elim rounds. I've coached ld debaters with success at tfa state, some toc success, UIl, and nsda. I've coached a cx team in out rounds of tfa state, qualified to nationals, and elims of uil state. I've been involved in debate for a while and I judge a lot of debates each year. Some local, some nat circuit, some just practice rounds for my team.

Top Level 1. Slow down on tags. I have dysgraphia. I can flow speed but slowing down for tags, plan texts, theory interps etc benefits everyone.

2. Do what you do best. I am probably better for kritiks in general, but if you love going for the politics disad don't let me stop you. My favorite debaters have included k debaters/ teams, but I also generally like how greenhill debates( policy and ld).I strongly prefer line by line debate on the K not long K overviews( blah).

3. Judge instruction is critical, please weigh( probability, time frame, magnitude).

4. Please flesh out solvency deficits when answering counterplans. Aff's should feel less afraid to call out abusive counterplans (no problem voting on process cps, etc, but aff's should be less afraid to go for theory the more abusive the cp gets).Like every other judge I like when debaters read less generic positions and engage in the aff

5. Fine with voting on theory, but the more frivolous the shell the less work goes into answering the argument. Reasonability specifically in LD is under rated.

6. K affs are good with me. Explain why your model of debate is good.

7. I am a horrible judge for tricks in LD. Please strike me

Defaults condo good, drop the arg on theory ( except if you win condo bad, which is drop the team, but hopefully teams go for substance), drop the debater on T. Default to competing interps( reasonability in LD is under rated given the significance of bad theory in LD)

PF specific please no paraphrasing in pf. Speaks will go down. You will get good speaks for reading fully cut cards. Evidence comparison, fleshing out warrants, and impact calc helps me vote for you.

Affiliations:

I am currently coaching 3 teams at lamdl (POLAHS, BRAVO, LAKE BALBOA) and have picked up an ld student or 2. I am pretty familiar with the fiscal redistribution and WANA topics.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evid sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

My judging philosophy is first built on the approach that debaters define the debate. This means I generally do not have any predisposition against anything within the context of the debate. Hence, I do NOT push an agenda. The arguments presented before me are to be engaged by both sides and analysis should be given whereby I should either reject or accept those arguments. This means arguments for or against should be well developed and structured logically. There needs to be a clear framework, but this is only the first level. Impacts and disadvantages need to fit within this framework. They need to be developed and consistent within the framework.

If there is one thing I do not like, blip arguments. These are essentially glorified tag lines that have no analysis behind them, where then a debater claims a drop of this 'argument' becomes a voter for them. For me: no analysis = no argument thus is not a voter. However, if within the context of the debate both debaters do this they lose the right to complain about me intervening. So, take heed, do this and I will allow myself to insert how these blips should be pieced together and the analysis behind them.

There needs to be clash. Far too often debaters do not really analyze. Generally, people view good debates where the flow shows responses to everything. I view this as a fallacy. There should be analysis as to how the arguments interact with each other in regards to the line by line debate and hopefully build a bigger view of the entire debate. Again, it is the debater's job to fine tune how everything pieces together. Specifically, I prefer hearing voters that are in some way intertwined versus a bunch of independent voters. Yet, though, I prefer intertwined voters it does not mean independent voters could not subvert or outweigh a good story.

Things I have voted for AND against

K - I actually like a good K debate. However, I do warn debaters that often I see people run K's they have no reason running because they themselves do not really understand them. Further, as a theme, debaters assume I am as familiar with the authors as they are. Not true. Rather, I feel it imperative that the position of K be well articulated and explained. Many debaters, read a stock shell that lacks analysis and explanation. NEW - Alts need to be clear as to what they will cause and what the world of the alt will look like. Nebulous Revolutions will not sway me, because you will need to have some solvency that the revolution will lead to the actual implementation of the new form of thought.

counter plans - I have no problem with these in the world of LD.

Topicality - I generally stand within the guidelines of reasonability. Muddy the waters and that’s what I will likely default to.

Role of the Ballot - At its heart I think the ROB is a paradigm argument or more simply a criterion argument so that even if one on face wins it does not guarantee a win because the opposite side can in the venue of the debate meet the criterion or ROB. However, the ROB I tend not to like are ones devolve the debate into pre fiat and post fiat debate. I tend towards post fiat worlds in close debates.

RVI - Again this less so, an RVI for seems to be justified within the context of some blatant abuse. As an analogy I have to see the smoking gun in the offenders hand. If it not clear I will side with a standard model. To date I have not voted on an RVI as of 1/05/2024

Understand, I honestly do approach all arguments as being justifiable within the confines of a debate. However, arguments I will on face reject are arguments whose sole objective (as a course or an objective for gain) is to oppress, murder, torture or destroy any class or classes of people. That is to say you know what you are doing and you are doing it on purpose.

I'd say that the realm of debate is for students to engage and craft. As I am no longer a competitor my bias, if it exist, should only intercede when debaters stop looking at human beings as genuine but rather as some abstract rhetoric.

Feel free to ask me some questions. but understand I'm not here to define what will win me. Good well structured argumentation that actually engages the other side are the types of debates I find most interesting. It's your world you push the paradigm you want. My voting for it or against it should not be interpreted as my support of the position beyond the confines of the debate.

Personal Narratives - I am not a fan of these arguments. The main reason, is that there is no way real way to test the validity of the personal narrative as evidence. Thus, if you introduce a personal narrative, I think it completely legit the personal narrative validity be questioned like any other piece of evidence. If you would be offended or bothered about questions about its truth, don't run them.

Communication - I believe in civility of debate. I am seeing an increasingly bad trend of students cursing in debates. I fundamentally, think High School debate is about learning to argue in an open forum with intellectual honesty and civility. The HS debate format is not one like private conversations between academics. I reject any belief that the competitive nature of the debate is like a professional sport. Cursing is lazy language and is a cheap attempt to be provocative or to fain emphasis. Thus, do not curse in front of me as your judge I will automatically drop you a point. Also, most people don’t know how to curse. It has its place just not in HS debate.

So what about cards that use curse words? Choose wisely, is the purpose because it is being descriptive of reporting actual words thrown at persons such as racial slurs. I will not necessarily be bothered by this, however, if it is the words of the actual author, I advise you to choose a different author as it is likely using it to be provocative versus pursing any intellectual honesty.

I do not have a have a problem with spreading. However, I do not prompt debaters for clarity as it is the debaters responsibility to communicate. Further, I think prompting is a form of coaching and gives an advantage that would not exist otherwise. If on the off chance I do prompt you (more likely in a virtual world) You will be deducted 1 speaker point for every time I do it. If the spread causes a technical issue with my speakers - I will prompt once to slow it down without penalty, only once.

NEW: 1/29/21

My email is erick.berdugo@gpisd.org and erickberdugo01@gmail.com for email chains. I am now putting myself part of the email chain due to virtual tournaments and to help overcome technical issues regarding sound. However, please understand I will NOT read along. I have it there for clarification if a audio issue arises during the speech. I still believe debaters should be clear when speaking and that speaking is still part of the debate.

I will automatically down a debater that runs an intentionally oppressive position. IE kill people because the world sucks and it’s bad to give people hope. However, if a person runs a position that MIGHT link to the death of thousands is not something I consider intentional.

NEW - 1/29 7:30PM Central Time

DISCLOSURE - Once parings come out. If you are going to make contact with your opponent requesting disclosure you need to CC me on the email chain: erick.berdugo@gpisd.org and erickberdugo01@gmail.com. Unless I am part of the request I will NOT evaluate the validity of the disclosure inside the round. If you do not read my paradigm and you run disclosure and your opponent does read this. They can use this as evidence to kick it directly and I will. This means they do not have to answer any of the shell.

I expect folks to be in the virtual debate room 15 minutes prior to the debate round. I especially expect this if a flip for sides has to be done. We as a community need to be more respectful of peoples time and of course from a practical matter allows an ability to solve technical issues which may arise.

NEW UPADATE 2/11/2022

Evidence - So, folks are inserting graphs and diagrams as part of their cases. I have no issue with this. However, unless there is analysis in the read card portion or analysis done by the debater regarding the information on the graph, diagram, figure, chart etc. I will not evaluate it as offense or defense for the debater introducing these documents. Next, if you do introduce it with analysis, it better match what you are saying. Next, as a scientist I am annoyed with graphs using solid lines - scientist use data points as the point actually represents collected data. A solid line suggest you have collected an infinite amount data points (ugh). The only solid line on graphs deemed acceptable are trend lines, usually accompanied with an equation, which serves as a model for an expected value for areas for which actual data does not exist.

Special Notes:

You are welcome to time yourself. However, I am the official time keeper and will not allow more than a 5 second disparity.

When you say you are done prepping I expect you are sending the document and will begin with a couple of seconds once your opponent has confirmed reception of the document. This means you have taken your sip of water and your timer is set.

COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE ROUND - I understand when debating virtually where one is set up is not always going to be an ideal situation. However, one should not be communicating within anyone other than ones own partner. There should be zero communication with someone not in the debate. This means those chat boxes need to be off. I understand there is no way to police this situation, however, please remember it looks poorly and you never want to have doubt cast upon your ethical behavior. Also, its just disrespectful.

Last updated 2/11/2022 6:23 PM - Most of the changes are due to poor grammar.

Berdugo

Updated 4/11/24 for Post-NDT

Hi everyone, I'm Holden (They/He)!

University of North Texas '23, and '25 (Go Mean Green!)

If you are a senior graduating this year, UNT has debate scholarships and a program with resources! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via my email listed below and we can talk about the program and what it can offer you! If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!

I would appreciate it if you put me on the email chain: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

For high school LD rounds, please also add jhsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Most of this can be applied to any debate event, but if there are event specific things then I will flag them, but they are mostly at the bottom.

The TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. I think intervention is bad (until a certain point, those exceptions will be made obvious), and that letting the debaters handle my adjudication of the round as much as possible is best. I've been described as "grumpy," and described as an individual "that would vote on anything," I think both of these things are true in a vacuum and often translate in the way that I perceive arguments. However, my adherence to the flow often overrides my desire to frown and drop my head whilst hearing a terrible argument. In that train of thought, I try to be as close to a "no feelings flow bot" when adjudicating debates, which means go for whatever you want as long as it has a warrant and isn't something I flat out refuse to vote on (see rest of paradigm). I enjoy debates over substance surrounding the topic, it's simulated effects, it's adherence to philosophical principles, and it's critical assumptions, much more than hypertechnical theory debates that aren't based on things that the plan does. Bad arguments most certainly exist, and I greatly dislike them, but the onus is on debaters for disproving those bad arguments. I have voted for every type of argument under the sun at this point, and nothing you do will likely surprise me, but let me be clear when I encourage you to do what you interpret as necessary to win you the debate in terms of argumentive strategy.

I take the safety of the debaters in round very seriously. If there is ever an issue, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know in some manner (whether that be through a private email, a sign of some kind, etc.). I try to be as cognizant as possible of the things happening in round, but I am a human being and a terrible reader of facial expressions at that so there might be moments where I am not picking up on something. Misgendering is included in this, I take misgendering very seriously and have developed the following procedure for adjudicating cases where this does happen: you get one chance with your speaks being docked that one time, more than once and you have lost my ballot even if an argument has not been made related to this. I am extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells. Respect people's pronouns and personhood.

Tech > Truth

Yes speed, yes clarity, yes spreading, will likely keep up but will clear you twice and then give up after that.

Debate influences/important coaches who I value immensely: Louie Petit and Colin Quinn.

Trigger warnings - they're good broadly, you should probably give individuals time to prepare themselves if you delve into discussions of graphic violence. For me, that includes in depth discussion of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide.

I flow on my laptop, and consider myself a pretty good flow when people are clear, probably a 8.5-9/10. Just be clear, number your arguments, and slow down on analytics please.

Cheating, including evidence ethics and clipping, is bad. I have seen clipping become much more common and I will vote you down if I feel you have done so even without "recorded" evidence or a challenge from another debater.

For your pref sheets (policy):

Clash debates - 1

K v K debates - 1

Policy throwdowns - 1/2 (I can judge and am fairly confident in these debates but have less experience in this compared to others)

For your pref sheets (LD):

Clash debates of any kind (Policy v K, K aff v framework, phil v k, etc.) - 1

K - 1

Policy - 1

Phil - 1

T/Theoy - 1/2

Tricks - 4

Trad - 5/Strike

I'm serious about these rankings, I value execution over content and am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.

The Long Version:

Who the hell is this person, why did my coach/I pref them?

Hello! My name is Holden, I've been involved with debate for 8 years now. I am currently a communication studies graduate student at the University of North Texas, where I also got my bachelors in psychology and philosophy. During my time as a competitor, I did policy, LD, and NFA-LD. My exposure to the circuit really began my sophomore year of high school, but nothing of true note really occurred during my high school career. College had me qualify for the NFA-LD national tournament twice, I got to octas twice, broke at majors, got gavels, round robin invites. I now coach and judge exclusively, where I have coached teams that have qualified to the NDT, qualified to outrounds of just about every bid tournament, gotten several speaker awards, have accrued 30+ bids, and made it to elimination rounds and have been the top speaker of the TOC.

I judge a lot, and by that I mean a lot. Currently at 600+ debates judged since I graduated high school in 2020. I think this is because judging is a skill, and one that gets better the more you do it, and you get worse when you haven't done it in a while. I genuinely enjoy judging debates because of several reasons, whether that be my enjoyment of debate, the money, or because I enjoy the opportunity to help aid in the growth of debaters through feedback.

I do a lot of research, academically, debate wise, and for fun. Most of my research is in the kritikal side of things, mostly because I coach a bunch of K debaters. However, I often engage in policy research, and enjoy cutting those cards immensely. In addition, I have coached students who have gone for every argument type under the sun.

Please call me Holden, or judge (Holden is preferable, but if you vibe with judge then go for it). I hate anything more formal than that because it makes me uncomfortable (Mr. Bukowsky, sir, etc.)

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays High School (my alma mater), and the University of North Texas. I currently consult for Westlake (TX), and Jordan (TX). Independently, I coach American Heritage Palm Beach CW, and Barrington AC.

Previously, I have been affiliated with Cypress Woods MM, and Eat Chapel Hill AX.

What does Holden think of debate?

It's a competitive game with pedagogical implications. I love debate immensely, and I take my role in it seriously. It is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I'm not ideological on how I evaluate debates because I don't think it's my place to determine the validity of including arguments in debate (barring some exceptions). I think the previous sentence means that you should please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability. There are only two concrete rules in debate - 1. there must be a winner and a loser, and those are deicded by me, and 2. speecj times are set in stone. Any preference that I have should not matter if you are doing your job, if I have to default to something then you did something incorrect.

To summarize the way that I think about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does it best, "I believe judgign debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, faor, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."

I’ve been told I take a while to come to a decision. This is true, but not for the reason you might think. Normally, I know how I’m voting approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute after the debate. However, I like to be thorough and make sure that I give the debate the time and effort that it deserves, and as such try to have all of my thoughts together. Believe me, I consider myself somewhat comprehensible most times, I find it reassuring to myself to make sure that all my thoughts about the arguments in debate are in order. This is also why I tend to give longer decisions, because I think there are often questions about argument X on Y sheet which are easily resolved by having those addressed in the rfd. As such, I try to approach each decision from a technical standpoint and how each argument a. interacts with the rest of the debate, b. how large of an impact that argument has, c. think through any defense to that argument, and d. if that argument is the round winner or outweighs the offense of the opposing side.

What does Holden like?

I like good debates. If you execute your arguments in a technically impressive manner, I will be impressed.

I like debates that require little intervention, please make my job easier for me via judge instruction, I hate thinking.

I like well researched arguments with clear connections to the topic/the affirmative.

I like when email chains are sent out before the start time so that 1AC's can begin at start time, don't delay the round any more than it has to be please.

I like good case debating, this includes a deep love for impact turns.

I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this includes labeling your arguments (whether giving your arguments names, or doing organizational strategies like "1, 2, 3" or "a point, b point, c point, etc."), I find it harder to vote for teams that make it difficult for me to know who is responding to what and what those responses are so making sure I can flow you is key.

I like debaters that collapse in final speeches, it gives room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.

I like it when I am given a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can take place via a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can takes place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, framework, fairness v education, a meta-ethic, or anything, I don't care. I just need an evaluative lens to determine how to parse through impact calculus.

What does Holden dislike?

I dislike everything that is the opposite of the above.

I dislike when people make problematic arguments.

I dislike when debaters engage in exclusionary practices.

I dislike unclear spreading.

I dislike messy debates with no work done to resolve them.

I dislike when people say "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."

I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, it's your prep time, I don't care just tell me you're taking it.

I dislike when debaters are exclusionary to novice debaters. I define this as running completely overcomplicated strategies that are then deployed with little to no explanation. I am fine with "trial by fire" but think that you shouldn't throw them in the volcano. You know what this means. Not abiding by this will get your speaks tanked.

I dislike when evidence exchange takes too long, this includes when it takes forever for someone to press send on an email, when someone forgets to hit reply all (it's 2024 and y'all have been using technology for how long????). If you think email chains aren't vibe then please use a speechdrop to save all of us the headache.

I dislike topicality where the interpretation card is written by someone in debate, and not about the specific term of art in the topic.

I dislike 1AR restarts.

How has Holden voted?

Since I started judging in 2020, I have judged exactly 602 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff approximately 52.23% of the time.

My speaks for the 2023-2024 season have averaged to be around 28.588, and across all of the seasons I have judged they are at 28.525.

I have been a part of 188 panels, where I have sat approximately 12.77% of the time.

What will Holden never vote on?

Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.).

Arguments that say that oppression (in any form) is good.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.

Claims without warrants, these are not arguments.

Specific Arguments:

Policy Arguments

"Well, for starters, they kick ass." - Louie Petit

Contrary to my reputation, I love CP/DA debates and have an immense amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do good amounts of research on the policy side of topics often, and coach teams that go for these arguments predominantly. I love a good DA + case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. One of my favorite 2NR's to give while I was debating was DA + circumvention, and I think that these debates are great and really reward good research quality.

Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive with germane net benefits, I think that most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments about these issues and I greatly enjoy competition debates. Limited intrinsic permutations are probably justified against counterplans that don't say a word about the topic.

I am amenable to all counterplans, and think they're theoretically legitimate (for the most part). I think that half the counterplans people read are not competitive though.

Impact turn debates are amazing, give me more of them please and thank you.

I reward well cut evidence, if you cite a card as part of your warrant for your argument and it's not very good/unwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link/size of impact to that argument. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that often acts as a tie breaker between the spin of two debaters.

Judge instruction is essential to my ballot. Explain how I should frame a piece of evidence, what comes first and why, I think that telling me what to do and how to decipher the dozens of arguments in rounds makes your life and my job much easier and positively correlates to how much you will like my decision.

I enjoy well researched and topic specific process counterplans. They're great, especially when the evidence for them is topic specific and has a good solvency advocate.

I default no judge kick unless you make an argument for it.

Explain what the permutation looks like in the first responsive speech, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you.

For affs, I think that I prefer well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts much more than the shot gun 7 impact strategy.

Explanation of how the DA turns case matters a lot to me, adjust your block/2NR accordingly.

K's

Say it with me everyone, Holden does not hack for the kritik. In fact, I've become much more grouchy about K debate lately. Aff's aren't defending anything, neg teams are shotgunning 2NR's without developing offense in comparison to the 1AR and the 2AR, and everyone is making me feel more and more tired. Call me old, but I think that K teams get too lost in the sauce, don't do enough argumentative interaction, and lose debates because they can't keep up technically. I think this is all magnified when the 2NR does not say a word about the aff at all.

This is where most of my research and judging is nowadays. I will be probably know what you're reading, have cut cards for whatever literature you are reading, and have a good amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I've been in debate for 8 years now, and have coached teams with a litany of literature interests, so feel free to read anything you want, just eb able to explain it.

Aff teams against the K should go for framework, extinction outweighs, and the alt fails more.

My ideal K 1NC will have 2-3 links to the aff (one of which is a link to the action of the aff), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.

I have found that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how it interacts with the alts and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alternative does, your chance of getting my ballot goes down. Example from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense y'all are going for in relation to the alternative, the links, and the permutation. Please explain the permutation in the first responsive speech.

I've found that most K teams are bad at debating the impact turn (heg/cap good), this is to say that I think that if you are against the K, I am very much willing to vote on the impact turn given that it is not morally repugnant (see above).

I appreciate innovation of K debate, if you introduce an interesting new argument instead of recyclying the same 1NC you've been running for several seasons. At least update your cards every one in a while.

Please do not run a K just because you think I'll like it, bad K debates have seen some of the worst speaks I've ever given (for example, if you're reading an argument related to Settler Colonialism yet can't answer the 6 moves to innocence).

K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC so they can be floating.

For the nerds that wanna know, the literature bases that I know pretty well are: Marxism, Security, Reps K's, Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Weheliye, Grove, Psychoanalysis, Scranton/Eco-Pessimism, and Settler Colonialism.

The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Accelerationism (Fisher, CCRU people, etc.), Agamben, Abolition, Bataille, Cybernetics, Queer pessimism, Disability Literature, Moten and Harney, and Puar.

A note on non-black engagement with afro-pessimism: I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. Particular authors make particular claims about the adoption of afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you can do whatever. If you are reading this K as a non-black person, this becomes the round. If you are disingenious to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I am. This is your first and last warning.

K-Aff's

These are fine, cool even. They should defend something, and that something should provide a solvency mechanism for their impact claims. Having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers become much more persuasive, and makes me happier to vote for you, especially since I am becoming increasingly convinced that there should be some stasis for debate.

For those negating these affs, the case debate is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the negative develops a really good piece of offense by the end of the debate then everything else just becomes so much easier for you to win. I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, and other impact turns, and quite enjoy judging these debates.

Presumption is underrated if people understand how to go for it, unfortunately most people just don't know how. Most aff's don't do anything or have a cogent explanation of what their aff does to solve things and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should probably utilize that.

Marxism will be forever underrated versus K affs, aff's whose only responses are "doesn't explain the aff" and "X explains capitalism" will almost always lose to a decent 2NR on the cap k. This is your suggestion to update your answers to challenge the alternative on some level.

Innovation is immensely appreciated by both sides of this debate. I swear I've judged the exact same 2-4 affs about twenty times each and the 1NC's just never change. If your take on a literature base or negative strategy is interesting, innovative, and is something I haven't heard this year you will most definitely get higher speaks.

Performance based arguments are good/acceptable, I have experience coaching and running these arguments myself. However, I find that most times when ran that the performance is not really extended into the speeches after this, obviously there are some limitations but I think that it does give me leeway for leveraging your inevitable application of the performance to other areas of the debate.

T-Framework/T-USFG

It may be my old age getting to me, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that fairness is a viable impact option for the 2NR to go for. I think it probably has important implications for the ballot in terms of framing the resolution of affirmative and negative impact arguments, and those framing questions are often mishandled by the affirmative. However, I think that to make me deploy this in debates negative teams need to avoid vacuous and cyclical lines of argumentation that often plague fairness 2NR's.

In my heart of hearts, I probably am aff leaning on this question, but my voting record has increasingly become negative leaning. I think this is because affirmatives have become quite bad at answering the negative arguments in a convincing, warranted, and strategic manner.

Framework isn't capital T true, but also isn't an automatic act of violence. I think I'm somewhat neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I am of the belief that the resolution should at least center the debate in some way. What that means to you, though, is up to you.

Often, framework debates take place mostly at the impact level, with the internal link level to those impacts never being questioned. This is where I think both teams should take advantage of, and produces better debates about what debate should look like.

I have voted on straight up impact turns before, I've voted on counter-interps, and I've also voted on fairness as an impact. The onus is on the debaters to explain and flesh out their arguments in a manner that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging specific warrants of DA's to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is no engagement in either side in the debate.

Counter-interpretations seem to be more persuasive to me, and are often underutilized. Counter-interpretations that have a decent explanation of what their model of debate looks like, and what debates under that model feature. Doing all of the above does wonder.

In terms of my thoughts about impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills.

"Fairness is good because debate is a game and and we all have intrinsic motivation to compete" >>>> "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate your arguments so hack against them," if the latter is more in line with what your expalantion of fairness is then 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose.

Topicality (Theory is it's Own Monster)

I love T debates, they're absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. They've certainly gotten stales and have devolved to some model of T subsets one way or another. However, I will still evaluate and vote on any topicality violation. Interps based on words/phrases of the resolution make me much happier than a lot of the LD "let's read this one card from a debate coach over and over and see where it gets us" approach.

Semantics and precision matter, this is not in a "bare plurals/grammar means it is read this" way but a "this is what this word means in the context of the topic" way.

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, nad you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

Theory

I have judged numerous theory debates, more than the average judge for sure, and certainly more than I would care to admit. You'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I ask that you don't blitz through analytics and would prefer you make good in-depth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to your offense. I find that a well-explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me conceptually more persuaded by your impact arguments.

Conditionality is good if you win that it is. i think conditionality is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it should be robust if you plan on abusing the usage of conditionality vehemently. I've noticed a trend among judges recently just blatantly refusing to vote on conditionality through some arbitrary threshold that they think is egrigious, or because they think conditionality is universally good. I am not one of those judges.If you wanna read 6 different counterplans, go ahead, but just dismissing theoretical arguments about conditionality like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. I evaluate conditionality the same no matter the type of event, but my threshold of annoyance for it being introduced varies by number of off and the event you are in. For example, I will be much less annoyed if condo is read in an LD round with 3+ conditional advocacies than I will be if condo is read in a college policy round with 1 conditional advocacy.

Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:

- Shells abiut the appearance and clothing of anoher debater.

- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this

- Reading "no i meets"

- Arguments that a debater may not be able to answer a new argument in the next speech (for example, if the 1AR concedes no new 2AR arguments, and the 2NR reads a new shell, I will always give the 2AR the ability to answer that new shell)

Independent Voters

These seem to be transforming into tricks honestly. I am unconvinced why these are reasons to reject the team most of the time. Words like "accessibility," "safety," and "violence" all have very precise definitions of what they mean in an academic and legal context and I think that they should not be thrown around with little to no care. Make them arguments/offense for you on the flow that they were on, not reasons to reject the team.

I will, however, abandon the flow and vote down that do engage in actively violent practices. I explained this above, but just be a decent human being. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Evidence Ethics

I would much prefer these debates not occur. Nor would I really prefer to adjudicate a evidence rules issue as a theory shell. If you stake the round I will use the rules of the tournament or whatever organization it associates itself with. Debater that loses the challenge gets a 25, winner gets a 28.5.

For HS-LD:

Tricks

I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments based on getting into the weeds of logic (think the philosophy logic, IE if p, then q). I took logic but did not pay near enough attention nor care enough to have a deep understanding or desire to understand what you're talking about. This means slow down just a tiny bit and tone down the jargon so my head doesn't hurt as much.

My thoughts about tricks can be summarized as "God please do not if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate it you can go ham."

I can judge these debates, have judged numerous amounts of them in the past, and have coached/do coach debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not deal with them. There's little to no innovation, and I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1N do not expect me to be very happy about the debate or your strategy. if I had to choose, carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am."

Slow down on the underviews, overviews, and impact calc sections of your framework (you know what I'm talking about), Yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory argumetns like they're card text. Going at like 70% of your normal speed in these situation is greatly appreciated.

Be straight up about the implication and warrant for tricks, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether I feel like evaluating them or whether I'm tanking your speaks. This extends to disclosure practices, you know what this means.

Tricks versus identity-based kritikal affirmatives are bad and violent. Stop it.

Phil

I love phil debates. I coach plenty of debaters who go for phil arguments, and find that their interactions are really great. However, I find that debate has trended towards a shotgun approach to justifying X argument about how our mind works in favor of analytical syllogisms that are often spammy, underwarranted, and make little to no sense. I prefer carded syllogisms that identify a problem with ethics/metaphysics and explain how their framework resolves that via pieces of evidence.

The implication/impact of the parts of your syllogism should be clear from the speech they are introduced in, I dislike late breaking debates because you decided to hide what X argument meant in relation to the debate.

In phil v phil debates, there needs to be a larger emphasis on explanation between competing ethics. These debates are often extremely dense and messy, or extremely informational and engaging, and I would prefer that they be the latter rather than the formr. Explanation, clear engagement, and delineated weighing is how to get my ballot in these debates.

Hijacks are cool, but once again please explain because they're often just 10 seconds long with no actual warrants.

Slow down a bit as well, especially in rebuttals, these debates are often fast and blippy and I can only flow so fast

For those that are wondering, I'm pretty well read in most continental philosophy, social contract theorists, and most of the common names in debate. This includes the usual Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Spinoza, and Deleuze as well as some pretty out of left field characters like Leibniz and Berkeley.

I have read some of the work regarding Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Particularism, and Constitutitionality as well.

I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with people reading Deleuze as an ethical framework, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe moral claims but is a question of metaphysics/politics, proceed with caution.

Defaults:

- Comparative worlds > truth testing

- Permissibility negates > affirms

- Presumption negates > affirms

- Epistemic confidence > modesty

Trad/Lay Debate

I mean, sure, why not. I can judge this, and debated on a rather traditional LD circuit in high school. However, I often find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. If you think that you can change my mind, please go ahead, but I think that given the people that pref me most of the time I think it's in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, for your sake and mine.

NFA-LD:

Everything above applies.

Don't think I'm a K hack. I know my background may suggest otherwise but ideologically I have a high threshold for execution and will punish you for it if you fail to meet it. Seriously, I've voted against kritikal arguments more than I've voted for them. If you are not comfortable going for the K then please do not unless you absolutely want to, please do not adapt to me. I promise I'll be so down for a good disad and case 2NR or something similar.

"It's against NFA-LD rules" is not an argument or impact claim and if it is then it's an internal link to fairness. Only rules violation I will not roll my eyes at are ethics challenges.

Yes non-T affs, yes t - framework, yes cap good.heg good, no to terrible theory arguments like "must delineate stock issues."

Speaks:

An addendum to how I dish out speaks , any additional speaker points you get via challenges cannot get you above a 29.7, the other .3 is something you have to work for.

For speaker points challenges, those that know them can utilize them, this will be edited after TFA.

I don't consider myself super stingey or a speaks fairy, though I think I've gotten stingier compared to the rest of the pool.

I don't evaluate "give me X amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad then perform well or use the methods I have outlined to boost your speaks.

Here's a general scale I use, it's adjusted to the tournament as best as possible -

29.5+ - Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament

29.1-29.4 - Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 - Good round, you should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 - About the middle of the pool

27.6-28 - You got some stuff to work on

27-27.5 - You got a lot of stuff to work on

Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it

PF

Speed is chill. I'll say clear if I need to.

Tech over truth. However, if your argument is outlandish and has a poor link story, I will still evaluate the argument normally in the round but I will reduce your speaks between .5 and 1, depending on how outlandish it is.

2nd rebuttal at a minimum has to frontline turns. However, it is still strategic to frontline terminal defense in 2nd rebuttal. If you don't, I will have a high threshold for the frontline you read in 2nd summary. Defense is Sticky.

PLEASE WEIGH. You can weigh as early as rebuttal but no new weighing past 2nd summary. However, I will allow meta-weighing in Final Focus.

Please Time yourselves as there has been a tendency for people to go over the time limit. I will time y'all too just to confirm. This also applies for prep time.

Be Civil in crossfire. I'm okay with SOME aggression but don't yell or interrupt a lot.

Ask any questions before the round and I'll try my best to answer them.

NCX/NLD

I don't have much experience with progressive debate

I know how to evaluate theory but I have little to no experience debating theory so tread lightly

I don't trust my evaluating skills when it comes to Kritiks so you shouldn't trust me either

I would encourage sticking to topic as much as possible so I can evaluate the round the best way I can

Since it's novice, I would encourage not to spread. If you're committed to spreading, send speech docs before you start the speech to me and the opponents.

email: fadu.buvvaji@gmail.com

Speaks:

Auto 25 speaks if anything offensive is said, for example, racist, sexist, etc.

If you do one of the following things, you will get a minimum of 29 speaks:

- Make any funny rap reference

- Say a good pun

- Make any funny reference from "The Office"

I do not have a specific paradigm for any debate event, I do emphasize the items below however...

-Feel free to be unique and run anything you choose as long as it is factual, honest, and topical.

-Be respectful of your judges, audience, and probably most importantly your opponent
<do not make gestures via your vocalizations or physicality that could indicate a sense of disrespect towards he/she/them>

-Be culturally component and aware of your privileges when making general statements, truly try to understand someone else's experience before conducting a stereotype

-Speed is fine if you are CLEAR.

-Claims and Warrants are coactive.

-Road maps are ideal and a recap at the end makes me happy :)

***REMEMBER YOU ARE BOLD FOR COMPETING AND YOUR WORDS HOLD POWER***

Yo. I graduated from Plano West '21 (CK) after debating for 4 years.

- Fully warrant your arguments the first time you read them. Don't make new warrants/implications after.

- Defense is sticky in summary if it wasn't responded to.

- Weigh early

- Extensions should fully reexplain the argument.

- Be quick when calling for evidence please.

- Speed is aight if both sides are cool with it but email chain me at (michaelc75025@gmail.com) if you want to spread.

- I debated a decent amount of theory rounds so I'm fairly comfortable there but for other forms of progressive argumentation I'll do my best to follow; explain things well.

- No exclusionary language or actions.

Read bolded portions if you’re in a hurry! Add me to email chain: mariademarco93@yahoo.com

Background:

I competed in circuit congressional debate in high school and NPTE/NPDA for 4 years in college. During 2 of those years I also competed in IEs and attended the AFA-NIET. If you have any additional questions about my background, where I’m at now, or anything else regarding my judging philosophy, please feel free to ask at tournaments or add & message me on Facebook.

General:

I love good debates! <3 That is all. I do not enjoy being in the back of rounds when debaters are clearly unprepared, disinterested, or otherwise demonstrate a lack of engagement; there are too many individuals who make enormous sacrifices for students to not reciprocate by investing all they can. This also extends to my personal role as a critic. I care about the rounds I watch and will not be a judge who carelessly makes a decision.

What you can read in front of me:

*LD*

I'm a progressive/flow critic so feel free to read whatever you want. I will vote on the flow and the arguments made to reduce judge intervention as much as possible. One thing to note is that I do not view values as offense in and of themselves. Just because you have a good value framing does not mean you have a good advocacy which reflects/achieves that value, so I will never vote on a value alone.

*Policy/Parli*

Read any argument you want but be mindful of theory. I do not prefer one type of debate over another, and do not have any favorite arguments. Though I read the K, performances, and other identity arguments for the better part of 3 years, I read straight up policy arguments for most of my senior year and fell in love with that strategy.

Feel free to read (almost) anything & please do not make assumptions about what debates I like to see – simply use the best strategy given the topic and your own personal preferences.

If you are considering breaking a new position or wondering if you can read creative arguments in front of me, go for it. I have read a wide variety of arguments from policy to afrofuturism, feminist rap, etc. and I love hearing unique positions. If you don’t talk about the topic, great (although specific topical links are preferred). If you talk about the topic, also great. I do not necessarily require specific links to the resolution if you are reading a “project” or other argument about the debate space rather than the topic.

However, perhaps my strongest opinion at the moment is that I am *very* over frivolous theory debates. This refers to theory that (and I’m being generous) is overly “nuanced” to be meaningful. I will reluctantly vote on these arguments if you decisively win them, but will be less receptive and have a higher threshold if you go for 3 sheets of theory in the block without collapsing, or read a canned/irrelevant “specify your ethics” argument when it is a very, very thinly-veiled time suck. Unless there are legitimate violations or these arguments are clearly applicable, there are almost always more strategic and pedagogically productive interpretations that have the same utility. To quote the wonderful David Worth, “I am tired of debates that are mostly logic puzzles.”

Theory that is going to be an uphill battle with me as your critic:

- please don't read "speed/spreading bad" args

- multiple sheets of theory which are not collapsed in the MO

- ethics/philosophy SPEC

- any CP theory that is not conditionality

- PMR theory

That being said, I do not have predispositions to viewing a theory debate any other way than how you tell me to evaluate it. I do think that most arguments function through competing interpretations; for example, reasonability is often just another way to interpret the rest of the debate that follows. I would also appreciate having a copy of any interpretations that are particularly complicated to avoid confusion and intervention.

A note on Politics DAs:

I don’t always feel the most comfortable in evaluating politics disads. Though I frequently read ptx, it took me longer than normal to fully understand how the politics scenario would break down. If you choose to read politics, it would be best to slow down slightly on the links. Also, tenuous links are a no-go. If you are creating several internal links that are only tenuous, I will have a hard time finding a way to vote for you because it’s unclear whether you even garner an impact.

How to win my ballot with the K:

Please ensure that you know what your K does, and that you are able to articulate that clearly. It’s fine to be more ambiguous in the beginning, but by the end of the round, I want to have a clear understanding of what your solvency mechanism is and what it will do to solve the main points of clash in the debate. If you are going for proximal impacts and your solvency mechanism is predicated on your K doing something in this particular room and round, you need to win why those impacts are more important than other impact calculus like timeframe/magnitude/probability/severity.

More importantly, you need to ensure your solvency mechanism addresses the impacts you are going for. For example, do not go for proximal in-round impacts if you’re reading a K that claims to solve capitalism. This does not apply if you clearly explain that in-round solvency is a prerequisite or has inroads to solving other impacts in the future. However, doing that type of analysis requires warrants (not assertions) that it might lead to something later. For example, a Cap K with dialectical materialism or similar solvency for gaining class consciousness within a certain round also needs to explain how a few people gaining consciousness could realistically translate into solving capitalism writ large.

A note on answering Ks:

Always read a perm! There is rarely a reason not to and I will be sad if you are decisively winning the rest of the debate but lose because you did not perm.

RFDs/Speaker Points

I intend to write RFDs that minimize personal biases, though I have zero problems docking speaker points for insensitive comments regarding sexual violence, racism, misogyny, etc. I have participated in too many rounds where teams read Nietzche, Buddhism, or similar Ks and thought it appropriate to inform me that sexual violence and abuse are inevitable and ought to be embraced. Not only are these arguments often traumatic to hear, but they are also gross mischaracterizations of actual philosophy; if you do not fully understand said philosophy then avoid debating it altogether. Weaponizing nonsense like this for the sake of a ballot is just not the move, and if you find yourself resorting to verbal violence to get a W, it demonstrates a general lack of care as well as skill. However, do not take this as an open invitation to pretend that violence is happening in an attempt to win by saying to prefer "tech over truth" if nothing offensive has truly happened. Tech and truth are not mutually exclusive.

I try to stick to the most commonly used speaker point breakdown. A below average debate will be around 26, average will be around 27-28, and above average will be around 29. 30s are reserved for speeches that I thought were near-perfect. If you have questions about an RFD or how you might improve speaker points in another debate in front of me, please ask for more feedback.

Speed:

Use it, go for it, it's great. Frequent judging and coaching means I can keep up and my flowing is not rusty. That said, make sure you clearly signpost.

Leader speeches/1NCs and rebuttals:

I was a double leader for almost my whole career. I love LOCs/1NCs that have lots of case turns, and would prefer a few turns that are related to your off-case position(s), but are combined with more turns that garner external offense. I am willing to listen to an LOC that is straight case but have rarely seen it done well.

I also do not enjoy flowing rebuttals on separate sheets of paper. If you feel the need for me to flow them separately, it should be because the debate was particularly messy or if it is the only way you have learned to give the speech.

I love impact calculus and it is an absolute necessity to compare and weigh your impacts against your opponent’s impacts throughout the speech. I do not prefer certain impacts over others, but I do need clear reasons why your impact is more important; i.e. magnitude does not matter in a world where the impact is improbable. I also need a clear thesis and overview at the beginning of your speech that is at least one sentence explaining why you win. It is okay (and sometimes necessary) to give a speech that answers back line-by-line arguments in the block, but I would prefer if you group arguments or simply tell me what the most important issues are in the debate because it is generally more efficient. You can also provide a brief explanation about why you are not answering a certain argument with a line that says something like “the most important argument on this sheet of paper is X – the others do not have terminalized impacts.”

Warrant comparison in rebuttals is a great way to boost your speaker points. It is crucial that I know why your warrant is a better indicator of an impact than the opponent’s, especially if you are going for the same impact. For example, a round where both teams are going for an Econ impact but disagree on whether consumer confidence or investor confidence is key to the economy needs to articulate why their metric is preferable. Please also make sure you do not mix up your warrants by changing what argument they correspond to from speech to speech.

For people new to parli:

As someone with minimal debate experience prior to joining college parli, I am unsympathetic to the notion that the NPDA format is wholly inaccessible to people who do not have a debate background/did not come from policy. That being said, I am 100% understanding of the substantial learning curve when it comes to Parli, especially for teams with limited resources/coaching/travel opportunities/etc. Please let me know if you are in need of additional resources and I will do my best to help you!

I am a PhD student in philosophy at MIT.

I debated from 2012-2016 and coached actively from 2016-2021.

Since the 2020-21 season, I have done very little meaningful coaching/judging. I have attended 1-2 tournaments per year and have not judged many debates at those tournaments. If I am judging you at Harvard, then I have not listened to spreading in almost a year and you should not expect me to know much (anything) about the topic, nor about recent trends in debate. I am quite confident that I can still follow most debates and render competent decisions about them, but it does fall to you to slow down some, explain key bits of jargon, etc.

Email: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com

Here is an older and longer version of my paradigm. Everything on the longer version remains true.

Short version: If you are aff, you should read a well-researched affirmative that defends someone doing something. If you are neg, you should read something that meaningfully engages with the aff.

Here are some things that it will be useful to know if I am judging you.

[1] I don’t flow author names.

[2] Please slow down on analytics, probably more than you think you need to.

[3] I am best suited to judge well-researched debates about a clear point of contestation in which both sides are clear about what they’re defending. Policy-style, K, T, 'phil,' and many theory debates are all fine.

[4] I will not vote for exceptionally bad theory arguments. Exceptionally bad arguments include but are not limited to: so-called "role of the ballot spec," "neg may only make 2 arguments," "must spec CP status in speech," "must read an explicit standard text," "must contest the aff framework," and "must spec what you meant when you said 'competing interps.'" By contrast, arguments that are fair game are CP theory, plans good/bad, stuff like that.

If you’re unsure whether an argument counts as exceptionally bad, err on the side of caution. You should err on the side of caution on very specific / demanding disclosure theory arguments.

[5] Other theory predispositions:

I think it's good to keep topics fairly small, which makes me good for the neg in many T debates.

It's pretty hard to convince me that 1 condo is bad. 2 starts to push it, and I think 3+ is probably bad. I'm increasingly convinced PICs should have a solvency advocate. And I'm pretty in the middle with respect to whether process counterplans & the like are good.

[6] No tricks. I won't vote on them. If you think your argument might count as a trick, don't read it. If you do go for tricks, you will not win and your speaks will not exceed 26.

[7] I value explanation a lot. I vote aff in a lot of debates in which the neg goes for a ton of arguments, each of which could be a winning 2NR but end up getting very under-explained. I have also voted for a lot of debaters whose evidence is not amazing but who give very good explanations/spin for that evidence.

[8] I am unlikely to be convinced that something categorically outweighs something else (e.g. extinction outweighs regardless of probability, tiny unfairness outweighs all education no matter what, etc.). Weighing arguments should be contextual and comparative.

[9] No "inserting highlighting" or inserting a list of what the aff defends. You have to read it.

[10] Debaters should disclose, and the aff should tell the neg what aff they’re reading before the debate unless it is new. No one should lie when disclosing. It is very hard to convince me that disclosure isn’t good.

[11] Clipping and reading miscut evidence will result in an automatic loss, regardless of whether your opponent notices / mentions it. More on that here.

[12] I will not vote on: tricks (broadly construed), "paradox" tricks (e.g. Zeno's Paradox, the "Good Samaritan" Paradox), a prioris, oppression good (if you concede that your position entails that oppression is good, then your position is that oppression is good), skepticism ("both frameworks are wrong; therefore, 'permissibility'" is skep), trivialism, arguments that the other side cannot make arguments / that I should evaluate (any part of) the debate at the end of a speech other than the 2AR, or awful theory arguments. These arguments are bad for debate.

Hi, I am a fairly new to judging debate. Please don't spread, and if you can try not to use too much jargon and feel free to explain some definitions when appropriate.

Try to crystallize in your last speeches, and make it easy for me to decide the outcome.

Please add me to the email chain. Here is my email: prateekf@yahoo.com

Run whatever, I'm tab.

I'm a circuit lder, I can do Ks, Phil, policy, whatever you want. Just sign post.

Go prep

I am a lay parent judge. Go slow and make your arguments clear, concise, and compelling.

I’m a more traditional judge and prefer traditional debate.

Try to go a good amount slower than the average pace on the circuit or else I won’t be able to keep up (ie. spreading will not work for me).

Also do not ask me to disclose after round, I prefer to do so without saying right after.

I also cannot understand or evaluate these types of arguments well at all:

1. Tricks
2. Dense Phil
3. Kritiks
4. CPs
5. Theory (straight up don’t know what this is)

Basic contention debate or DA and plan debates are the only things I can evaluate well.

Nevertheless, please make DA debates good. Cut good evidence and make sure to warrant out responses and extensions.

Finally please make turns case/DA arguments, or else the weighing debate will be a little useless and more muddled than needed.

Hey, I debated for Westwood High School in ATX for 4 yrs and graduated in 2018. I attend American University in DC now and have done some parli. In high school I did mostly LD but w/ some stints of extemp, policy, world schools etc. I was mostly a K debater. I've worked at several camps in Texas.

Pref shortcut:

Traditional: 1

Ks: 1

LARP: 2

Theory/T: 2

Framework: 3/4 (depending on the type)

Tricks: 4/Strike

Please email me with questions and add me to the chain: abigailgrifno@gmail.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General

Ks are cool, my favorite is probably Cap or variations of it. I read mostly cap and fem so I am most familiar with that. I think performance debates are cool; but I think they gotta be related to the resolution in some way. I also think some performances verge on becoming trick debates, where the performance is used more as a tool to ensure your opp can't respond rather than actually attempt to engage in a meaningful dialogue. Performances that allow for neg ground via things like defending implementation or a specific strategy fair better with me.

Theory/T: don't be frivilous. I think reasonability is under-utilized. RVIs shouldn't be the A-strat and neither should 1ar theory.

Framework: please explain it and if you read something super fringe, I probably will lean towards something I understand better (ie consequential-based). If it's something simple like Kant, virtue ethics, or social contract, I can follow but you have to do very thorough extensions. Something even more fringe means you need a very thorough explanation.

LARP: Its fun. I think PICs are really strategic and allow for great debates, especially against plan affs. Those are probably my favorite debates. DAs, CPs, plan affs etc are all good.

Tricks: not a fan, I think they are bad for education. If you win the round, expect lower speaks.

Trigger warnings: If you read anything that could be triggering or is graphic in nature you should give a warning. I suggest posting one on your wiki, which I would consider sufficient so long as your opponent has access to it. I don't think someone has to necessarily be triggered for a theory shell to be legitimate; encouraging people to read trigger warnings is good. If something is statistical in nature, I don't think you should on face feel obligated to give a trigger warning. If the triggering content is available on the wiki, I think it is in everyone's best interest that if you are offended/triggered by something, you let your opponent know prior to the round. If someone is triggered in round and the round is unable to continue, it will be an auto loss and 25 for the person who read the triggering argument.

PF

I prefer progressive debate, any amount of speed

Flashing/PDFs/Cards: this should all be available on demand and specific quotes should be immediately accessable. I will start docking speaks if it appears you aren't giving evidence or are making it difficult to find evidence within a PDF.

Tech > truth, with that being said I think bad arguments are easy to beat and my threshold is lowered for your responses. Impact turns for racism, sexism etc are unacceptable.

Plans/fiat: as a mostly policy/k debater these types of arguments are definitely acceptable but must be warranted and have some sort of solvency advocate

Collapse: please collapse to specific arguments, ie one of your contentions, one case turn etc. Overviews are great for this, please use them.

Framework: I will default consequentialism, but structural violence versus util is very debatable. If for some reason, you decide to run something that is not consequentialist, please just justify it and it will be evaluated.

plano west '22, ut '26

did pf for three years at plano west, qualified to nats + silver toc junior year. did wsd senior year

for email chains: priyanka.gupta@utexas.edu and planowestdocs@googlegroups.com (both)

for ut tournament: i have zero topic knowledge so please make sure you explain things specific to the topic or you are risking me not understanding your argument. i will not vote on something that doesn't make sense to me.

debate is supposed to be a safe space for everyone!! don't say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc., pls read content warnings for sensitive arguments, respect ppl's pronouns, etc. if there is anything i can do to accommodate u, pls email me.

general

standard flow judge

here's how i view the round:1) weighing tells me what impacts matter/to vote off of. 2) offense: basically whoever has offense that links into the weighing that won. this means you can win weighing and lose the round if you lose the turn/contention that linked in to the weighing. this also means you can lose weighing and win rounds through turns or link ins

tech > truth, but my threshold for responses goes down the more untrue an argument is. ex: if u say the sky is purple, someone telling me the sky is not actually purple is probably enough.

warrant!!!!!!! i won't vote off anything that doesn't have a warrant extended throughout every speech in the round.

actually implicate your responses or else they don't rly matter. this means telling me why defense is terminal, weighing turns, etc.

second rebuttal, at the minimum, should frontline any turns on case

if you choose to dump responses, PLEASE make sure everything has a warrant and don't go ridiculously fast unless you're reading cut cards

collapse in summary/ff

other

not too much experience with theory and none with k's -- only read theory if you feel like you really have to and i will do my best to evaluate it but be aware that i am not that familiar with it

ask questions before round

PF: I did pf for 3 years in hs, and I've been judging for a while. I'm pretty much a flow judge so if you want me to weigh something, say it. I'm ok with speed as long as you aren't spreading and just keep in mind that if I don't catch what you say, then obviously I can't weigh it so you might want to slow down if you want to make a point. As far as reading cards and such, if you want to bring back evidence later on in the debate just say the author, year, and tagline so it's easy for everyone to flow.

Other than that, I'm pretty laid back so if you want to run CP or disads I'm kinda ok with that just make sure that it makes sense and isn't intentionally confusing.

LD: I did one year of ld, so I'm not the most well versed in it. If you are spreading I want to be on the email chain/ however you are sharing files so I can follow along. Run whatever you want, but just keep in mind that I'm not well versed in things like theory and kritiks, so you might have to do more work to convince me of those. If that sounds like something you want to do, go for it. I'm still a flow judge, so I won't vote off things that aren't said.

General: I don't really want to have to do any work for either team in terms of extrapolating information/arguments, I would prefer if you extended things clearly across the flow verbally. I will extend things and do work for you if there is really just nothing else to vote on.

In terms of magnitude, timeframe, etc. I weigh each one evenly pretty much so its up to the debater to convince me why I should prefer magnitude over timeframe etc.

I do like grouping arguments especially in the summary speech of pf for example, but you shouldn't just drop all evidence and arguments for the sake of a "cool grouping" or something.

You can ask any other questions to me if you are confused/want to know more.

Competed in pf all 4 years of high school for Jasper/Plano West

PF Paradigm

· You can debate quickly if that’s your thing, I can keep up. Please stop short of spreading, I’ll flow your arguments but tank your speaks. If something doesn’t make it onto my flow because of delivery issues or unclear signposting that’s on you.

· Do the things you do best. In exchange, I’ll make a concerted effort to adapt to the debaters in front of me. However, my inclinations on speeches are as follows:

o Rebuttal- Do whatever is strategic for the round you’re in. Spend all 4 minutes on case, or split your time between sheets, I’m content either way. If 2nd rebuttal does rebuild then 1st summary should not flow across ink.

o Summary- I prefer that both teams make some extension of turns or terminal defense in this speech. I believe this helps funnel the debate and force strategic decisions heading into final focus. If the If 1st summary extends case defense and 2nd summary collapses to a different piece of offense on their flow, then it’s fair for 1st final focus to leverage their rebuttal A2’s that weren’t extended in summary.

o Final Focus- Do whatever you feel is strategic in the context of the debate you’re having. While I’m pretty tech through the first 3 sets of speeches, I do enjoy big picture final focuses as they often make for cleaner voting rationale on my end.

· Weighing, comparative analysis, and contextualization are important. If neither team does the work here I’ll do my own assessment, and one of the teams will be frustrated by my conclusions. Lessen my intervention by doing the work for me. Also, it’s never too early to start weighing. If zero weighing is done by the 2nd team until final focus I won’t consider the impact calc, as the 1st team should have the opportunity to engage with opposing comparative analysis.

· I’m happy to evaluate framework in the debate. 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 Cost-Benefit Analysis.

· Don’t flow across ink, I’ll likely know that you did. Clash and argument engagement is a great way to get ahead on my flow.

· Prioritize clear sign posting, especially in rebuttal and summary. I’ve judged too many rounds this season between competent teams in which the flow was irresolvably muddied by card dumps without a clear reference as to where these responses should be flowed. This makes my job more difficult, often results in claims of dropped arguments by debaters on both sides due to lack of clarity and risks the potential of me not evaluating an argument that ends up being critical because I didn’t know where to flow it/ didn’t flow it/ placed it somewhere on the flow you didn’t intend for me to.

· After the round I am happy to disclose, walk teams through my voting rationale, and answer any questions that any debaters in the round may have. Pedagogically speaking I think disclosure is critical to a debater’s education as it provides valuable insight on the process used to make decisions and provides an opportunity for debaters to understand how they could have better persuaded an impartial judge of the validity of their position. These learning opportunities require dialogue between debaters and judges. On a more pragmatic level, I think disclosure is good to increase the transparency and accountability of judge’s decisions. My expectation of debaters and coaches is that you stay civil and constructive when asking questions after the round. I’m sure there will be teams that will be frustrated or disagree with how I see the round, but I have never dropped a team out of malice. I hope that the teams I judge will utilize our back and forth dialogue as the educational opportunity I believe it’s intended to be. If a team (or their coaches) become hostile or use the disclosure period as an opportunity to be intellectually domineering it will not elicit the reaction you’re likely seeking, but it will conclude our conversation. My final thought on disclosure is that as debaters you should avoid 3ARing/post-rounding any judge that discloses, as this behavior has a chilling effect on disclosure, encouraging judges who aren’t as secure in their decisions to stop disclosing altogether to avoid confrontation.

· Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions you may have before we begin the round, or email me after the round if you have additional questions.

Former Hendrickson CX Debater '18-'20 (2A/1N)
TXST LD and NPDA/IPDA Debater, Class of '24

Yes Email Chain - theo.januski@gmail.com

TLDR: I'm up for pretty much any type of argument, as long as it's legit and not just a meme case. I don't really have a default way I vote, but still - if there's a specific impact you think I need to prioritize, explain it!
Tech > Truth - but that does NOT mean I'll vote on anything.

I also have experience in pretty much all IEs - in interpretation events, I do prioritize the quality of the acting and interp itself, but if two performances are equal in quality I default to the one with the better argument. As far as LPs, I value eloquence and quality of argumentation equally.

Full disclosure, I have not been keeping as close of an eye on arguments or jargon from each specific high school topics as the years go on, so keep that in mind as you are in both your constructives and rebuttals.

T/Framework -
I'm down for a good T debate. Topicality isn't just a one-round thing, it's a matter of how debate should operate, and that's something you need to explain - it's about the precedent the aff sets.

Kritiks -
I'm familiar with pretty much all generic kritiks. Every part of the K is equally important, which is why if you either can't explain your alt or just straight up don't have one, I'm significantly less likely to vote for you. Links of omission are a no-go.
Additionally, the perm debate is usually going to be pretty important in my eyes, on both sides. Don't give a really vague answer to the perm and be surprised when I vote you down.

Counterplans -
I'm typically a hard policy debater so I'm definitely down to hear a good CP debate. Specificity in solvency advocates and just in the CP itself is important, and in the line-by-line, because if you can't add specificity it shows you don't know much about either how your CP or the plan functions. Feel free to run condo or any other theory.

DAs -
Updated/decent ev and a cohesive story are all I really need. Specific disads are always better. Not much else to it really.

Overall speaking -
Don't be a jerk in round, and don't get aggressive or snarky, or that'll affect your speaker points.
I will call out anything shady, like stealing prep or if I think you're cheating. Debate is also about education, not just winning.

Joshua F. Johnwell (he/him/they/them/queer/josh/whatever you want)

NYU Policy Alumni (2016-2020)
Houston, TX / Nat HS Circuit (4 Years) @ Dawson HS
GDI (Gonzaga) Alum - 4WK, 5WK Scholars, 2WK

Email questions to debatejosh@gmail.com
or just ask before round, preferably. oh & YAS, EMAIL CHAIN ME

Current Affiliations: NYU
Past Affiliations: BL Debate (2020-2021), Success Academy HS (2019-2020), Dawson HS (2012-2016)

[[ ]] I was told my old paradigm was too long, so I've shortened it considerably. I still agree with everything that was there broadly, and you can read the archived version here.

.

[[ ]] About Me

• I debated in HS and won some stuff, graduating in 2021. I also had a brief stint in NDT/CEDA policy and won nothing. I haven't competed since early 2022.
• Disinterested in judging vacuous non-arguments and listening to kids be jerks to each other. Be nice. Violence in front of me is an L0 and a talk with your coach. The target of this violence decides what happens with the debate. Yes, this includes misgendering.
• MUCH WORSE FOR E-DEBATE. It's too draining and I zone out a lot. Pref me online at your own risk.
• I want to be on the email chain, and I want you to send docs in Word doc format: dylanj724@yahoo.com
• Yes speed, if you have to ask though you're likely unclear and I urge you to correct it.
• Yes, clash. No to arguments that are specifically designed to avoid engagement

.

[[ ]] Specfic Arguments

• tl;dr is that I think every decision is interventionist to some degree, but I try to be as predictable and open about my preferences as possible.
• yes, policy; counterplans, disads, etc. are fine. Zero risk is probably a thing. I think it's more interventionist to vote on unwarranted arguments unjustified by the evidence than to read evidence after the debate without being prompted. My BS detector is good and if you're lying about evidence, I'll probably know.
• yes kritiks, but I lean more toward policy these days. these next two sentences might seem paradoxical, but I assure you they are not. I am deeply interested in poststructuralist positions and think I will be the best for you if this is your thing. you should defend something material and do something. preference for speeches that contain the alternative and do something material instead of heavy framework dumps with "reject the aff." To clarify, framework and a link is a fine 2nr but the important part is a link. If I don't know what the aff is doing that is actively bad I cannot vote it down even under your framework interp.
• yes planless/creatively topical/critical affs, but again I lean more toward policy these days. justify why reading your aff in a space where it must be negated and debated against is good, not just why it's good in a vacuum. talking about the resolution is a must - you should not be recycling backfiles from a different topic and saying nothing about the resolution. Talk about the entire resolution and don't abstract from words or modifiers. if I don't know what the aff does, I'm not voting for it. I'm a big sucker for presumption.
• yes T-FWK. fine for both fairness and clash, although if you're going for fairness as an internal link, you're probably better set going for clash as an impact itself. Talk about the aff, don't just debate past it.

.

[[ ]] LD Specific:

• Phil: sometimes. I understand these arguments theoretically considering it's what I'm studying and I know what people like Kant, Levinas, Spinoza, and Hegel say. I don't understand the debate application of these folks. Be clear and overexplain.
• Tricks: strike me.

.

If you have questions email me, although the archived version of my paradigm at the top will likely answer them. Good luck!

School Affiliation: Coach at The Episcopal School of Dallas

Coaching & Judging Experience: I have been coaching teams and judging tournaments since 2006. This includes LD, PF, Congress, CX and IEs at different schools in Virginia and Texas. I have had debaters qualify for NCFL and NSDA on multiple occasions which are both considered traditional tournaments.

Speed: Although I am personally not a fan of it, please make sure your spreading is clear and coherent. If I can't understand you, I probably will not flow it. If you see me stop flowing for an extended period of time then it would be in your best interest to slow down. I also heavily prefer if you go slow on your taglines, analytics and any theory arguments, especially during your rebuttals.

Types of Arguments: Although I prefer framework heavy debates, a lot of clash in the round, and good crystallization and overviews in your final rebuttal, I will still vote on topicality, counterplans, some theory arguments at times and kritiks if they are explained well by the debater. I am not a fan of non-topical Affs as I tend to favor whole resolution ACs. Make sure when you run T, that you are linking your violation to your standards/voting issues and that when you run a CP, you explain your net benefits and how it's competitive.

Theory Argument: If you run any disclosure theory or new affs bad arguments, make sure you thoroughly break down the reasons to prefer. Although I have never really been a fan of these types of arguments, I am willing to consider them if you can show the impacts of the abuse committed by your opponent and how this outweighs. Please make sure that whatever theory shells you plan on running are presented at a slower rate of speed.

Kritiks: Run at your own risk because I'm not really a fan of complicated philosophical arguments that have nothing to do with the actual resolution that should be debated upon. I'm not saying you can't win if you run them, but I might look at you funny and simply not flow the argument depending on the complexity of the K.

Speaks: Clarity over speed is prefered. If your spreading is incomprehensible, this will reflect on your speaker points. Any acts of rudeness or displays of an unprofessional demeanor towards your opponent will also be taken into account. If you go against an inexperienced debater or a traditional style opponent, it would be in your best interest to accommodate their format and invest some time clashing with or turning their value, criterion and contentions. Also, please do not ask me if I disclose speaker points. It's not going to happen. In addition, please do not use profanity at all during the round. It will impact your speaks and could also impact my decision so don't do it. Lastly, please refrain from attacking the character of any political figures or political parties as a whole. It's okay to discuss policies of the USFG but please avoid bashing politicians or parties that you may dislike as I consider that type of tactic in a debate to be very unprofessional and offensive. Debaters have lost my ballot over this in the past.

Tricks: Please don't.

Overview: Debate the resolution, clash with your opponent's arguments, provide framework, slow down during tags and analytics, throw in some voters at the end.

Email Chain: If and only if both debaters are sharing files, please include my email as well: kesslert@esdallas.org

I am a parent/lay judge.

I will vote for whoever presents high quality arguments in a clear and coherent way and is best able to persuade me. I will evaluate arguments based on how true I think they actually are, and overall presentation will be crucial in my decision. I appreciate debaters who emphasize important points and use persuasive techniques. My decision is also heavily influenced by performance during the cross-examination period.

If you want me to vote for you, please go slow (conversational pace). If you are rushing through the debate, it will reduce my chances of voting for you and hurt your speaker points.

I will take notes, but they will be brief and only consist of things which are clearly emphasized to me and points which I thought were very good.

1. Warrant arguments (explain them well)

2. Weigh

3. Don't spread

hello friends! I debated for 4 years at Plano West.

chain: adikumar0306@gmail.com

If you have any questions that weren't answered here, I'll be happy to clear them up before round.

1. the warranting of an argument must happen completely the first time you read the response and should ideally be implicated out fully (new warrants/implications from a new warrant will be disregarded, should have theory read against them, and will tank your speaks)

2. I'm a big fan of early weighing in PF. With that being said, if you're just gonna restate your impact and throw out a buzzword, you might as well not weigh at all (make your weighing comparative). I also don't evaluate new weighing in second final unless there is no weighing done in the round prior to that.

3. If you want to dump turns against your opponents, go for it (just make sure the responses are actually responsive because if either a. the response isn't originally responsive and gets turned into something responsive or b. the response gets extended as a blip until final focus, I will intervene to drop the response even if your opponents dropped it completely). I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to reading lots of responses against an argument, but a response must consist of a claim, a warrant, and an implication to how it affects the original argument. offensive overviews in rebuttal are kinda abusive imo, so while ill evaluate it like any other DA/Advantage in the round, I have a lower threshold for responses against the argument and encourage people to read theory against it.

4. With the new three minute summaries, the extension of an argument consists of a re-explanation of the uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact (failure to extend any one of these in summary or final focus drops the argument from my flow). For specific card extensions, idrc if you extend the card name, but it would be preferred.

5. I've debated my fair share of theory rounds, so I think I feel comfortable evaluating a basic theory debate. Additionally, I have a low threshold for responses against "no RVIs" and friv theory. With that being said, while I will do my best to understand non-topical K positions, high theory, tricks, and counter-plans, I can't promise that you'll like my decision at the end of the round.

6. I debated at a fairly fast pace throughout high school, so speed is fine. if you're gonna be spreading, please use an email-chain. If you don't send a speech doc and you're going too fast for me, I will clear you once and proceed to put my pen down and stop flowing.

8. at a base level, i really enjoyed my time in the debate space. I know I'm one of the lucky ones who was surrounded by great friends and coaches that genuinely cared. My number one goal is always to make that space more accessible to others. For that reason, any exclusionary language or action will result in a loss and the lowest possible speaks tab will let me give you.

good luck!

I am a new parent judge. Please be respectful and have fun!

TLDR; Put jkwon0301@gmail.com on email chain, I will usually vote for the better technical debaters, and BE CLEAR.

Me -

policy debate for 4 years as a 2N at Greenhill

primarily went for "policy" strategies but a very open listener

new to the resolution

Topicality -

flesh out the impact debate

give caselists, examples of aff/neg ground lost, etc.

Counterplan -

give detailed solvency explanations

aff should ask what's kickable early

if you want judge kick put it in the block

tricky/well-thought-out cps (ex. advantage cps using 1AC evidence, smart pics) will get more fiat/theory leeway and more speaker points

Process Counterplan -

perm + theory as a justification 2ARs are infinitely better than theory 2ARs

Disadvantage -

politics DAs are awesome!!!

make turns case arguments specific

please compare evidence

Kritik -

if the framework debate is perfectly debated by both sides, I'm gonna weigh the aff

K tricks are lame so don't drop them

ESPECIALLY for the K: explanation > evidence

T-USFG -

fairness makes sense to me as long as debate is a game

explicit (and early) impact calculus is important

K-Affs-

I'm not the best for these

Other -

no need to read rehighlightings

write my decision at the top of the 2NR/2AR and please clean up unresolved issues

when they say you need to judge

hi! i debated for plano west. i use they/them pronouns. add me to the email chain: rhl53@georgetown.edu

tl;dr

• my priority #1 is a safe debate space. read trigger/content warnings with proper opt-outs when applicable, respect people’s pronouns, and generally don't act exclusionary/___ist or you will be given an L and 20s

• watching people debate off speech docs makes me sad.

• extend the entire argument (uniqueness through impact) and collapse please. otherwise, your speaks will be a bit concerning

• warrants > evidence; i won't call for cards unless you tell me to, or if a lack of warrant comparison requires me to

the rest

• email chain ≥ google doc >>> zoom/nsda campus chat. pf evidence ethics...

• "new warrants are new arguments and will be treated as such" —aj yi

• unanswered defense is sticky in first summary; the only frontlining i require in second rebuttal is turns/offense

• i like progressive arguments, as long as they are run in a way that's accessible to everyone in the round. if you read tricks or friv when your opponents didn't agree to a tricks/friv round, you are cringe and my threshold for what counts as a good response will be very very low

• i don't mind speed, but if i have to flow off a speech doc, you're going too fast. (if i have to clear you more than 2-3 times, i'm deducting speaks) that being said, send your speech docs anyway

• random specific icks: dumping/doc botting and then either looking confused mid-speech when reading through some of the responses on your doc or using completely irrelevant responses, calling for a gajillion cards and then not making them relevant in any speech, probability weighing, impact weighing the same impact scenario read on both sides, being called judge (just call me renee)

• i don't have a presumption preference. if the round goes off the rails, tell me why i presume for you or else i may or may not flip a coin

• click here to boost your speaks; click here and here for instant serotonin

feel free to ask questions! i’m fine with postrounding

if you ever need someone to talk to or have anything else you want to ask, my facebook messenger and instagram (@reneelix) dms are always open

glhf!

--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.

email: connquisty@gmail.com

Phil: (Yes!)

K's: (Yes again!)

LARP: (reluctant acceptance)

Reading more than 3 theory shells: (please no)

Tricks: (NOOOOO)

I competed in LD in high school for Loyola. If you're wondering whether I value truth or tech more, my answer would be firstly that you should try for both; if a round becomes absolutely irresolvable, I usually try to vote for the argument that makes more intuitive sense. I care a lot about logical coherence, and the single best way to win my ballot (especially in the 2nr or 2ar) is by explicitly telling me what framing is most important and how you're winning under that framing at the top of your speech; if the round is extremely messy, this is doubly true, especially if you have a clever way for me to evaluate the round. I want important, far-reaching arguments to be well-developed, so I don't think that tricks are persuasive (and on balance I'd say that the development required for any given "trick" would devoid its strategic value). That said, I love philosophy, and well-developed philosophical positions (specifically moral/epistemic/linguistic/... skepticisms) will be fairly and gleefully evaluated. I love K's (identity-oriented, postmodern, or otherwise), and K tricks are also super cool and underutilized. LARP is fine, although not my favorite, but you can definitely win it; I'd suggest diversifying your offs if you want to larp against another larper (ie read a 3 card K or some theory). Theory done well is fun, but theory done poorly is hard to evaluate, so if you're not exactly a theory God just yet, try not to read too much of it. The same applies for T. Also, I don't have strong emotions regarding T-framework (positive or negative). I try to be nice with speaks, and if you want higher speaks, ask well-articulated cx questions and make smart strategy decisions throughout the round. Finally, I have no taste for aggressiveness or arrogance of any kind: You can be commanding without being condescending or rude, and if I feel you've crossed that threshold, then your speaks will reflect that. With that said, happy debating! You can ask me further questions about my prefs via my email.

I'm lay.

Jk

Did PF for 4 years, but my true love is BQ 

Tech >>> truth 

Defense is sticky if not frontlined, but I prefer extensions 

Please use weigh properly and respond to your opp's weighing so I don't have to intervene 

Preflow before round 

I'm open to progressive arguments, but make it accessible (I was a traditional debater; never ran those args) 

PF/LD in HS, former UT policy debater (2A/1N).

PSHS '20, UT '24

Conflicts: Plano Senior HS (Plano, TX), Jasper HS (Plano, TX), Clark HS (Plano, TX)

plano.speechdocs@gmail.com (Email for email chain)

Judges who I largely agree with:

Aryan Jasani

Vandan Patel

Pref Sheet for all Events (1 is highest, 5 is lowest)

1 - LARP/theory

2 - K

3 - phil

4 - tricks

5 - K aff, performance

Defaults

Theory - DtA, Reasonability, RVIs*

Presumption/Permissibility flows neg

Policymaking in the absence of a RotB and Utilitarianism in absence of an alternative framework

Note that these are just what I default to in the absence of arguments made for any of these issues, if any arguments are made on these I will obviously evaluate them.

*Check theory section if you do CX Debate

As a general note, my favorite rounds to judge are really solid LARP/theory/K rounds, but don't worry if that's not your strat because I'm fine with anything as long as you do a really good job of it. Good flow-oriented debate will always beat grandstanding and not flow-oriented debate.

TLDR if you are pressed for time: Debated LARP style and a little bit of K. Do your strat and I will do my best to evaluate it.

PF

- +0.5 speaks for disclosure on the NDCA wiki before round with proof

- just because you have a piece of evidence doesn't mean it has a warrant - make sure each card you provide in any speech has sufficient warranting

- second rebuttal should frontline offense in the first rebuttal

- defense isn't sticky in summary

- summary and final should ideally mirror each other

- weigh, weigh, weigh! good weighing will reward you in round

LD/CX

LARP - favorite style of debate. I really like smaller affs and specific case debate. Good weighing in the 2NR/2AR is a good way to get my ballot in a LARP round. Finally, please extend case in the 2AR if you want me to evaluate it at the end of the round. If case was conceded in the 2NR, a small 2AR extension at the top of the 2AR will suffice.

Theory - I prefer more fleshed out arguments rather than blips. I would also like you to go a little slower through analytics and on the interp text/counterinterp text. I will vote on disclosure theory but I think there is a difference between someone not disclosing at all and someone not adhering to every single little interp you have. I also probably won't evaluate disclosure on people who can prove in a verifiable way that their school policy prevents it. Other than that, I don't have any strong preferences on theory but I will say the bar to responding to friv theory is much lower. Good standard weighing and clear abuse stories are easy ways to get my ballot in a theory round. *CX Specific - theory/T are not RVIs, so don't try it.*

T - I only really ask that you have a TVA/caselist with any topicality argument or I will err more on the aff side of topicality. Other than that, anything is fine.

Tricks - I mean, I guess you can but I won't be too thrilled about it. Just delineate them, err on the side of overexplaining the arguments (like don't be blippy) and be up front in CX. I will not vote off condo logic - its a terrible argument (tbf all tricks are terrible but this one just is worse than the rest).

Phil - I'm familiar with Kant, Rawls, Hobbes and virtue ethics at a basic level but assume I don't know your lit and err on the side of overexplaining what the framework is and how the offense links under it.

K - I've only really read cap and security as a debater so assume I don't know your lit so err on the side of overexplaining the theory of power in the 2NR. I really like well done K debates, so please don't forgo the line-by-line for overarching overview answers and shallow explanations of the arguments that regurgitate buzzwords, that will make me sad. Including examples to explain the theory of power and/or alternative are also good. I also like specific links to the 1AC, generic links are fine but specificity will always better your chances of winning and/or getting good speaks.

K affs/performance - I don't really know the ins-and-outs of this style of debate too well because I never really debated in this style, but I will say I tend to lean on the neg side of T-framework just because I ended up on that side in a lot of debates.

Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)

Email for email chains:

melindocs@gmail.com

If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.

-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.


I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.

In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.

That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.

Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.

l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.

I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.

One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.

I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.

I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.

Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.

Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.

I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.

Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.

Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.

You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.

Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.

Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.

Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.

Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.

Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.

Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.

Competed in LD and WS at Plano East for four years mainly in TFA but also at some NatCircuit tournaments.

harinamdhari1@gmail.com put me on chains

LD:

These are all just preferences, TL;DR debate how you want to I might give the wrong rfd if I'm in the back of a tricks or phil round.

I should be able to make a decision looking only at your 2nr/2ar flows.

Be CIVIL and strategic and you will get high speaks -- online debate especially makes it difficult to differentiate between being funny and rude so please be respectful.

DA/CP/T:

Read them.

Shouldn't have to explain much here. Just do good weighing explaining how the DA turns case or case turns DA.

CP Theory is cool.

Give me some pen time between flows -- 1-2 seconds is enough if I have sheets in order.

Nebel is a meme but sure.

Theory:

I'm good for this. I tended to go for 1ar theory a lot when I debated and I tend to think it's a good thing but that doesn't mean you don't have to answer the hedge if the 1nc has one.

Theory is not just a tool for norm-setting and can be used strategically

Friv theory doesn't exist b/c it forces intervention -- if you win an abuse story it obviously isn't 'frivolous'

No defaults

Paragraph Theory:

Hate it and love it. Almost every 1ar I gave had a few of these arguments in it and I understand why it's needed especially considering how skewed the 1ar is. If you plan on going for it, it should still have a warrant and impact (i.e: condo is a voting issue vs it splits the 1ar destroying engagement key to fairness.)

Policy AFF vs K:

1. AFFs should make arguments as to why they get to weigh the case.

2. Alt solvency needs to be explained in the 2nr unless you are going for the K as a disad to the 1ac. Explain very clearly why they don't get the perm.

3. Assume I don't know the K lit, this is most likely a safe assumption as I've never gone further than reading Harney, and a little bit of Wilderson. I probably will be able to understand debates over more common arguments like afropess, setcol, cap, Puar, etc. But you need to err towards over-explaining anything complicated. (edit: sorta hate pomo)

K AFF vs T-FW:

I've been on both sides of this debate, very rarely read big-stick extinction AFFs alternated between egregiously non-t affs and soft-left affs. However, I went for framework a lot and think it is correct on a truth level, often find myself voting for it because very few teams have a good defense against framework.

AFF:

1. Explain why voting AFF is a good idea non-contextual to FW. Having a nuanced defense against presumption can also be leveraged against

2. Impact Turns don't need a CI but it's strategic to have a competing model of debate that sets some limit or new stasis point for debate that is able to resolve some (if not all) of the offense coming off of T.

FW:

1. Don't spend much time on individual standards (Limits, prep, clash, etc) because let's be honest most K teams will just impact turn.

2. Spend more on explaining the terminal impact of your model. You should approach the round as a question "Why does fairness matter in a world of the affirmative? How do more fair debates solve the AFF?"

3. I don't think the TVA is a CP but it can be good to frame the TVA as advocacy that solves all their offense with the net benefit of clash/testing/engagement/fairness, etc. Think of it as a CP+DA 2NR, makes the offense you have to win so much less when you win the TVA.

4. Turning framework into a state good/bad debate on the case and leveraging that state good offense on T is a very good strategy and will be rewarded with higher speaker points.

Phil:

I read almost exclusively Util and a Kant NC once or twice every topic. I find Phil debate very fun and engaging but I hate how they have died. Kant in the 1nc too often ends up as condo logic or skep in the 2nr which makes me sad but I end up having to vote on it.

Having a strong defense for your framing mechanism is much more useful than extending 6-7 blips to their method, just use the blip storm as a time suck so that you can spend more time on your own flow.

Tricks:

Welp. I will vote for these but I am kinda awful at flowing through them.

PF Specific:

This covers exclusively substance or LARP debates, anything else will be in the LD section of my paradigm. Here is a short version if you don't have much time to read through everything before the round: (all the LD paradigm applies here too)

ill evaluate anything and evaluate arguments however you tell me to in round. These are just my preferences/defaults as to what I believe is good for debate.

Defense has to be extended through speeches

2nd rebuttal needs to frontline everything you want to go for, this doesn't mean you can't kick out of arguments, you just need to

Weighing is never new

New offense past rebuttal is kinda sus.

I have done PF as a middle schooler and occasionally at some locals. I didn't go for the K much when I did LD and almost exclusively LARPed so I feel pretty comfortable judging this event. However, there are definitely a lot of 'procedurals' that PF messes up pretty badly and you need to be mindful of if I'm in the back:

a. Sticky arguments are stupid. You can not make arguments in the last two speeches that weren't extended the speech prior. There is no logical justification for this except that it forces you to extend a bunch of different conceded arguments in which case you can just extend one of them quickly and since it's conceded and explained it is true.

b. Second Rebuttal should frontline everything. Obviously you can concede defense to answer turns on arguments you aren't going for but if you want me to vote on an argument later on, you need to answer everything.

c. Link turns aren't offense w/o UQS. Obviously, this isn't the case for Linear DA's without uniqueness but just keep in mind that if you don't straight turn an argument then your opponents can just say UQS overwhelms the link (insert explanation) and kick the argument which makes your link turn a glorified piece of defense. If you are going for an impact turn this isn't a problem.

d. Weigh. PF'ers spend too much time weighing in the wrong ways. "my impact is bigger" and "My impact has a fast timeframe" isn't weighing. Weighing should be comparative, and not just at the impact level because from what I have seen most PF rounds will end up with the same impact level and no external impact like extinction. Internal link arguments (i.e: CC = crop shortage = ag industry collapses = recession) and x turns y arguments are much better allocations of your time and will be rewarded with high speaks. Remember you only need one good weighing argument, not seven bad ones.

Hey there! I debated PF all four years in HS on the texas and national circuit, graduated from Plano West '21. Put me on the email chain: alynie@wharton.upenn.edu

• An extension is a (brief) explanation of what the argument is, what the link from the resolution is, and what the impact is. You must do all three for me in both summary + ff to evaluate this argument at the end of the round. You don't have to frontline in 2nd rebuttal.
• Speaking of offense, here's how I vote: After the rounds over, I look for remaining, withstanding offense for both sides (this means any offense extended in both summary & final focus with no terminal defense on it). Offense needs to be compatible (ie. i don't buy two arguments simultaneously if they fundamentally contradict; I'll resolve it otherwise). If both sides have offense, I'll then vote based on whatever weighing/framing you have done; otherwise, if there is no comparative weighing, I'll make my own judgment. If neither side has offense, I'll vote on the closest thing to offense I can find. I'm pretty receptive to whatever weird strategy in the back half you go for (dropping case for turns, etc)!
• I'll disclose if I can. You can ask for feedback, and post-rounding is totally fine. I think it's my responsibility to articulate an RFD everyone understands, and I'll drop you with 30s if you can reasonably convince me I was wrong (ofc, given it's a productive discussion).
• I care about making the round a positive experience for everyone! Just don't be a terrible person and you should be okay in this regard.

Hey! I'm Alex and I debate for Plano West Senior High School and have experience in LD and PF.

Add me to the email chain: alex.parachini@outlook.com

I'm a tab judge so you can read whatever you want and I'll evaluate it, but nothing racist, sexist, ableist, etc.

Please provide warrants for you arguments and explain to me why your arguments are true

Pleaseeeeee weigh your arguments or tell me which layer to evaluate first. I don't want to have to do the work for you and evaluate arguments on my own. I default to util.

For online debate:

I prefer if you do an email chain, and if you initiate it, I'll bump speaks +.5

For Novice LD:

Please weigh your arguments

Also, I haven't done LD this year, so I don't know the topic at all, so don't assume I do :)

For Novice CX:

Pls add me on the email chain

Don't assume that I know the topic, because I don't. Don't use abbreviations that are not common knowledge.

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. this is my 6th year coaching @ greenhill, and my second year as a full time debate teacher.

[current/past affiliations:

• i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
• team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-'22);
• program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
• full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
• director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com -would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

A note on the topic - after judging at hwl, i have realized that many of the policy debates I am seeing are too big, have too many moving parts, and are not being clearly synthesized by either the affirmative or the negative debaters. this leaves me liable to confusion in terms of what exactly the world of the aff / neg does, and increases how much i appreciate a comparative speech that explains the stakes of winning each argument clearly, and in relation to the other moving parts of the debate.

8 things to know:

• Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.

• i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.

• Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
• I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.

• please do not split your 2nrs! if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it, the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.

• Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.

• i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but has nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

• topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

• Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page

• IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.

• Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)

• Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature

• affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

DEBATE: Competed in LD for the last three years of High School (graduated 2019). I am comfortable with whatever argumentation that you'd like. But if you speed, I prefer that you either slow down on taglines or add me to the email chain (allygperkins@gmail.com). Because it's LD, provide some sort of framework or adapt to your opponent's so I know what to vote on in order for you to be able to access your impacts. I generally tend to go with tech over truth, except in the case of racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc...

***Debate was such a fun time in my life when in high school, but I know how stressful it can be. That said, enjoy yourself and have fun. One way we can do that is to make sure that we are inclusive and accessible to all. I find that some debaters believe that cross-x is a time to "flex" and assert dominance/privilege. Condescending mansplaining, consistent interruptions of your opponent, or otherwise aggressive behavior will not be accepted, either resulting in a loss (at a maximum) or a decimation of speaks (at a minimum). Debate is cool, but it's not important enough to do anything that makes people feel unsafe/uncomfortable.***

SPEECH: I competed in poetry, prose, OO, and info off and on for four years of high school (again, graduated in 2019)

In interp events, I look for a compelling story line, well developed characterization, clear and concise teaser/intro, and ultimately dedication to the story telling

In platform and limited prep, I look for confidence, time allocation, speech structure, and enjoy humour in the right context.

Ultimately, speech events are all about what you make of them and I am just here to watch you use your platform to discuss subjects that are important to you!

Updated for Harvard 2021:

While I have a background in policy and LD I’m usually in pf pools for round commitments these days. Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round that you think would help your strategic advantages.

I prefer a framework or a weighing mechanism in which I can filter the debate. I like strong link chains, impact calculus, and contentious clash. I think defense should be extended if it’s an important argument in the debate, but you ought not waist speech time if they concede the defense. Speed will always be fine, I will flag if I get tech fuzzy because of storms that are expected throughout the weekend.

Email Chain: Grahamphlieger@gmail.com

Background

Policy, PF, Ld, Congress, Extemp for Crandall HS (Tx): 2011-2015

Coach for Southlake Carroll HS (Tx): 2015-2017

Coach for Lake Travis HS (Tx): 2019-

npda/npte at University of Texas at Tyler 2015-2018

Feel free to email me with any questions about my paradigm

Only send speech docs to Powell.demarcus@gmail.com

ASK FOR POLICY PARADIGM - The paradigm below is designed mostly for LD. Some things change for me when evaluating the different events/styles of debate. Also when you ask please have specific questions. Saying "What's your paradigm?", will most likely result in me laughing at you and/or saying ask me a question.

About Me: I graduated from Crowley High School in 2013, where I debated LD for three years mostly on the TFA/TOC circuit. I ran everything from super stock traditional cases to plans/counterplans to skepticism, so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you want to run.I debated at The University of Texas at Dallas, in college policy debate for 3 years. I taught and coached at Greenhill School from 2018 to 2022. Running any sort of Morally repugnant argument can hurt you, if you're not sure if your argument will qualify ask me before we begin and I'll let you know.

Speed: I can flow moderately fast speeds (7-8 on a scale of 10), but obviously I'll catch more and understand more if you're clear while spreading. I'll say "clear"/"slow" twice before I stop attempting to flow. If I stop typing and look up, or I'm looking confused, please slow down!! Also just because I can flow speed does not mean I like hearing plan texts and interpretations at full speed, these things should be at conversational speed.

Cross Examination: While in front of me cx is binding anything you say pertaining to intricacies in your case do matter. I don't care about flex prep but I will say that the same rules of regular cx do apply and if you do so your opponent will have the chance to do so. Also be civil to one another, I don't want to hear about your high school drama during cx if this happens you will lose speaker points.

Prep Time: I would prefer that we don't waste prep time or steal it. If you're using technology (i.e. a laptop, tablet, or anything else) I will expect you to use it almost perfectly. These things are not indicative of my decision on the round rather they are pet peeves of mine that I hate to see happen in the round. I hate to see rounds delayed because debaters don't know how to use the tools they have correctly.UPDATE. You need to flow. The excessive asking for new speech docs to be sent has gotten out of hand. If there are only minor changes or one or two marked cards those are things you should catch while flowing. I can understand if there are major changes (3 or more cards being marked or removed) or new cards being read but outside of this you will get no sympathy from me. If you are smart and actually read this just start exempting things. I don't look at the speech doc I flow. If you opponent doesn't catch it so be it. If this happens in rounds I am judging it will impact your speaker points. If you would like a new doc and the changes are not excessive per my definition you are free to use your own prep time, this will not effect your speaker points.

Theory: I don't mind theory debates - I think theory can be used as part of a strategy rather than just as a mechanism for checking abuse. However, this leniency comes with a caveat; I have a very low threshold for RVI's (i.e. they're easier to justify) and I-meet arguments, so starting theory and then throwing it away will be harder provided your opponent makes the RVI/I-meet arguments (if they don't, no problem). While reading your shell, please slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell!

Also theory debates tend to get very messy very quickly, so I prefer that each interpretation be on a different flow. This is how I will flow them unless told to the otherwise. I am not in the business of doing work for the debaters so if you want to cross apply something say it. I wont just assume that because you answered in one place that the answer will cross applied in all necessary places, THAT IS YOUR JOB.

• Meta-Theory: I think meta-thoery can be very effective in checking back abuses caused by the theory debate. With that being said though the role of the ballot should be very clear and well explained, what that means is just that I will try my hardest not to interject my thoughts into the round so long as you tell me exactly how your arguments function. Although I try not to intervene I will still use my brain in round and think about arguments especially ones like Meta-Theory. I believe there are different styles of theory debates that I may not be aware of or have previously used in the past, this does not mean I will reject them I would just like you to explain to me how these arguments function.

Speaks: I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I very rarely will give a 30 in a round, however receiving a 30 from me is possible but only if 1) your reading, signposting, and roadmaps are perfect 2) if the arguments coming out of your case are fully developed and explained clearly 3) if your rebuttals are perfectly organized and use all of your time wisely 4) you do not run arguments that I believe take away from any of these 3 factors. I normally don't have a problem with "morally questionable" arguments because I think there's a difference between the advocacies debaters have or justify in-round and the ones they actually support. However, this will change if one debater wins that such positions should be rejected (micropol, etc). Lastly, I do not care if you sit or stand while you speak, if your speech is affected by your choice I will not be lenient if you struggle to stand and debate at the same time. UPDATE. If you spend a large chunk of time in your 1AC reading and under-view or spikes just know I do not like this and your speaks may be impacted. This is not a model of debate I want to endorse.

General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of cases (I think it should be done in the 1AR though). NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. My tolerance of just about any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory.

Kritiks and Micropol: Although I do not run these arguments very often, I do know what good K debate looks like. That being said I often see Kritiks butchered in LD so run them with caution. Both should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution). For K's that are using postmodern authors or confusing cards, go more slowly than you normally would if you want me to understand it and vote on it.

Extensions and Signposting: Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably just stare at you with a weird look if I'm lost.

Some of the information above may relate to paper flowing, I've now gone paperless, but many of the same things still apply. If I stop typing for long stretches then I am probably a bit lost as to where you are on the flow.

The allegory of the cornbread:

Debate is like a delicately constructed thanksgiving dinner. Often, if you take time to make sure you don’t serve anyone anything they’re allergic to, we can all grit it and bear it even if we really didn’t want to have marshmallows on our sweet potatoes. Mashed potatoes and gravy are just as good as cranberry relish if you make it right. Remember, If you’ve been invited to a thanksgiving dinner you should show up unconditionally unless you have a damn good excuse or your grandma got hit by a reindeer because we’re here to eat around a point of commonality unless your great uncle happens to be super racist. Then don’t go to thanksgiving. I’ll eat anything as long as you’re willing to tell me what’s in it and how to cook it. Remember, you don’t prepare stuffing by making stuffing, that’s not a recipe that’s a tautology. I eat a lot, I’m good at eating, and I’d love to help you learn how to eat and cook too.


PS: And why thanksgiving? Because you’re other options are Christmas featuring a man way too old to be doing that job asking if you’ve been naughty or nice at the hotel lobby, the Easter bunny which is just a man way older than you’d think he is in a suite offering kids his definitely-not-sketchy candy (who maybe aren’t really even old enough to be eating all that candy), or Labor Day where everyone realizes they can’t wear their hoods and be fashionable at the same time.

I am a parent judge.

Email: spmroa@yahoo.com

LD

I am ok with spreading if I have your case with me. Slow down on tag lines and analytics.

Please no complex philosophy, Kritiks or theory. I know some basic philosophy like Kant or Locke but that's it. I don't really understand theory so it will be hard for me to evaluate but I'll try my best and if your opponent is being excessively abusive and rude I understand if you must read theory.

I am okay with Plans and CPs.

Finally, be nice and respectful.

I usually will take some time to look at the flows and give a ballot so I might not be able to give an oral rfd if the tournament is running late. I'll always try to disclose the winner at the very least though.

PF

Please disclose cases. I will give extra speaks if you disclose it makes the debate space much better. I will also have a higher threshold for speed, but maybe not full on spreading because the event does not call for that. Othewise I'm fine with card calling because there is no other way to verify evidence. If a round boils down to a card I will call for it and intervene if the work is not done. If I see a card is miscut(by tournament rules) and the opponent points it out I will make you lose. No paraphrasing as my son has convinced me it is a bad practice.

No theory please. Try not to read Ks because PF is not made for them. I am fine with extinction impacts as weighing is up to the debaters but will still be skeptic.

I am a third year out and I did CX and LD at Austin SFA from 2015-2019.

I would like to be on the email chain - anevayel@gmail.com

General:

I have 0 preference for argumentative style (traditional, “progressive” etc). Yes I’m fine with whatever speed you want to go.

Tech/Truth: I default to tech on arguments I either have personal opinions about or don’t understand but please don’t mistake tech as just having more ink on the flow. I swing more towards truth in matters where whatever is being said is like common knowledge or a fact about current events etc.

I will not disclose your speaker points and I won’t give you a 30.

Speaker points are 60% strategy and quality of argumentation and 40% how clearly you spoke and your in round etiquette. I will give you the lowest points I can if you are nasty. Don’t be.

LD/CX:

Kritiks: Fantastic. Please make sure you understand it and you explain it clearly. I’m probably familiar with whoever you are reading so I wouldn’t downvote you because I don’t know/understand the author but the burden is still on you to explain and win their argument as if I don’t know who they are.

T: Please be mindful I have not judged many rounds on this LD or policy topic so I have 0 preconceived notions of what is T and what is not. You must give me a clear violation->impact story.

Theory: If you’re in LD or PF-I don’t evaluate theory. Ask me for clarifiers if you must. CX- do your thing but please don’t just spread through a bunch of blocks someone else likely wrote

Disads and Counterplans are great! Make your link stories specific! Please, don’t forget to debate about the aff!

PF:

Please be nice to each other. Don’t quote the TFA rules at me. Run whatever arguments you want but you absolutely must tell me a coherent story that is backed by your evidence.

Hello Competitors, Coaches, and Tournament Directors,

I hold a Master's in Communication from Wichita State University. I have been coaching speech and debate since 2002 at the high school and college levels. I am presently coaching for Trinity High School in Euless, Texas.

General Preferences for all forms of Debate: 

*Know Your Case-Don't read me something you do not understand.  I can usually tell pretty fast.  Purchased cases GREATLY  annoy me.  I am on the circuit and I usually can spot them within the second or third week in a season if not the first tournament out..  Use them as a reference if you want but do your own writing/work either individually or as a school team.

*Know Your Cards-Understand the evidence you are using.  How does it matter?  What is the context in which that evidence was derived,   Know it well enough for it stand up under cross-examination/questioning.   

*Don't play games. I am only interested in theory if something in the round is really serious enough to provoke a theory argument. Don't try to win by confusing your opponent or throwing so much out there that they simply can't flow your case.  (There is a bit more leeway in policy for this but your case still must stand on its own merits and not just be built to be hard to flow).  

*Keep spreading to Policy/CX Debate - I can tell pretty quickly, especially during CX and rebuttal rounds, if you really understand what you are putting forward.  In LD, I much prefer fewer cards that are understood well to a large quantity of evidence that you barely understand or that is taken out of context. Some cases are won and lost in the CX potion of the round because one opponent is able to demonstrate that the other either doesn't understand their evidence or that they are using cards out of context. 

*Spreading in ALL other events:  I do not mind a slightly faster than average rate of speech.  However, your case should be able to be understood clearly to anyone listening to you.   If I can't understand you due to your rate of speed, I will stop flowing.  I will also dismiss the point you are making and deduct speaker points. You will know when you have lost me because I will stop writing and stare directly at you or the camera. If you see me doing this, slow down.  I believe that it is important to read your audience and your judge and to maintain some level of eye contact.  For that reason, I do not believe that it is up to me to stop you and tell you to slow down.  When is it spreading?  IMO, you are going too fast if you are having to gasp for air drastically to keep up your speaking rate if you sound like an auctioneer or the side effects voiceover on prescription drug advertisement. 

*I welcome both traditional and progressive case writing.  However, be logical and realistic in the arguments you raise.  Extinction impacts should account for time frames for example.  Ks , DAs,  PERMS and CPs are welcome.  Make them make sense.. I prefer impacts that are realistic over ones that exaggerate and/or over-catastrophize. Time frame usually factors into this directly. (I. E., climate change-based extinction impacts are not going to occur in the next five years so they would not outweigh an urgent matter that has a smaller impact but in a more immediate time frame).  

*Listen and Respond to the arguments that are made in rounds.  If you can clearly respond to your opponent with logic and argumentation based on what they are saying in round and not simply with what you have come within your constructive arguments, I will pay careful attention to your arguments. 

How I Typically Weigh:   Framework > Evidence > Impact  *imho solvency potentially factors in at all of these levels)

Specific Debate Style Preferences

SC:  Bring on those well-prepared speeches but also make sure you are listening specifically and responding in round to what is happening.  Extemporaneous speeches are very well received by me when they are responsive to the moment. I much prefer you SPEAK to me rather than READ to me.  There is a difference between congressional/diplomatic/legislative debate speaking and case writing for other clash events.  Show diplomacy, show interest in the round, and embrace those who differ from you in their opinions with a sense of inquiry and curiosity.  Passion and aggression are two different things.  Make sure you are treating your opponents with respect and dignity.   We model what we hope to see in real life.  The goal is not see manipulative parliamentary techniques and the minimalization of others.  It is to see solid, in depth dialogue that seeks to resolve real issues facing the people you represent. Senators and Representatives who model this well will rank highly with me. 

LD Specifics - I appreciate the connection that LD makes between current issues and the values that drive them. It is very important to me that competitors really understand their own cases well. As this is LD and not CX, make sure all of your arguments link clearly to your value.

Progressive, policy-driven arguments are welcome, provided the links to the value and framework are very clear in the case presentation.

I am well versed in a variety of philosophies including post-structuralism. I expect your case to line up with your theoretical framework. The clash of values is what makes LD unique. Progressive cases are fine but make the links clear to your value and framework.

For LD, I strongly prefer cases to take a little and plant it well.  I can and will keep up with a slightly rapid speech rate but I have a very low tolerance for spreading in this event. (I believe it has a time and place in CX/Policy).   My personal opinion is that the main reason that competitors spread in LD is out of a lack of the ability/self-discipline to consolidate their cases into the time frame given or in an attempt to simply overwhelm their opponent. My opinion is that self-disciplined, well-researched competitors should win on the value of their arguments and not on these tactics.

If I can't understand you due to your rate of speed, I will stop flowing.  I will also dismiss the point you are making and deduct speaker points. You will know when you have lost me because I will stop writing and stare directly at you or the camera. If you see me doing this, slow down.  it is not up to me to stop you and tell you to slow down.  IMO, you are going too fast if you are having to gasp for air drastically to keep up your speaking rate if you sound like an auctioneer, and if you can not look up and make eye contact enough that you are able to read your audience. 

Unless you are going to maintain a very conversational pace,  I do recommend sharing your case with your opponent and judge.

In LD specifically, I give higher speaker points to debaters who make an effort to use solid elocution skills (varied tone, enunciation, volume, eye contact, etc.) Your arguments do not matter if you can not make them in a manner that they can be heard and understood by an audience.

WSD:  In general my LD paradigm would apply here.  Value/Criterion is less important than it is in LD but a solid cohesive case that is tied to a consistent framework or "World" is important.    These events, in particular, were designed to reach a broader debate audience. Solid speaker skills matter. Speaker points obviously rate higher in WSD as that is how the event is scored and judged.  

BQ:  This event gives you considerable freedom and leeway to combine aspects of other events in designing your argument.  Employ the added layers of logic and reasoning that tie into philosophy, theology, and psychology as the topics require in this event. I am looking for cohesive cases that make sense and provoke deeper layers of thought and intellectual reasoning. 

CX/Policy:  I do not judge this event as often but I am willing to do so when needed.  

I am far more lenient with policy debaters on rate of speech (spreading actually belongs in this event IMHO).  I believe this is the event where developing new ideas and policies creatively can and should be a major focus.  I am interested in seeing new ideas about the topic emerge and in hearing how your evidence links to them.  

Make Disads/Impacts realistic.  The quantity of evidence must balance with the quality of evidence and make sure you understand your evidence.  

I will entertain theory arguments went they are truly necessary and not a gimmick to go off-topic.

I get annoyed by "store-bought cases"  Use them as a reference but bring something you or your team worked on and it will likely be favored over the case I have heard several times already from several schools because they also purchased it from the same place you did. 

Timeframe factors in for me greatly when considering Impacts and Disads.  Make your arguments realistic.  Not every single policy leads us to an extinction impact. 

Individual Events:  

Oratory: I am looking for speeches that bring forward your unique voice and ideas. Your story, your ideas, and your thoughts will connect to those who have inspired you but what I am looking for most is for you to inspire me. My paradigm here is less specific because this event allows you to be yourself more than any other event. That is what I am looking for. I want to see you. I want to see your thoughts, hear about your hopes, and get a glimpse of the world as you see it and/or as you would like for it to be. You do You!!! I want to see you shine!

Extemp: Be aware of current events and know the research that you chose to quote well. I stay informed on most of these events as a coach. I am going to rate someone higher if they use a few select pieces of research well and combine them into a very thoughtful and articulate presentation. I don't need to see a ridiculous number of sources, I need to see you thinking about your topic and delivering your speech confidently. Do not make up research. I will usually figure that out fast. I coach this.

Poetry/Prose, HI/DI, Duet/Duo, Program of Interp:  I love the impact that we can make with narrative presentations and I enjoy these rounds tremendously. I am not someone who thinks that you should be limited by your age, gender, or race in what selections you chose. I think Interp gives us the freedom to play with some of these ideas in ways that we might not be able to on film or in theatre. I love blended/woven pieces because I like to see what you put together. Your cuttings should tell a clear story with a beginning and middle and end. Your characters should be believable. If you are working with gender, age or race find a way to do create those characters with authenticity and respect. Act but do not overact. Make your characterizations and voicing seem real. Don't be afraid to use silence. Don't scream/shout unless there is a really good motivation to do so for your character. And, most of all, please pick me for these rounds :)

Please try not to talk too fast (no spreading). I like well organized and clear cases. I will reward clear and straightforward framework/contentions; try to spend less time on abstract statement and more on specific arguments for your case; use real life / realistic examples and scenarios. Make sure to summarize and emphasize in your last speeches the key arguments why I should vote for you and not your opponent. Other than that your goal is to convince me through evidence and reasoning.

TLDR

-No Spreading

-2-3 Solid Arguments are better than multiple that are unwarranted.

-Email Chain (if there is one): smr3273@yahoo.com

-Convince me!

Background-

I did basically all events in high school and am comfortable and experienced judging everything. In college I debated parli for 4 years at Texas Tech University and was very nationally competitive by the end of my career. I have been coaching for 15ish years and judging for even longer than that.

Here are specifics for debate:

What I vote on-

I default Netben unless told otherwise. Impacts and solvency are the best things to convince me to give you my ballot. Be civil or be tanked on speaks.

LD-

I don't mind hearing policy style or critical arguments, but you still need to engage with opponents that use Value and Criterion. You can't just format your opponents out of the round. For me, it is all about the line by line and how you structure your framework. The easiest thing for me to vote on are solvency and impacts. I will listen to theory, but there needs to be clear abuse. I am probably not the guy to run super experimental or out there arguments with. I don't mind hear critical stuff, but it is very easy for me to attach myself to arguments that simply say your K has no impact, perm do both, or just reading theory. I would say K's are not my strong suit, but I'll listen to them.

CX-

I'm good with everything. Don't name/card drop at me assuming I have heard the card you are talking about. (Cause I probably don't remember it lol)

Speed-

I'm ok with it as long as your opponent is ok with it. I refuse to let someone just spread a newer and/or traditional debater out and not allow them to engage in the debate. I will tell you to slow down if I need you to. Particularly so on online tournaments, speed needs to be accessible. I'll be honest, my ears are not as fast as they used to be. You probably just need to plan on going a little slower for me and give me access to evidence.

K-

Don't name drop and assume I know what your talking about. I expect links and impacts just like any other argument.

T-

Need to prove abuse, don't just say it is unfair.

CP/DA-

Absolutely my favorite thing to listen to in debate.

Hello, I am a parent judge. Make sure to present your cases clearly and persuasively. I am only familiar with traditional debate and will not be able to evaluate any progressive arguments. Please talk slowly and make sure to give voters. This makes you much more persuasive and easier to vote for.

Alright mate, I'm assuming your'e reading this either before the round or doing prefs but I'll try to accommodate for both. Also keep in mind that I am an LD debater who has done a significant amount of PF too, but I don't know much about policy.

Email is tirth2004@gmail.com , and yes I'd like to be on the email chain.

Short Version:

Larp - 1

Theory - 1

K - 1

Friv Theory/Tricks - 2

Phil - 3

High theory Ks - 4/strike

Long Version:

Larp is an easy to evaluate debate rounds, I have no problem with this.

On theory, I don't default any paradigm issues so you will have to establish them in round. I will evaluate any shell you present unless if its absolutely stupid. Don't just read dino-theory and expect to get away with it.

On the tricky debate, I'm fine with most stuff but here are things that are important going into the debate:

1. Presumption and Permissibility negate until proven otherwise

2. I default to the ROB of whoever does the better debating should win the round, unless proven otherwise

3. I'm not going to extend 20 different one line blips, make sure that you have at least some sort of warranting to back it up

On K's, I understand a lot of basic kritikal literature like cap, setcol, security, etc. If you want to read something else, that's completely fine by me, but make sure to not rely on the "fancy terminology" of the literature to beat opponents. Additionally, I think its important to focus on what the alt actually does, because most often the alt is pretty vague and results in bad engagement from both sides.

For phil, this applies to ld and not cx, so if your a policy kid you can skip this, but I'm fine with a lot of phil that most debaters read: kant, virtue ethics, hobbes, etc. If you read something else, I'll accept and evaluate it like any other phil, but you would have to explain more.

I dislike high theory k, I'm not great at evaluating these kinds of debate because my knowledge of things is limited. If you do plan on reading this, I'm not going to insta-drop you but you need to do a lot more work on the arg if you want my ballot.

Overall for online debate I'd say that you should record your speeches locally, because If my internet or your internet goes out, I'm not doing speech redoes. Also go 70-80% speed, if somethings unclear I'll yell clear, and if your too fast I'll yell speed.

What's up I did PF for four years from plano west '21 (IS)

shahrukhshowkath@gmail.com

You can ask me questions before the round if you have any after reading this

Tech> truth but if its something weird, you will have to work harder to get my ballot

I'm probably not familiar with any of the topics so explain unusual terminology

I'm ok with speed for the most part but send speech doc if spreading. If it is too fast/can't understand you, I'm just not gonna flow it.

Theory is ok but I'm not completely familiar with it. For any progressive argument, it's best if the argument is fleshed out to me simplistically and I'll do my best to follow

Either line by line/big picture summary is ok

Second rebuttal should reply to first

When extending, fully extend the argument

if comparing evidence, please tell me in round or else I have to do it myself and you can guess how that's gonna go

Warrant. don't make new warrants later

Weigh.

Collapse.

Signpost.

be quick when calling for evidence pleasee4eeeeeeeee

no exclusionary actions or language.

debate well.

Conflicts: Shepton HS, Plano West HS

Email: debaterjason@gmail.com (I'd like to be on the email chain)

Debated LD for about 4 years. Mostly went for Policy and Phil.

I’ll try to be as tab as possible, i.e. I will evaluate any argument as long it is a) warranted and, b) not morally reprehensible. Im cool with speed, just send a doc. I will clear you 3 times, then stop flowing.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Quick Prefs:

LARP (Plans, CPs, PICs, DAs, etc.) - 1

Phil - 2

T & Theory - 2

K/K Affs - 3

Non-Topical/Performance - 3

Tricks - 4/Strike

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Defaults

RVIs > No RVIs

Competing Interps > Reasonability

Education > Fairness

Tech > Truth

Theory > T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Please don't:

Recycled strategies and framework

Blippy arguments and spikes

Backfile K debate

I am not a huge fan of disclosure, but will vote off it if under covered

Paradigm:

I'm essentially a tabula rasa judge in that I will listen to justifications for any paradigm that you can convince me to hold  That isn't to say I don't have biases, but I can be convinced to vote against them if you set up standards, win them, and meet them.  One bias that I do hold (and it can be overcome) is that I default to seeing myself as judging the resolution up or down.  That is to say, if you affirm the resolution, I vote affirmative.  So, if you want to, say, run a topical PIC from the negative, you need to tell me why I should write "negative" on my ballot for something that is affirming the resolution.  

Speed:  

Speed is fine so long as you are not skipping syllables or slurring your speech. Too many debaters have a tendency do this to gain speed.  If you want to go faster than you can anunciate, you do so at the risk of losing me.  Slowing down on taglines and citations is always a plus, because I tend to organize my flow around cards (unless you get very theoretical, in which case, I'll switch to line numbers...so number your arguments in this case). It's also a good idea to get louder (and clearer) on phrases within the card that you especially want me to hear.  Doing this will ensure your argument gets on the flow in context.  Most judges like to hear cards and not just taglines, so we can evaluate source indictments.

Flashing:  

I'm evolving on flashing.  I once disliked it because I noticed that it made teams stop flowing, and resulted in less line-by-line rebutting.  This is an unfortunate habit.  I still allowed it because were some teams who managed to handle it just fine.  I think reading clarity is also sacrificed when flashing, because there is not the added pressure of having to be understood by your opponent.  But you still have to be understood by your judge!  Email chains are no better than flashing, by the way, and differ only in that judges are sometimes included in the chain.  I tried this once, and I realized that *I* stopped flowing!  It's not to say that I don't like being in on an email chain (so I can look at it during prep), but if you send me briefs, I will still not flow with them. 

On the other hand, teams who flash look more critically at their opponents' evidence and are less likely to accept the tagline as an accurate description of what the card says.  Even though all of the above problems are real, this new critical way of assessing evidence makes it worth it to flash.  So, flash away, but don't let that stop you from flowing!

This paradigm works for CX, LD and PF, but I should add that 

1) in LD, I am sympathetic to suggested paradigms that flow from the resolution.  For instance, if a resolution includes a call to action, a plan makes more sense.  If it doesn't, then not so much.  I can be convinced to shift this bias, but you must tell me why.

2) in PF, I tend to think more like a lay judge, since that is the spirit of the event.  I will be evaluating speaking skills and your ability to make logical arguments more broadly persuasive to a reasonable (but lay) audience.  That isn't to say I won't follow the flow if you get technical, but I will give you some lattitude to use grouping to buy time for more pathos and ethos.

My email address is icowrich@yahoo.com

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

Plano West '22, UT '26

he/him pronouns

PF for 2 years, WSD for 1 year, qualified to Nats & TOC

Please add both sona.om78@gmail.com & planowestdocs@googlegroups.com to email chains

Don't say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/etc, read content warnings for justified arguments, respect ppl's pronouns, and make sure that debate remains a safe space.

Key Tips:

1. Prioritize warranting & weighing throughout the round. I will only vote on arguments extended through both Summary and FF.

2. Treat me like a lay judge: I will vote on theory, Ks, prefiat args, etc. if properly explained, warranted, weighed, and implicated in the round

3. Frontline all offense in 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary to minimize the time skew and preserve fairness

4. I have no topic knowledge so please explain jargon and contextualize arguments

5. Signpost, collapse, send speech docs if you're spreading

6. Will average 29 speaks + extra for humor

Ask any specific questions before the round. Good luck y'all!

Coaching History:

Mansfield Legacy [2023-Present]
Byron Nelson High School (2018-2021)
Royse City High School (2013-2018; 2021-2023)
Email: matthewstewart@misdmail.org (do please include me in any email chains)

General Preferences [updated as of 3/14/24]:

Theory
More truth over tech. If you're real big on theory, I'm not your judge because I'm definitely gonna goof up that flow.

Disclosure:

Don't run it. I think open source is good and should be the standard, but I don't care for it being used as an argument to smash small schools without prep.

Framework:
Default offense/defense if I don't have a framework to work with. Winning framing doesn't mean you win the round, you still need to leverage it for your offense.


Speed:
Whatever you AND your opponent are okay with! Speed shouldn't be a barrier to debate. Slow up for Taglines/Cites, give me a filler word ("and," "next," etc.) to let me know when you're moving to the next piece on the flow and be sure to give me some pen time on Theory/Topicality shells.

Round Conduct:
Don't be sketchy, rude, or hostile to judges or your opponents! We're all here to learn and grow academically, remember that.

Speaker Points:
Starts at 27 and goes up based on strategy, delivery style, and round conduct. Sub 27 means you most likely said something unabashedly offensive or were just generally hostile towards your opponents.

Miscellaneous Stuff

-Debate what you want to debate, I would rather try to meet you on your side of what debate is rather than enforce norms on you. BUT that doesn't mean you can get away with making unwarranted arguments or not doing extensions, impacts, or weighing like a good debater should!

-Open CX and Flex prep are cool with me, but I will respect the norms of the circuit I am judging in.

-I'm pretty non-verbal as I'm flowing and listening, so for better or worse that's gonna be there.

-Just be chill. Debate the way that is most comfortable for you...hopefully that isn't a really yelly and rude style because I'd prefer you not. Respect each other, do your thing, and we'll all have a good time!

-A roadmap is just telling me what order to put my flowsheets in. No more. No less.

-Be kind to novices, be the support you wish you had when you first started. Bonus points for treating newbies nice.

-Extending specific warrants WITH your cards is good, so is doing evidence comparison and impacting out drops

-The less work you do on telling me how to evaluate the round, the riskier it gets for your ballot. Don't assume we're both on the same flow page or that I can read your mind.

-Sending the doc or speech is part of prep time. I will not stop prep until the doc is sent.

hey! i'm meghna (meg-nah), pronouns are she/they :)

meghna.sub@gmail.com for email chains, if u have any questions lmk before round

i currently do pf at plano west (the s in ws) on both the local and national circuit

read the bold if ur short on time

first and foremost, debate is supposed to be a safe space for everyone!! don't say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc., pls read content warnings for sensitive arguments, respect ppl's pronouns, etc. if there is anything i can do to accommodate u, pls email me.

for cx/ld:

- i have zero topic knowledge pls don't be too big brain.

- if ur spreading send speech doc before speech, not after.

- also not super sure if i should evaluate these events the same way i would pf, so plssss read the rest of my paradigm and tell me if there's smth u want me to change in this paradigm for the round

pf:

tldr: tech > truth, weighing wins rounds, pls give me a warrant, don't be problematic

general:

- here's how i view the round: 1) weighing tells me what impacts matter/to vote off of. 2) offense: basically whoever has offense that links into the weighing that won. this means u can win weighing and lose the round if u lose the turn/contention that linked in to the weighing. this also means u can lose weighing and win rounds thru turns or link ins.

- tech > truth, but my threshold for responses goes down the more untrue an argument is. ex: if u say the sky is purple, someone telling me the sky is not actually purple is probably enough.

- warrant!!!!!!! i won't vote off anything that doesn't have a warrant extended throughout every speech in the round.

- weigh early and comparatively. i am a simp for good weighing. whenever u want to start is fine, but by summary i need some kind of weighing. i won't evaluate new weighing in ff unless there's no other weighing in the round. also make sure it's actually comparative to ur opponents' impact(s). if u don't weigh i will be very sad :( and presume whoever loses the coin toss (unless you tell me why i should default a different way)

- overall, i kind of hate sticky defense, so pls just fronline everything in 2nd rebuttal and extend defense in 1st summary. however, if u usually debate with sticky defense, i can adapt. if both teams tell me before round that defense is sticky, i'm down. in that case, 2nd rebuttal should definitely frontline turns at the very least. any defense that 2nd rebuttal doesn't frontline is sticky and first summary doesn't have to extend it, but it must be in final focus.

- pls collapse. makes my rfd so much cleaner, will probably give u a decision u like, and will prevent me from getting a headache

- actually implicate ur responses or else they don't rly matter. this means telling me why defense is terminal, weighing turns, etc. implications are just so heart eye emoji

- make sure to extend uniqueness, warrant, and impact or i will cry

prog stuff?:

- i'll probably always pref larp unless there is major abuse in the round. if there is major abuse, an informal/paragraph shell is enough to win my ballot.

- not super familiar w/ it and never ran it, so go at ur own risk.

- overall, pf should be accessible. this means no running prog stuff on teams that don't know how to respond for an easy up >:(

- with theory: default drop the argument unless told otherwise

- content warning theory: yes yes yes yes pls use content warnings

- paraphrase theory: will vote off the shell or an rvi

- disclosure theory: no❤

- friv theory: no❤

other stuff:

- k: never ran/debated one, but open to vote off it if u drop jargon and can explain it to me like i'm lay. if u don't have an alt, i won't vote off it (unless k aff lol).

- prefiat: yeah go for it, but again explain like i'm lay

- phil: never ever heard this so tread lightly, might be a screw if u go for it and i don't get it sorry :(

- trix: no❤

- prob don't run anything else because i will be highly confused

speaks:

lol

rarely give out 30s, but not opposed to it. average a 29.

if it's ur bubble round, tell me, and i'll give y'all 30s.

things that will bump speaks by .5 (only get one bump even if u do more than one):

- make me laugh

- sing a lauv song during cross

- dm a pick up line to priyanka gupta or kaustubh sona and show me a screenshot

- make a haikyuu reference

paradigms i like:

- edison huang

- aditya kumar

Darren Sung He/him/his email-Dsung0805@gmail.com

extra speaks for displaying pronouns in zoom

back ground

I competed in local and national circuits. I've debated all 4 years of high school and well versed in congress,PF,LD,and Extempt.

General

I'm fine with speed as long as it's clear.

pls turn your camera on I want to see everyone's passionate glares when debating.

speaks will be low to high

If you clap after round and show good sportsmanship I'll add +.5 speaks

if you make me laugh +1 speaks

start a email chain both you and your partner get .5+ speaks

I want to hear obscure and weird arguments that is still topical. As long as you signpost,warrent, and clearly link your link chains I will buy it no matter how long it is. ( just don't get destroyed with probability( try to persuade me ))

Collapse- Love to see strategic debate moves.

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH ( if you don't weigh then how am I suppose to make the decision of who's winning their arguments)

obvi Trigger warning is required when talking about anything that might make anyone in the room feel uncomfortable.

#1 is to have fun and be respectful I will not tolerate any racism, sexism, etc. then auto down vote.

If I feel like you're making the debate space unsafe then I'll auto down vote.

if you can't provide link to evidence in chat when I ask in less than 2min then I'm going just ignore that argument

Cross-

Be nice and respectful. ( I don't want to hear any extension of case or any over lapping when answering and asking question. It gets really annoying to hear 4 ppl screaming at each other at the same time)

pf

-tech> truth ( unless the tech is obvi wrong)

-warrents ( if it has no warrents your argument=trash)

sign post! If it gets too confusing for me to flow I'm going to just not flow it.

default frame work=util

if you bring other frameworks make sure to link it to your case and if you're going against a frame work have warrants or tell me why you link it better ( frame work debate should be clear and not messy)

Try not to weigh certain group over another ( it's just going to be messy) ( target their link chain rather than trying to value certain lives over another)

summary=FF ( should be same no new arguments )

If your FF is fire and get's everything on point I'll award +.5 speaks

LD

I'm fine with speed if it's clear

I'm good with Theory shells (if it's not off like 10 or more)

don't do some obscured T shells I can guarantee you I won't be able to keep up because by the time you start listing bs violation I'm just going to ignore it ( don't abuse Theory)

topicality- I'll hear it but if it's not solid I'll just drop it so be confident

Kritics- good

When doing anything off case just make things super clear ( SIGN POST!!)

you can ask me questions before the round if you have any after reading this

tech> truth but if its something weird, you may have to work harder for it to get my ballot

I'm probably not familiar with any of the topics so explain unusual terminology

I'm ok with speed for the most part but send speech doc if spreading. if it is too fast/can't understand you, I'm just not gonna flow it.

Theory is ok but I'm not completely familiar with it. For any progressive argument, It's best if the argument is fleshed out to me simplistically and I'll do my best to follow

either line by line/big picture summary is ok

second rebuttal should reply to first

defense is sticky in summary

when extending, fully extend the argument

if comparing evidence, please tell me in round or else i have to do it myself and you might be sad

warrant. don't make new warrants later

weigh.

collapse.

signpost.

be quick when calling for evidence pleaseeeeeeeeeee

no exclusionary actions or language.

debate well.

Please, I beg, read the things I write here. I didn't write it for no reason.

I'm Fiker (pronounced like sticker). She/her/hers. I debated a bit in high school which is mostly unimportant, and then did four years (2015-2019) at Texas Tech University. I (and my partner) won the NRR and I won all 3 national top speaker awards in 2019. I judged and graduate-assistant coached for TTU in my masters (graduated 2021) and was acting Director for a year. I then spent a year as the Director of Debate at Grapevine High School. I now am the Associate Director of Debate at Mercer University. So it goes.

I generally think debate is a game, but a useful and important one. It may not be "fiat" but it does influence the real world by how we exist inside of it. Let's not forget we're human beings. Read what you want, I certainly did. However, I do not intend on imposing my own ideals onto debaters, so please have whatever round you want so long as we respect one another as humans. Speed isn't usually an issue but if we're blazing, let me know so I can use paper and not my laptop. 90% of debaters lose rounds in front of me because they have not read the specifics of my paradigm and how I tend to come down on questions of evaluation, so don’t let that be you, too. I don’t understand presumption most likely. Not something you want to stake your round.

Things to keep in mind: My favorite arguments are well warranted critical arguments that I can actually learn and grow from; also, Japan re-arm. I like to do as little work as possible when it comes to making decisions on the flow so please be incredibly explicit when making claims as I will not fill in arguments not being made in the round. Impact calculus is essential. However many warrants you have, double it. Condo is good, but don't test the decently sturdy limits. I don't really get presumption and may not be in your best interest to stake the round on it. Thought experiments aren't real. Jokes are fun. 9/10 the MG theory is not worth it. I will only evaluate what you tell me to. If I have not been given a way to evaluate arguments, everything becomes flow centric. This will not work out for you if things become a long chain of arguments as I will just default to whatever the most convincing and well-fleshed out argument is otherwise with no other weighing mechanism. Saying words is NOT the same thing as making an argument. I need to know either 1) what that means for the sake of the round/impact of the round, 2) how this helps me to evaluate/interpret other arguments or, 3) needs to be explicit enough to do all that in the nature of saying the argument. Cool you said it, but what am I supposed to do with it now?

Affs: Read them and be very well warranted within them. Pull from the aff throughout the debate as I feel this is one of the least utilized forms of offense in the round. K affs are fine (I'm a big fan) just make sure the things you say make sense and do something. I think because I have read a lot of Ks in my time that people think I will vote them up regardless, which is not true. I like offense and warrants and I like not doing work so whoever allows the most of that will be in the better spot regardless. Read case against the aff. Be clear and read texts twice.

DA/CP: Also read these. They need to be complete and fleshed out with good warrants and net benefits where they need to be. Warrant explicitness are your best friend. CPs should come with written texts, imo. I would say I have a slightly higher than average threshold for CP theory but that doesn't mean I won't evaluate it if it is read and defended well (just remember MG theory isn't always worth it if you can just win the substantive).

Theory: I like this and my threshold is pretty equal to substance if run well, but I needneedneed good structure. Interpretations are key, please slow down and repeat them. Now, I don't need several sheets of theory, MG theory, overly high-level theory, and certainly not MO and later theory. Keep it at home. Have voters. Defend them. Competing interpretations is based on the way that the interpretations are being upheld through the resolution of the standards but standards alone do not win without a competitive interpretation. Theory is one shot kill to say both please don’t go hard for the substantive as a backup just go for theory or don’t and don’t go for theory if there’s no proven abuse or if you’re not explaining the abuse in clear detail. In other words, what is the violation AND why is that violation bad?

Ks: I love them, but I don't vote on nothing. Framework needs to be strong or it needs to not bog down the real parts of the argument. Links need to link..... please (generics won't save you)......Alt needs to make sense, repeat them twice for me, and if they're long, I'd like to be told in flex or given a copy. Even if I know your literature, I am not debating. Please do the work for me in round. Identity arguments are fine, do as you please just don't be offensive or overly satirical about real violence. You must still win the actual debate and make the actual arguments for me to vote. This runs both ways, so anyone reading the K should do so if you want but if this is your winning strategy then make sure I know why and am not filling anything in for you where you believe I should be able to. “Use of the state” is a link of omission at best. Not offense alone. You need external reason and if your “use of the state specifically” is just repetition of all the things the state either has done or could do is not enough of a link to prove in the context of the round. How is the METHOD uniquely causing this issue?

Any other questions about my paradigm or my opinions/feelings about debate can be directed to me by email at fikertesfaye15@gmail.com

Have your debate. Live your life. Yee, and dare I say it, haw.

I would prefer a very clear and coherent speaking at a normal pace. Do not speed read. I value quality of the content and research with citations.

In a speech event, I value clear and engaging speeches rather than someone reading off the laptop screen.

In a debate event, I value moderate pace. Please be respectful of the opposite team while making remarks about arguments in cross exams and rebuttals.

Aaron Timmons

Director of Debate – Greenhill School

Former Coach USA Debate Team

Curriculum Director Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshops

Updated – April 2024

Please put me on the email chain – timmonsa@greenhill.org

Contact me with questions.

General Musings

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is a critic of argument (if I had to pigeonhole myself with a paradigmatic label as a judge). I will evaluate your performance in as objective a method as possible. Unlike many adjudicators claim to be, I am not a blank slate. I will intervene if I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round. I WILL do my best to objectively evaluate your arguments, but the idea that my social location is not a relevant consideration of how I view/decode (even hear) arguments is not true (nor true for anyone.)

I have coached multiple National and/or State Champions in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and World Schools Debate (in addition to interpretation/speech events). I still actively coach and I am involved in the strategy and argument creation of my students who compete for my school. Given the demands on my time, I do not cut as many cards as I once did for Policy and Lincoln Douglas. That said, I am more than aware of the arguments and positions being run in both of these formats week in and week out.

General thoughts on how I decide debates:

1 – Debate is a communication activity – I will flow what you say in speeches as opposed to flowing off of the speech documents (for the events that share documents). If I need to read cards to resolve an issue, I will do so but until ethos and pathos (re)gain status as equal partners with logos in the persuasion triangle, we will continue to have debates decided only on what is “in the speech doc.” Speech > speech doc.

2 – Be mindful of your “maximum rate of efficiency” – aka, you may be trying to go faster than you are capable of speaking in a comprehensible way. The rate of speed Is not a problem in many contemporary debates, the lack of clarity is an increasing concern. Unstructured paragraphs that are slurred together do not allow the pen time necessary to write things down in the detail you think they might. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable. This does NOT mean you have to be slow; it does mean you need to be clear.

3 – Evidence is important - In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues and warrants (particularly empirical ones), are important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, but I am also likely to prefer your argument if the comparisons are done well.

4 – Online Debating – We have had two years to figure this out. My camera will be on. I expect that your camera is on as well unless there is a technical issue that cannot/has not been resolved in our time online. If there is an equity/home issue that necessitates that your camera is off, I understand that and will defer to your desire to it be off if that is the case. A simple, “I would prefer for my camera to be off” will suffice to inform me of your request.

5 – Disclosure is good (on balance) – I feel that debaters/teams should disclose on the wiki. I have been an advocate of disclosure for decades. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate. While I do think things like full source and/or round reports are good educational practices, I am not interested in hearing debates about those issues. ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.

6 – Zero risk is a possibility – There is a possibility of zero risks of an advantage or a disadvantage.

7 – My role as a judge - I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence after the debate that was not done by the students.

8 – Debate the case – It is a forgotten art. Your points will increase, and it expands the options for you to win the debate in the final negative rebuttal.

9 – Good “judge instructions” will make my job easier – While I am happy to make my judgments and comparisons between competing claims, I feel that students making those comparisons, laying out the order of operations, articulating “even/if” considerations, telling me how to weigh and then CHOOSING in the final rebuttals, will serve debaters well (and reduce frustrations on both our parts0.

10 – Cross-examination matters – Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.

11 - Flowing is a prerequisite to good debating (and judging) - You should flow. I will be flowing your speech not from the doc, but your actual speech..

Policy Debate

I enjoy policy debate and given my time in the activity I have judged, coached, and seen some amazing students over the years.

A few thoughts on how I view judging policy debate:

Topicality vs Conventional Affs:

Traditional concepts of competing interpretations can be mundane and sometimes result in silly debates. Limiting out one affirmative will not save/protect limits or negative ground. Likewise, reasonability in a vacuum without there being a metric on what that means and how it informs my interpretation vis a vis the resolution lacks nuance as well. Topicality debaters who can frame what the topic should look like based on the topic, and preferably evidence to support why interpretation makes sense will be rewarded. The next step is saying why a more limiting (juxtaposed to the most limiting) topic makes sense helps to frame the way I would think about that version of the topic. A case list of what would be topical under your interpretation would help as would a list of core negative arguments that are excluded if we accept the affirmative interpretation or model of debate.

Topicality/FW vs critical affirmatives:

First – The affirmative needs to do something (and be willing to defend what that is). The negative needs to win that performance is net bad/worse than an alternative (be it the status quo, a counterplan, or a K alternative).

Second – The negative should have access to ground, but they do not get to predetermine what that is. Just because your generic da or counterplan does not apply to the affirmative does not mean the affirmative cannot be tested.

Conditionality

Conditionality is good but only in a limited sense. I do not think the negative gets unlimited options (even against a new affirmative). While the negative can have multiple counter plans, the affirmative will get leeway to creatively (re)explain permutations if the negative kicks (or attempts to add) planks to the counterplan(s), the 1ar will get some flexibility to respond to this negative move.

Counterplans and Disads:

Counterplans are your friend. Counterplans need a net benefit (reasons the affirmative is a bad/less than desirable idea. Knowing the difference between an advantage to the counterplan and a real net benefit seems to be a low bar. Process counterplans are harder to defend as competitive and I am sympathetic to affirmative permutations. I have a higher standard for many on permutations as I believe that in the 2AC “perm do the counterplan” and/or “perm do the alternative” do nothing to explain what that world looks like. If the affirmative takes another few moments to explain these arguments, that increases the pressure on the 2nr to be more precise in responding to these arguments.

Disadvantages that are specific to the advocacy of the affirmative will get you high points.

Lincoln Douglas

I have had students succeed at the highest levels of Lincoln Douglas Debate including multiple champions of NSDA, NDCA, the Tournament of Champions, as well as the Texas Forensic Association State Championships.

Theory is debated far too much in Lincoln – Douglas and is debated poorly. I am strongly opposed to that practice. My preference is NOT to hear a bad theory debate. I believe the negative does get some “flex;” it cannot be unlimited. The negative does not need to run more than four off-case arguments

Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will not be tolerated.

I am not a fan of random; multiple sentence fragments that claim to “spike” out of all of the other team’s arguments. At its foundation, the debate should be about argument ENGAGEMENT, not evasion.

I do not like skepticism as an argument. It would be in your best interest to not run it in front of me. While interesting in a philosophy class in college, training young advocates to feel that “morality doesn’t exist” etc. is educationally irresponsible.

I do not disclose speaker points. That seems silly to me.

Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seem silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card does not mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clashes are a necessary component of the debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of the clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. Any argument that says the other side cannot answer your position is fast-tracking to an L (with burnt cheese and marinara on top).

It takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Cross apply much of the policy section as well as the general musings on debate.

World Schools

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes. Countless times.

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

How would you describe World Schools Debate to someone else?

World Schools is modeled after parliament having argumentation presented in a way that is conversational, yet argumentatively rigorous. Debates are balanced between motions that are prepared, while some are impromptu. Points of Information (POIs) are a unique component of the format as speakers can be interrupted by their opponent by them asking a question or making a statement.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate? (required)

I keep a rigorous flow throughout the debate.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

These should be prioritized and compared by the students in the round. I do not have an ideological preference between principled or practical arguments.

The World Schools Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

Strategy (simply put) is how they utilize the content that has been introduced in the debate.

World Schools Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker were going too fast?

Style.

World Schools Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

Students are required to use analysis, examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side then make comparative claims about the superiority of their position.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Model quibbles are not fully developed arguments if they are only questions that are not fully developed or have an articulated impact.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I utilize the approach of comparative worlds to evaluate competing methods for resolving mutual problems/harms. The proposition must defend its model as being comparatively advantageous over a given alternative posed by the opposition. While many feel in World Schools a countermodel must be mutually exclusive. While that certainly is one method of assessing if a countermodel truly ‘forces a choice,” a feel a better stand is that of net benefits. The question should be if it is desirable to do both the propositions model and the opposition countermodel at the same time. If it is possible to do both without any undesirable outcomes, the negative has failed to prove the desirability of their countermodel. The opposition should explain why doing both would be a bad idea. The proposition should advance an argument as to why doing both is better than adopting the countermodel alone.

Don't be mean. Act like I'm a parent judge.

Email Chain-- shishirwaghray@gmail.com

About Me: [Plano West '20]

Hello! I competed for Plano West for 4 years, mainly in LD on the TFA and national circuits. I also briefly did policy towards the latter half of my debate career. I strive to be as tabula rasa as possible in my judging philosophy. Below is my paradigm. Please ask me questions as you see fit.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Quick Prefs:

Policy (Plans, CPs, PICs, DAs, etc.) - 1

T & Theory - 1 or 2

K/K Affs - 2

Phil - 3

Tricks - 4/Strike

*Note: I am familiar with all of these arguments-- this scale simply reflects my personal preferences. Feel free to run what you want...I'll keep up. Ideally I would be a 1 for all of these, but it's merely a personal preference.

____________________________________________________________________________________

**LD/CX Paradigm**

General Stuff-

-Tech > Truth: good strategy, great engagement with the flow, extension of warrants/offense, and line-by-lining go a long way towards making me vote for you.

-Weighing: Do it well and do it frequently. Have weighing mechanisms that make sense within the context of the round. Generally, this is what separates some of the really good debates observed throughout my career vs the really poor ones. Good evaluative mechanisms are also appreciated.

-Warrants: Be sure to provide clear and concise warrants as to why something is true and why I should be voting off of it. Extend warrants through all speeches and towards the back-half of the round.

-Signposting: it's really important that you say where you are on the flow throughout the round.

-Strategic Collapsing: Again, quality over quantity of arguments here. Rather than trying to win off every single argument, pick the few that are the most strategic in round and go for those. Additionally, tell me why those are the most important and why I should vote off of them.

-Framework: Whether this is an ROB, traditional V/C, or something else, good framework debate is something I enjoy.

-I generally tend to vote off of substantive offense...this is the best way to get to my ballot

Speed:

Spreading is generally fine with me, but make sure that if you're going to spread, that it is clear. I'll say "clear" once before I start docking speaker points. You might want to slow down a little on analytics, taglines, theory interps, and plan texts just to make sure I don't miss anything.

Framing:

-Doesn't really matter what this will be, whether it is a value/criterion, ROB, or something else. It should be well explained and extended in the 1AR/2NR. Additionally, your weighing mechanisms should be clearly delineated and filtered through the lens of a framework if you're running a stock case, critical position, or ideally most LARP positions.

Post-Round: I will end up disclosing my decision at the end of the round, and am open to any questions/concerns about the RFD. Contrary to what other judges think, I believe that post-rounding is good as it keeps judges accountable and makes them justify the decision.

Case Structures-

*In general, run whatever you want--I'll vote on most things as long as the debate is done well*

Policy/LARP: I really like this debate style, and it is what I have read upwards of 80% of the time throughout my own debate career. With that being said, there are a couple pointers. Try to be creative here as there is so much topic ground for you to cover. I'd like to see good comparison of evidence/internal warrants of cards in rounds as well as good weighing. These make for interesting debates.

- Creative and nuanced econ, politics, or geopolitical scenarios will be rewarded with good speaks. Nuanced means something other than the same extinction scenario or surface level political analysis.

1.) Plans: Must have a clear representation of what the world looks like and good solvency mechanisms. Absent explicit framing, I default to a basic util/policymaking FW. Having good warrants and weighing mechanisms are crucial here.

2.) CP/PIC: I prefer case specific CPs over generic ones. Must include solvency evidence and net benefits. Condo is fine, but be prepared to win theory. I won't "judge kick" the CP for you.

• I enjoy some of the more arcane CPs such as Agent, Conditions, Process, Delay, Consult, and Conditions, but be prepared to win the theory debate on these.

• CPs with just the text and no evidence underneath are a waste of time. Condo is fine, but be prepared to win theory, and >3 condo is probably abusive.

• Perms are a test of competition. I'd rather see one well warranted perm than 8 blippy perms.

3.) DA: Uniqueness evidence, good link chain, and tangible impacts are crucial to a good DA. 1 card DAs, Bad link chains or outlandish impacts are unlikely to get my ballot.

• Politics DAs are probably my favorite, given that they have good links, tangible impacts, and substantive/nuanced knowledge of the politics. This does not mean reading some generic garbage from openev, but rather having an understanding of the political process. I keep up with politics quite a bit, and can tell if your link chains/impacts are nonsensical.

Kritiks: While I primarily read policy style arguments, I've admittedly had decent experience with Ks as well. I'm decently familiar with most of the commonly read authors including Baudrillard, Wilderson, Warren, Deleuze & Guattari,, Tuck & Yang, etc.

-High Theory & PoMo > IDPol > Generics (e.g. Cap, Security, etc.)

-Things I HATE: Backfile K Debate, Vague/generic links to the aff, unclear explanation of what the alt looks like, unclear explanation of the lit ("buzzword, buzzword, buzzword..." won't cut it!) overly long/scripted overviews, unwarranted independent voters.

-Things I want to see: Clear Link, Specific/tangible explanation of Alt, ROB provided as an overarching portion of the K. I like seeing good K debates with in-depth knowledge of the literature at hand.

-I like seeing good K debates. I think understanding your critical position and clearly being able to articulate it separates good debaters from unskilled hacks.

-Do most of the work on the line-by-line instead of having really long and scripted overview.

-I enjoy good methods debates in response to most critical positions.

-I'll evaluate K Tricks such as root cause, can't weigh case, V2L, floating PIKs (must be set up in the neg block or the 1NC for LD), etc.

T/Theory:

Defaults: Competing Interps/No RVI/Education > Fairness/T > Theory/Meta Theory > Theory.

-In general, there needs to be a clear procedural abuse for me to vote off theory. Otherwise, I'll end up making theory a wash and voting off substance. I'm not a huge fan of frivolous theory as I think it detracts from more substantive debates, and my threshold for responses on a friv shell is a lot lower than a normal one.

-On Topicality: I'm hard pressed to grant an RVI here, more so than I am on other shells.

-I think disclosure is a good norm and am inclined to buy disclosure theory. With that being said, I'm far more sympathetic to small schools as I think they're at a strategic disadvantage to big school prepouts and the like.

-No default on DTD vs. DTA... I think that is for you to articulate to me which one I should go forward with.

-Reasonability is a question of the aff's counter-interp, not whether the aff is "reasonably topical"

K Affs: Go for it, although you should have good justifications for your model of debate, and why debating that specific aff in a certain round is good.

-I prefer affirmatives that are creatively topical or tangentially related to the resolution rather than straight up nontopical.

-If you're going to run a performance, you should have good justifications for what the specific performance accomplishes not just within debate in general, but also that round in particular.

-In K Aff v. TFW debates, I ideologically side with T Framework (probably around 60/40). This doesn't mean that all clash debates will lead me voting in this direction, and I don't let my personal preferences cloud my judgement of the round, but you should be prepared to answer this well and have good justifications for why your model of debate as well as your aff (performative or otherwise) is good.

Phil/Tricks: I'll evaluate these, but I'm not the best judge for these types of debates, given that I didn't really compete in or evaluate these types of debates most frequently. That's not to say that you can't run these, but just that you'll probably have to slow down a little, over-explain, and that I might not give the most coherent RFD at the end.

Traditional/Lay Stuff: Not much to say here. I’ll evaluate it. Just make sure to have a V/C (LD) and weigh stuff I guess. If you can do progressive debate though, I’d much rather listen to that.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Speaker Points/Misc.-

26-30-- 26= Poor | 30=exceptional. Most average debaters will fall around 28-28.4 speaks. Unclear speaking will result in docked speaker points.

*On rare occasions, you might receive a 25 for a couple reasons.

1.) Being unnecessarily rude to your opponent. This includes being overly aggressive or hostile to novices if you're an experienced debater.

2.) If you ask me to give you 30 speaks.

Stuff I Won't Vote On:

-Evaluate after [X] speech.

-Things that happened outside of the round.

-Unwarranted independent voter blips.

I did pf for plano west, ask questions before round

tech > truth

weigh

extend

less is more

yes theory but not friv

dont be rude

hi, i'm AJ! i graduated from Plano West in 2021 and competed in PF on the national circuit. my pronouns are they/them, and my email is ayi@college.harvard.edu.

- priority #1 is safety; be cognizant of your presence in the round/community, don’t be a problematic human being, use correct pronouns, provide content warnings with opt outs, etc.

- would strongly prefer if y’all came in preflowed and coin flipped/ready to go!

- outside of that, do whatever makes the debate enjoyable :) below are my preferences that might make it easier for you to win, but really do whatever you like. if you are compelling and/or justify decisions against my preferences below, you will likely be okay!

things i like in debate / things to know about me as a judge:

- i think about debate pretty similarly to renee li, alyssa nie, and aditya kumar.

- i'm quite expressive in response to what y'all say (though i also just nod/furrow my eyebrows in confusion a lot). i don’t like most pf arguments and still vote off of them so don’t be intimidated! but feel free to use my facial cues as you see fit.

- please prioritize warrants throughout the round, do not be blippy with them, and have clear extensions of your entire link chain and impact in the second half for anything you want me to vote on (including turns). any offense i vote on must be extended clearly in both summary and final focus and include good warranting.

- please collapse as much as possible. i really like smart analytics and strategic decisions, much more than blippy, unintelligent dumps of as much as you can possibly get through.

- new warrants are new arguments and will be treated as such

- you don't need to frontline defense in 2nd rebuttal, but whatever you don't fl can be extended straight into 1st ff. i think it probably makes for a more in depth debate if you fl defense and collapse in 2nd rebuttal, but it's up to you.

- on weighing: being comparative between the actual nuanced arguments on the flow (as opposed to the general idea of an argument i.e. climate change) when weighing or responding is really really important to me. i am not too impressed with the meta of broad prereq weighing that doesn’t actually make sense when considering your link chain’s effect on the impact.

- that said, please weigh, and please start it by summary!

- dislike: doc botting, blowing up blips in final, independent DAs in 2nd rebuttal, excessively unclear speed, overgeneralizations of arguments or of the squo, jargon (define terms if absolutely necessary) being called judge, friv theory (unless its actually funny)

- don’t really care about: crossfire (feel free to take 1.5 min of prep instead of gcx), author names (just cite stuff consistently), most presentation things (sit/stand/whatever you’d like)

- super down to give as detailed feedback as y'all want, but i know thats not always what anyone wants to listen to immediately after an rfd. so i'll default to giving just the rfd - if you want advice beyond that ask me after round/message me. also please reach out even if you just want to talk about debate/hs/life! AJ Yi on FB, @aj__yi on Insta

I'm a parent judge and will vote on what I feel is the most persuasive. Please present your case in a comprehensible way. Please do not use debate jargon and please do not spread. If I don't understand you, I will not be able to vote for you.

I am a parent judge and prefer a traditional/lay style of debate.

Please do not spread or run progressive arguments-- a moderate or conversational speed with clarity works best and will get you higher speaker points.

At the end of the round I will vote for whichever side presents their arguments in a more persuasive and logical way.

she/her

Colleyville '22; UT '26

I did policy for 3 years and PF for 1

Yes I want to be on the email chain: zhujudy280@gmail.com

Speaks/Notes

I start at 28 and go up from there based on strategy

I appreciate humor and assertiveness, but I'll dock points if you're being straight-up disrespectful to your opponents. 25s for homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. debate is toxic but it doesn't mean you have to be :)

If you can make the round enjoyable for me/make me laugh, I will boost your speaks

Spreading is fine. I will tell you to clear if I can't understand you, but if I have to do it more than twice my flow will start missing arguments

I don't flow cross so if you want something on the flow, you should mention it in your speech

Policy/LD

Run whatever you want, but I tend to get annoyed with some tricks/theory in LD so proceed with caution

Condo is good

Frame/weigh, please. Tell me what impacts/flows are important and why

Ks--I mostly ran Ks and K affs when I did policy. I understand most of the lit bases that are read, with the most experience in Asian identity, racial capitalism, the fem k, and I understand queer theory, afropess, and academy/university ks pretty ok.

I'd like to know what the alt actually does. However, if you can win framework and articulate why that means that you don't need an alt, I guess it doesn't really matter.

Specific links are preferred, but if a generic link isnt answered and is extended through the 2nr, I'll vote on it

line-by-line>long overviews

Aff gets to weigh the plan, but I also really like good reps links and framework debates

K affs--I like these! I do recommend that you connect it to the topic/resolution somehow. just because I like k affs doesn't mean I'll evaluate T/FW any less; I actually like creative framework debates a lot, but more on that in a second

It's really crucial that you win solvency here--your burden of proof is higher than just winning framework on the aff--so please explain in detail how your advocacy works. I tend not to buy mechanisms that rely purely on your speech act; while I think there's truth to the argument, it's not going to hold up very well against well-developed framework teams, so I recommend complicating your solvency beyond that

I really like historical examples! Use them to explain your solvency mechanisms or in your framework debates about the history of the activity, I find them very persuasive, and maybe I'll learn something from you too

T/FW--I enjoy debates about debate because I do believe that this activity has some impact on our personal lives and how we think about the world; everyone takes different lessons from this activity and we should talk about it. this is also why I tend to weigh args about education, skill-building, etc. above pure procedural fairness arguments, but I also like when teams entangle them; is one a pre-requisite to another?

Caselists are very welcome

Contextualize your blocks to the round please

PF!

I like "progressive" debate, but don't read straight-up Ks in PF. They are almost always generic, the advocacy underdeveloped, and there's not nearly enough time in the round to have the in-depth discussions that the literature deserves, so proceed with caution.

Weigh! Final focus should mirror summary and make a cohesive narrative that way, so don't get too bogged down in the line-by-line at the end of the day. also please talk to me about soft-left/structural violence framing. I wish more PF debaters went out of their way to incorporate diverse impacts in every pf topic; it helps you win rounds and also expand your perspective as a person.

If you paraphrase, I'll dock speaks. If you still choose to, your cards need to be ready to present to the other team once they call for it. This does not mean that you show them an article and control f for the section that you summarized, it means everything's cut and cited properly. If it takes more than a minute for you to find the card, I'll start your prep.

If you do an email chain and actually keep up with it (sent constructives and speech docs for the cards you read in the speeches after) I'll boost your speaks.