Hey there! I’ve done PF at Oak Ridge for three years, And qualified for TFA state and NCFL in the event.
I switched to congress near the end of my third year and qualified for UIL state twice and NSDA Nats in that event.

Debate aside- I’ve qualified for TFA state in Oratory twice, once for NCFL, and have qualified for TFA State in FX.

In PF:

I’ll vote based off of the most convincing framing that is provided in the round. If you want your framework to win, you need to be sure you're giving me a numerical measurement for how you best solve under that framework. (How do I judge the framework, kind of like a Value/Criterion, but in PF)

If there is none provided, I’ll vote based off of impact calculus or, worst case scenario, offense-defense weighing.
I’m a flow judge- but as long as you give me a roadmap and follow it, I’ll know how to follow your speech.

On speed- I dont like spreading, but reading at a quicker pace than usual is fine- ONLY for evidence. PLEASE slow down on tags and analytics! If I can’t understand you, I’ll probably just say clear. (I would usually just put my pen down but, Zoom university 2020).

As for speaks- speak nicely, take turns asking questions, don’t go beast mode, and you’ll basically be guaranteed good speaks.

As for questioning- if it wasn’t said in a speech, it never happened. While I do pay attention to questioning, I won’t flow anything unless you reiterate it in an actual speech. If you don’t, then I simply do not see it T-T. With that said, questioning is only binding if you actually bring it up in a speech, so be cautious!

If someone turns your argument, you do not get to drop that argument in hopes of dropping the turn, the turn was made, you have to account for that impact now.

Finally, make sure to frontline in second rebuttal, and new offense is not allowed in the second summary. In FF, PLEASE give me voters, and actually weigh.

In LD: I'm least proficient in LD, with that said, I like super traditional framework debate and REALLY dislike speed in LD. If you have to ask if you're speaking too quickly for me in LD, you probably are! I really like to digest moral issues, and love to see actual philosophical debate. If one person is progressive and the other is traditional, I will almost always vote for the traditional debater.

Since I'm not an expert in LD, as long as you're not a jerk, you get great speaks!

I really want to see y’all have fun, but most importantly I want the debate to be a civil, safe place to argue, so:

Bigotry of ANY kind is not tolerated in ANY capacity: it will result in a loss.

I did public forum debate for 4 years at Westlake (graduated 2022), qualified to the TFA twice and the TOC once. SPEECHDROP, don't email me.

Tech>truth. I can evaluate a flow

I don't have any topic knowledge but it shouldn't matter. Bring up everything you want me to know in speech.

Don't go too fast. I haven't debated for a while and was never great with too much speed, especially if you're unclear. I evaluate MY flow, so I can only evaluate the responses and weighing that I was able to hear and flow in round.

Don't say anything offensive or I'll tank your speaks and potentially down you.

Be respectful to everyone in round or I'll tank your speaks.

As far as progressive argumentation goes, I'm fine with theory and probably okay with K's (I ran a couple cap Ks but otherwise am not super familiar with any others, though I generally know how they work. also keep in mind I did PF). Friv theory is fine, but my threshold for responding to it will be lower than it would be for a regular shell. Extend all parts of a theory shell and the underviews that you want to be considered in summary/final.

Disclosure is good but I won't hack for it if you can't defend it. Paraphrasing is probably bad but I'm more lenient to it than a lot of judges and I won't hack for it if you can't defend it. Content/trigger warnings are good and it will be difficult to sell me on tw bad theory, but I won't hack for it if you can't defend it.

Second rebuttal has to frontline. Summaries have to extend everything you're going for (defense is not sticky) with warranting (NOT just card names and jargon) and should collapse. Everything in final needs to be in summary. You should point it out if your opponents bring up new stuff in final so that I can scratch it off in case I didn't catch on. With the exception of second constructive, arguments are dropped if they aren't covered in the next speech.

I presume by flipping a coin unless told to do otherwise in round.

I don't look at evidence unless I'm told to call for it/it becomes a major point of contention. Indicts need to have clear warranting.

PLEASE weigh. Your defense is probably not as good as you think it is and I will need weighing to evaluate the round. Strength of link is not a real weighing mechanism. Probability usually isn't either. If your opponent reads responses as "probability weighing" or does strength of link just point it out and tell me to scratch it off my flow so I don't have to evaluate it.

If you egregiously misconstrue evidence, I will drop you. So far I have been relying on kids to point this out during round, but from now on if I notice it and its badyou're done.

I did PF at James Bowie HS in Austin, TX for 3 yrs

Please be sure to clearly weigh in both speeches! Don't just throw around buzzwords with no actual weighing. Any offense that you want me to vote on must be extended in both speeches. I will usually vote off of the clearest link chain in the round. Cards should have quality warrants (less paraphrasing please). Quality over quantity.

I would prefer if offense (and maybe defense if possible, but not necessary) is frontlined in the second rebuttal, and that both teams collapse throughout the round. Do not try to go for too much.

Extend terminal defense in summary.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear.

I never ran any K's, theory, Cps, but will do my best following if ran.

Please be nice to each other!

qzpbellman@gmail.com

Hendrickson HS '19

UT Austin '23

email: acastaneda713@gmail.com

he/him

-------

Top Level:

- Debated for 3 years at Hendrickson HS

- Tech > Truth

- Clarity > Speed

- Condo is fine unless told otherwise

- PLEASE BE NICE! Debate is a fun, educational activity and everyone should have an opportunity to engage in these discussions. Please respect your opponents and your partner. I promise you will not win debates if you are a jerk.

Specifics:

Framework:

- I often view these debates through an offense/defense paradigm and tend to default to competing interpretations.

- I think that the aff has to prove why their interpretation or model of debate is better overall and why it creates a better space/allows for better discussions etc. Remember, this is about competing models of debate and interpretations, so impact out your standards and do some good impact calc to paint a clear picture of your model of debate.

- I do lean towards debate being a game but can obviously be persuaded otherwise.

Topicality:

- I usually default to competing interpretations.

- I think impact calc between standards is pretty important, esp when the 2NR and 2AR are equally clashing on these issues. Tell me why your standard matters and why that model of debate is important/better, and have a clear vision of your interpretation.

Kritiks:

- Im familiar with your basic/generic kritiks (cap, set col, security, etc).

- I think that the k must link to the aff, not to the structures that surround society. Links of omission are not persuasive to me. I have a pretty high threshold for the link debate and need a pretty decent explanation as to how the aff links/makes xyz worse, etc.

- I am heavily persuaded by arguments such as pragmatism/state good, etc, but these must be utilized correctly and must be put into context.

- In general, examples are amazing.

- I also think there needs to be a fairly robust explanation of what the alt is/does, otherwise im persuaded by a perm or even just that the aff is a good idea.

- I think that the aff gets to weigh their case.

- Try to have a cohesive story of your kritik. Often times, there are many floating parts that im not sure what to do with so the more you can do on your part, the better.

Disads:

- Go for it. Have a link, have clear explanations and a cohesive story, and be up to date with your ev.

- Impact calc is important.

- The more specific, the better.

Counterplans:

- I enjoy a good cp/da debate so go for it.

- Solvency advocates are important.

- The more specific the cp is, the better.

Theory:

- Slow down, have robust explanations of why your standards create a better model of debate/why it justifies x argument.

- Probably not the best judge for heavy theory debates but go for it if you think you need to.

School affiliation/s - please indicate all (required): Dripping Springs High School

Hired (yes/no) (required): No

If HIRED - what schools/programs in Texas do you work with if any: N/A

High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years (required): N/A

Please list ANY schools that you would need to be coded/conflicted against (:required) Dripping Springs High School

Currently enrolled in college? (required) If yes, affiliation? No

College Speech and Debate Experience - list events competed in (required) None

Years Judging/Coaching (required) <1

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required) <1

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required)

Check all that apply

__x__I judge WS regularly on the local level

_____I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year (required)

Check all that apply

____ Congress

__x__ PF

____ LD

____ Policy

____ Extemp/OO/Info

____ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required) No

What does chairing a round involve? (required) Introducing the speakers, managing time, and directing the delivery of feedback at the end of the round.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? (required) An accessible debate format designed for students to argue for different aspects of an ideal world

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? (required) I track burdens, assertions, and clashes in my Tabroom notes for each speaker on both sides of 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. (required) I can be swayed by a compelling principle argument and/or a compelling practical argument, but I probably give a slight edge to principle arguments because WSD is fundamentally theoretical and idealistic in nature.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required) I evaluate a speaker's structure, timing, comprehension, and focus on the debate's issues.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast? (required) I would likely deduct at least one point from all categories.

WS 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? (required) First, I evaluate competing claims based on their presentation. If the claims seem exaggerated, false, or unclear, I may quickly fact-check them. I'd expect the opposing team to call out distorted claims.

How do you resolve model quibbles? (required) I evaluate the degree to which both teams' respective models align with the topic and, if both do, generally side with the team that presents the most logically sound and coherent model.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? (required) I evaluate the degree to which both teams' respective models align with the topic and, if both do, generally side with the team that presents the most logically sound and coherent model with valid and compelling principle and practical arguments.

Background:

I did Public Forum for 3 years at Vista Ridge High School, and a few Policy tournaments but I doubt it really counts. I debated on the national and local circuit, qualifying for TFA State my Junior and Senior years of High School. I am currently a Sophomore at St. Edward's University in Austin.

General:

I am not tolerant of any sexism, racism, or anything of derogatory nature and my ballot will reflect that.

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. AND SIGNPOST. I am more tabula rasa than not.

Also, keep track of prep yourself I am too lazy to do it.

I generally listen to cross-fire but I don't decide the round on it.

Please be kind to one another and do not talk over each other. Debate is a game of intellect, not to shout over each other as if you were in a bar fight. (this will also get your speaks docked)

If you have a good joke that is tasteful and in context, go for it.

Speed:

I think that you can go at a fast pace as long as I can understand you, and I will just say clear if I can't but this does not mean spreading. Please do not spread, there's no point and it does not make you win more round in the long run. All in all, just be clear. I am not a judge that overestimates their ability to comprehend speed, I would rather everyone be in understanding of what is happening rather than going at warp speed.

LD - If you flash me everything you read, you go as fast as you want. If there are off-screen analytics being made I would slow down a bit.

Types of Arguments:

Keep in mind I did PF, not LD or CX. Run theory at your own risk. I did PF when they were running disclosure, I will listen to it but your voters or RVI's have to be pretty compelling for me to give you a round win, but it can be done. Other theory arguments like T's or K's are usually not done correctly and just make things messy. Also, running these arguments because the opponent doesn't know what theory is, is exclusionary and not cool.

I also do not like weird squirrely arguments to throw the opponents off, it just isn't needed but if its clever and in your constructive than more power to you.

The Split:

I think the second rebuttal should always frontline/address the first rebuttal. That is all.

Summary:

Defense is NOT sticky.

Given that you have a 3-minute summary, there better be some good condensing in there.

If you're giving first summary, you don't have to extend the defense from rebuttal, but you should put defense on any giant turns or disads from the second rebuttal. I like clear voting issues in summary and final focus. I also like it when teams collapse well in these speeches. If something important isn't in the summary, I'm not voting on it in final focus.

Evidence:

Truthful paraphrasing > miscut cards.

I can't believe I have to say this, but please represent evidence honestly. I'm not going to punish you for paraphrasing but I do expect you to stay true to what the evidence is saying if you choose to do so. I will punish you for misrepresenting evidence or knowingly reading authors that are fraudulent or very clearly unreliable.

Please don't do "debater math" or over-extrapolate the results and numbers in studies. It's often unethical and usually just not educational and inaccurate. Wrong. Bad. Pls don't.

You should know where your evidence is. I won't start immediately running your prep when opponents want you to find some evidence because I think that's silly, but if you start taking more than a minute or so I will.

Bracketing in your card is bad. The one exception, I guess, would be clarifying a qual or something. For example, if your card says "Amar continues" and you add "[Yale Law professor Akhil Reed] Amar continues" that isn't a huge deal, but it's probably easier to just note it somewhere else before/after the card.

Card dumps ≠ warrants, pls explain your arguments.

Speaker Points:

If you speak clearly and your in-round strategy is good, don't worry about speaker points. I generally don't give below 28 but it takes a good amount to get a 30.

I competed in debate in high school. This is my first time judging in several years. I graduated college in 2019 and work in Fintech.

Arguments

Unless otherwise argued by a debator, my goal is to give the side with the best quality arguments the point. I ask "Is it reasonable to assume this evidence is accurate, and if it is would the impact be foreseeable?" I would think a first hand report by a widely-trusted expert would be reasonable evidence, and I would say its foreseeable not evacuating before a hurricane will cause a disaster. So, a quality argument for the topic "Should the US require stay-at-home orders for COVID-19?" might be:

"The Head of the CDC has presented the CDC's research stating 100,000 more people will die from COVID-19 in the status quo in 6 months. Therefore, we should stay-at-home to save 100,000 people's lives." and the con might counter "Germany's CDC equivalent has a vaccine that just passed the final test and everyone will have access by next month. Stay-at-home orders are unnecessary."

I will judge every argument using the reasonable and foreseeable criteria before I count it at the end of the round. Then I will use a flow to match argument's with their counterarguments. Lastly I will measure the good and bad impacts according to what criterion wins in the philosophical part of the debate.

Evidence matters. I expect at least brief responses to counterarguments that opponents make, not just leapfrogging them to reassert your initial claims. I will not listen to your argument if you don't listen to their counterargument.

Arguments that are obviously racist, fascist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, Anti-Semitic, etc. are not OK. (Read: you will lose if you run them.)

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to possibility of offense.

Cross Examination/Crossfire

I'm not a fan of "gotcha" debate. The goal in crossfire shouldn't get your opponent to agree to some tricky idea and then make that the reason that you are winning debates. Crossfire isn't binding. Debaters have the right to clean-up a misstatement made in crossfire/cross ex in their speeches.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

Speaker Points

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

Pronouns: She/her

Questions/comments/concerns: kgolson@luc.edu

Conflicted with James Bowie Highschool

Hi, I'm Katie, I competed for Bowie highschool in PF, World schools, and exempt at the local, state, and national levels. I also competed at the silver TOC my senior year in PF. That being said I have tried almost every debate event once and have a basic understanding of how they work.

If you create an email chain I want to be on it my email is kgolson@luc.edu . This is for flowing purposes my main judging philosophy is to intervene as little as possible. Any speed is completely fine as long as you're clear and I have a word doc. "Progressive" arguments are fine in any event it's your round just tell me why you won it. Warranting is very important in all aspects of speech and debate and your argument means nothing to me without it.

I am open to being questioned about my decision and the way I vote in rounds in a respectful manner.

Specifics:

SPEECH- Most speech events I am familiar with however I have never done them myself so my judging will be at the best of my ability.

Pf: This was my main event so I have a better understanding of it and thus a higher threshold. Summary and final focus both must weigh and summarize the argument (line by line or big picture up to you). I don't want to hear your rebuttal again so, please don't repeat it. Nothing is sticky you need to extend everything you want me to vote for in every speech. Run whatever. (Get 30 speaks by being respectful, having a good debate,

TRIGGER WARNINGS- This is one of the things I am a stickler for I will drop you if you read something harmful without one.

I do not tolerate racism, sexism, or any kind of discrimination or bullying. I will stop the round and drop you with L- 0 speaks. That being said please do not read arguments/theories about disenfranchised groups you are not a part of (white people reading afro-pessimism). Finally, dont read anything that makes your opponents uncomfortable or that they can't understand.

email me emmaguan@utexas.edu

i am out of debate and if i’m back in and judging please call my therapist before round for 30 speaks. 734-394-7138

collapse weigh comparatively and don’t be mean

I debated for 3 years at St. John's High School in Houston, TX, 2 of which I competed in PF, and my senior year I competed in worlds (graduated in 2020). If you have any questions about my paradigm please feel free to ask me before round!

General

- Weighing is crucial no matter what type of debate event you are in so please make an effort to do this

- Be respectful at all times

Public Forum

1. An argument you collapse on (want me to vote for) needs to have a warrant and impact extended in both summary and final focus. Summary and final focus should mirror each other.

2. I did not run progressive arguments (Ks, Theory, CPs) during my debate career. Generally, I do not think progressive argumentation belongs in PF as it increases the barrier to entry of the event. I may not know how to interpret such arguments in the context of a PF round. If you choose to run them, you do so at your own peril. I am not very receptive to theory unless there is actual in-round abuse.

3. Defense should be extended in summary.

Worlds Debate

- Please signpost throughout every single speech (it makes it easier for everyone)

- Wait at least 20 seconds between POIs (no barracking)

- Keep POIs under 15 seconds

- Try to have everyone on your team ask a POI

What I expect from each speech:

1st Prop: Burdens, definitions, and your first two substantives

1st Opp: Burdens and definitions (if needed), first two substantives, attack props first two subs

2nd Prop: Defend, attack, read 3rd sub

2nd Opp: Defend, attack (expand more upon your first speaker's attacks too), read 3rd sub

3rd Prop: Attack Opp 3rd sub, general summary of the round

3rd Opp: General summary of round

Reply: Crystalize round, clear voters for why you are winning

I don't want to get more specific than that because each round is different from the other, but try to meet those basic requirements above and also try to weigh as much as you can (especially in 3rd and reply speeches)

Lastly, have fun cause that is what debate is all about :)

Hello! My name is Xiu!

My son does public forum debate. I on the other hand, never had experience with debate before. I prefer slower speaking and clear arguments as English isn't my first language. I prefer logical arguments that make sense to me over random pieces of evidence. I also have no idea on what the topic is about so a explanation would be greatly appreciated. I also believe that people should be nice in round. I look forward to judging at this tournament

email: teresa@luo.com

i debated for westlake for 3 years (graduated 2021), and i did pf and some extemp.

i would consider myself to be flay leaning tech.

1. WARRANT. i need more than just jargon.

- this goes for everything in the round (responses, weighing, etc).

- i am tech over truth (excluding offensive arguments), but you need to warrant everything out.

2. collapse and extend too.

- defense is not sticky; pls extend.

- i will only evaluate what has been extended in summary AND in ff. don't bring up new stuff in ff.

3. an argument is dropped if there is no response to it in the next speech.

4. be respectful to everybody in the round.

feel free to ask me questions before or after round! :)

he/him

I did PF at James Bowie HS in Austin, TX for 4 yrs, graduating in 2019.

I would prefer offense to be frontlined in second rebuttal. Any unaddressed defense doesn't need to be extended in summary. Any offense that you want me to vote on must be fully extended in summary and final focus. Don't just say the words extend + the card author. Please actually extend argument. If you don't, I will look to vote elsewhere. Weighing is very important. Please give me a way to evaluate the round.

Speed is fine as long as you're clear. For online debate, I think its good practice to send speech docs prior to constructive given connectivity issues. If an email chain is used, I would like to be added.

I'll attempt to evaluate any argument you read in front of me, but I am more comfortable with standard stuff. I never ran K’s/theory/CP’s/etc. Feel free to ask me specifics before the round!

Lastly, please be nice to each other.

If anything in here was unclear, I'm happy to answer your questions!

Love to be on the chain.... sfadebate@gmail.com

LD---TOC---2024

I'm a traditional leaning policy judge – No particular like/dislike for the Value/Criterion or Meta-Ethic/Standard structure for framework just make sure everything is substantially justified, not tons of blippy framework justifications.

Disads — Link extensions should be thorough, not just two words with an author name. I'm a sucker for good uniqueness debates, especially on a topic where things are changing constantly.

Counterplans — Counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive but I'm willing to change my mind if competition evidence is solid. I love impact/nb turns and think they should be utilized more. Not a fan of ‘intrinsic perms’.

Kritiks — I default to letting the aff weigh case but i'm more than willing to change my mind given a good framework/link push from the negative. I’m most familiar with: Cap, Biopolitics, Nietzsche, and Security. I'm fine voting for other lit bases but my threshold is higher especially for IdPol, SetCol, and High Theory. Not a fan of Baudrillard but will vote on it if it is done well.

K Affs — I'm probably 40/60 on T. If a K aff has a well explained thesis and good answers to presumption I am more than willing to vote on it. A trend I see is many negative debaters blankly extending fairness and clash arguments without substantial policymaking/debate good evidence. I default to thinking debate and policymaking are good but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise absent a compelling 2NR.

Topicality — Big fan of good T debates, really dislike bad T debates. I don't like when teams read contradictory interps in the 1NC, you should have good T evidence, and I like a good caselist. Preferably the whole 2NR is T.

Theory — Not a fan of frivolous shells but i'm willing to be convinced on any interp given a good explanation of the abuse story. I default to In-round-abuse, reasonability, and have a high threshold for RVIs.

Phil — As an Ex-Policy Debater, my knowledge here is very limited. I'm willing to vote on it if it's very well warranted and clearly winning on the flow. But in a relatively equal debate I think I will always default to Util.

Tricks — Don't

edited for LD 2022-3

I have not judged a lot of LD recently. I more than likely have not heard the authors you are talking about please make sure you explain them along with your line by line. Long overviews are kind of silly and argumentation on the line by line is a better place for things Overview doesn't mean I will automatically put your overview to it. If you run tricks I am really not your judge. I think they are silly and will probably not vote for them. I have a high threshold for voting on theory arguments either way.

edited for Congress

Speak clearly and passionately. I hate rehash, so if you bring in new evidence and clash you will go farther in the round than having a structured speech halfway to late in debate. I appreciate speakers that keep the judges and audience engaged, so vocal patterns and eye contact matter. The most important thing to me is accurate and well developed arguments and thoughtful questions. For presiding officer: run a tight ship. Be quick, efficient, fair, and keep accurate precedents and recency. This is congressional debate, not congressional speech giving, so having healthy debate and competition is necessary. Being disrespectful in round will get you no where with me, so make sure to respect everyone in the room at all times.

Edited 20-21

Don't ask about speaks you should be more concerned with how to do better in the future. If you ask I will go back and dock your speaks at least 2 points.

Edited for WSD Nats 2020

Examples of your arguments will be infinitely more persuasive than analogies. Please weigh your arguments as it is appropriate. Be nice, there is a difference between arrogance and excellence

Edited for PF 2018-9

I have been judging for 20 years any numerous debate events. Please be clear; the better your internal link chain the better you will do. I am not a big fan of evidence paraphrasing. I would rather hear the authors words not your interpretation of them. Make sure you do more than weighing in the last two speeches. Please make comparison in your arguments and evidence. Dont go for everything. I usually live in an offense defense world there is almost always some risk of a link. Be nice if you dont it will affect your speaks

Edited for 2014-15 Topic
I will listen to just about any debate but if there isnt any articulation of what is happening and what jargon means then I will probably ignore your arguments. You can yell at me but I warned you. I am old and crotchety and I shouldn't have to work that hard.

CXphilosophy = As a preface to the picky stuff, I'd like to make a few more general comments first. To begin with, I will listen to just about any debate there is out there. I enjoy both policy and kritik debates. I find value in both styles of debate, and I am willing to adapt to that style. Second, have fun. If you're bored, I'm probably real bored. So enjoy yourself. Third, I'm ok with fast debates. It would be rare for you to completely lose me, however, you spew 5 minutes of blocks on theorical arguments I wont have the warrants down on paper and it will probably not be good for you when you ask me to vote on it. There is one thing I consider mandatory: Be Clear. As a luxury: try to slow down just a bit on a big analytical debate to give me pen time. Evidence analysis is your job, and it puts me in a weird situation to articulate things for you. I will read evidence after many rounds, just to make sure I know which are the most important so I can prioritize. Too many teams can't dissect the Mead card, but an impact takeout is just that. But please do it all the way- explain why these arguments aren't true or do not explain the current situation. Now the picky stuff:

Affs I prefer affs with plan texts. If you are running a critical aff please make sure I understand what you are doing and why you are doing it. Using the jargon of your authors without explaining what you are doing won't help me vote for you.

Topicality and Theory- Although I certainly believe in the value of both and that it has merit, I am frustrated with teams who refuse to go for anything else. To me, Topicality is a check on the fringe, however to win a procedural argument in front of me you need specific in round abuse and I want you to figure out how this translates into me voting for you. Although I feel that scenarios of potential abuse are usually not true, I will vote for it if it is a conceded or hardly argued framework or if you can describe exactly how a topic or debate round would look like under your interpretation and why you have any right to those arguments. I believe in the common law tradition of innocence until proven guilty: My bias is to err Aff on T and Negative on Theory, until persuaded otherwise.

Disads- I think that the link debate is really the most significant. Im usually willing to grant negative teams a risk of an impact should they win a link, but much more demanding linkwise. I think uniqueness is important but Im rarely a stickler for dates, within reason- if the warrants are there that's all you need. Negatives should do their best to provide some story which places the affirmative in the context of their disads. They often get away with overly generic arguments. Im not dissing them- Reading the Ornstein card is sweet- but extrapolate the specifics out of that for the plan, rather than leaving it vague.

Counterplans- The most underrated argument in debate. Many debaters don't know the strategic gold these arguments are. Most affirmatives get stuck making terrible permutations, which is good if you neg. If you are aff in this debate and there is a CP, make a worthwhile permutation, not just "Do Both" That has very little meaning. Solvency debates are tricky. I need the aff team to quantify a solvency deficit and debate the warrants to each actor, the degree and necessity of consultation, etc.

Kritiks- On the aff, taking care of the framework is an obvious must. You just need good defense to the Alternative- other than that, see the disad comments about Link debates. Negatives, I'd like so practical application of the link and alternative articulated. What does it mean to say that the aff is "biopolitical" or "capitalist"? A discussion of the aff's place within those systems is important. Second, some judges are picky about "rethink" alternatives- Im really not provided you can describe a way that it could be implemented. Can only policymakers change? how might social movements form as a result of this? I generally think its false and strategically bad to leave it at "the people in this debate"- find a way to get something changed. I will also admit that at the time being, Im not as well read as I should be. I'm also a teacher so I've had other priorities as far as literature goes. Don't assume I've read the authors you have.

churchill '20

i competed in policy debate for 4 years and debated on the national circuit.

put me on the email chain - alexmdebatejudging@gmail.com

***i flow on paper. when reading topicality, theory, or framework arguments, please slow down. if i don't flow an argument, it's because you did not articulate it clearly.***

-- topicality --

i generally default to competing interpretations, but most certainly can be persuaded otherwise. have thorough explanations of the internal link and impact - repeating the phrase "they explode limits" 5 times tells me nothing.

-- counterplans --

good counterplan debates are great to watch. explain why the counterplan is distinct from the affirmative and why it solves. aff specific counterplans are always better than generic ones.

-- disadvantages --

have impact analysis and comparison of internal links. turn case arguments are important and underutilized. always answer the framing debate. there should be comparison between models of decision making. surface level, tag-line phrases about extinction being irreversible aren't enough to persuade me to value extinction first, especially when aff teams have well warranted framing args - the 2nr needs a clear, warranted link story, particularly true with politics disads because the evidence is notoriously shallow

-- kritiks --

for neg teams reading the k: no large overviews, i'd rather have that explanation done on the line by line. regarding framework, i generally default to weighing the aff. framework on the kritik is a link-framing argument. i need warrants why your interpretation/model of debate/role of the ballot is preferable and/or resolves the affirmative's offense. why should i utilize your framing as the lens through which i make my decision?

have specific links to the aff. even if you read a generic piece of link evidence, you can still utilize the warrants in that evidence and contextualize it to rhetoric or action of the 1ac. if you're making an ontology claim, i won't just vote on ontology - you still need a link to the aff. you should make arguments as to why the links turn the case.

i'm not familiar with a majority of kritik literature, so don't assume that i know what you're talking about. please explain your theory/thesis. buzzwords are vague and don't actually articulate the implication of your argument. i need to know what the alternative is, what it does, and why is the ballot necessary. arguments about why the alternative resolves the impact of the affirmative are always useful. generally i think you need an alternative in the 2nr, but can be convinced that you don't - just explain why

***no death good/death inevitable args -- i don't find those arguments persuasive at all***

aff teams debating the k: far too often i think affirmative teams are too defensive and aren't prepared to defend why the aff is good. have reasons why discussions about the 1ac and its content are good for debate. framework interpretations along the lines of "neg should read a competitive policy option" are not that strategic or compelling. make sure you're responding to the negative's specific framework standards.

the 2ac should line by line each link argument; waiting till the 1ar will put you behind in the debate. don't group the all of links. saying "their ev is not specific to the affirmative" is also no a sufficient response. you should address the argument made by their evidence and explain why the aff doesn't say/do that. please explain what the permutation is and how it functions. have warranted analysis as to why the permutation resolves the negative's offense.

-- k affs/performance/framework --

i'm more inclined to vote for framework but can definitely be persuaded to vote against it. i need to know what your model of debate looks like and how that compares to their model of debate.

neg teams: just like with topicality, have a well-developed internal link and impact explanation. fairness is probably more of an internal link to education than its own impact, but you should make the argument that fairness is an intrinsic good. you'll likely need a tva otherwise aff arguments about why you exclude their education become more convincing.

aff teams: i'd prefer that the 1ac would have a close connection to the topic. i need to know what the 1ac means and what it does. if the speech act of the 1ac is significant, why? why does the ballot have a causal influence on that?

-- theory --

what specifically did your opponent do? why did that make it structurally more difficult for you to debate? new affs bad and aspec are 2 arguments in debate i never want to vote for. please slow down when you're reading theory.

-- for LD debaters --

everything i said above about how i evaluate policy debates applies to LD too.

i don't like a lot of the theory stuff that y'all do. if you must go for theory, like any other procedural argument, have a well-developed internal link and impact explanation. i won't vote on an RVIs. they don't make sense, and you shouldn't be punished for reading a theory argument.

-- for PF debaters --

at the beginning of the round, the team speaking first should start an email chain. both teams should email out your entire case before your first constructive speech. in speeches after the first constructive, send out all the evidence you read *again before the speech* -- the amount of time wasted after/in between speeches asking for and sending evidence is ridiculous -- if you don't flash evidence, that will be reflected in your speaker points

-- last updated for the Longhorn Classic 2022 --

I am a parent judge.

I debated for four years in Texas in PF and briefly in LD. I have a solid knowledge of critical arguments and theory. I currently compete for the Texas Speech Team in Extemp and all the Public Address Events.

My judging philosophy is pretty straightforward.

- Impact calculus is important to me, I want to see a clear weighing of both worlds, especially in the summary. With impacts, I prefer you give me clear material impacts on people, rather than just saying things like nuke war. Contextualize your impacts!

- I like clean, straight down the flow debate with a lot of clash. Sign-post during speeches.

- Not the biggest fan of card-debate. Use that time to make arguments rather than harp over minor things in cards!

- Make extensions that clearly tell me what exactly I'm supposed to extend, not just dropping a card name.

- If you introduce a new argument in the Summary, I won't evaluate it. Stick to extending already established offense/defense.

- I'm good with speed (just enunciate as much as you can) and pretty much all types of critical arguments.

- Be conscious of your positionality and how you treat others in round. Rounds can get intense but at the end of the day, debate should be a space that is safe and empowering for everyone involved.

In extemp, I value unified analysis, a solid demonstration of background/historical knowledge on the question, and confidence in delivery. Using substantial and diverse sourcing (so like in international speeches, don't only cite Western outlets) in each point while weaving in the analysis is a marker of a good speech for me.

For Duet, I don't want to see any unnecessary PDA.

Jackson is fine, please don't feel the need to call me Mr.Short or anything like that. Experience in LD and extemp, but experience judging LD, PF, WSD, and extemp. Enjoy traditional LD the most but doing my best to evolve with what is needed

LD

For both styles, please be able to explain your case in your own words and not need to rely on your written case or author. Big fan of phil debate in both styles as well.

Trad - Framework debate is paramount. The value/criterion relationship forms the basis of every argument. Contentions are great for providing real world examples but rarely will win the debate alone.

Progressive - No problem with speed. K's and DA's are fine, but do not assume anything is obvious. I am NOT willing to vote for death good.

I do NOT intervene, and will judge based off my flow.

In final speech's, write my ballot for me, explaining why you have won.

Tech>Truth

Email chain-jabshort13@gmail.com

Attended:

- Klein Oak/Klein Collins HS

- Tarrant County College

- The University of Texas at Arlington

email: cecilia@reflect.us

-------

History & Overview:

- Debated throughout middle school when that was still a thing, throughout HS with KO and KC competed in LD, PF, Congress and all IE's. In Undergrad, I competed in LD, Parli, and all IE's. Competed at various tournaments throughout the country. Also spent time with MUN during undergrad which felt like a rip off of Congress tbh.

- PLEASE BE NICE! Debate is competitive but also meant to be fun and educational. Please respect your opponents and your partner.

Specifics:

Do's:

- Topicality

- Theory

- Disads

- Counterplans

- Kritiks

Dont's:

- Be rude

- Be sexist

- Drop arguments

- Introduce new evidence in final speeches (HUGE pet peeve of mine)

- Most of all, don't worry about the win. Be both familiar and confident with your work and research and it will speak for its self.

No preference for speed.

Debate Events

I'm a student at UC Berkeley, class of '24 and an experienced debater in high school. I'm fairly open-minded, so I'll only be going over some broad expectations.

Please perform in front of me as you would in front of a lay judge. As a result, your oration should be clear (spreading is discouraged), your arguments should be easy to follow, and there should be lots of signposting. I am very particular about the soundness of your logic and also the concision of your communication; as such, be careful as to avoid weak reasoning since it will stick out to a sore thumb to me.

General comments:

Please extend your arguments. Sticky defense does not exist.

I have a fairly high bar for speaks. I prefer meaningful pauses over meaningless word vomit.

If you effectively warrant an argument and weigh it, it will help you the most out of everything.

Behavior:

Be civil. Aggressive tactics are fine (in moderation) but blatant disrespect - and anything in bad faith - won't be tolerated. This includes discrimination and round abuse.

JBHS '20; GWU '24

Pronouns He/Him

Conflicted with James Bowie and Coppell

Bold=TLDR

- for questions/comments/concerns/for the email-chain you can reach me at williams.conner.professional20@gmail.com

This is largely copied from Andy Stubb's paradigm.

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best-weighed impact.

Progressive arguments* and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

*detail of my progressive knowledge/experience below

-Lay debate: easy, love it

-theory: the ones that are common in PF I'm very familiar with, if it's something I probably haven't seen, just explain it well.

-K's: I like K's, but I don't know ANY lit. That doesn't mean I can't evaluate a well-explained argument.

-Non-t K-aff's(?): see^, but I find them really interesting and will still do my best to evaluate it.

-tricks: I didn't have a pleasant introduction to these, so I'm fine with never returning. If you run them, I will probably be sad, but the flow is the flow ig.

-I literally do not know what the progressive argument hierarchy is, so tell me! if the round has 2 tricks, a non-t k-aff, and disclosure, tell me which order to evaluate these things in, or I don't want to hear it when I do it incorrectly.

My three major things are:

1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. The exception to this is clean drops, idc how terrible the warranting of an argument is if it's conceded.

2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you.

3. An extension IS: uniqueness, link, internal link, impact. An extension is NOT any of those things on their own. If you fully extend the link but drop the impact, fantastic, you have successfully won a link into nothing. If you extend the impact but not the link, congratulations, I now have a mystery impact floating in the air that cannot and will not be weighed

On the topic of floating impacts, PLEASE weigh. if one side is running homelessness and one side is running food insecurity for example, tell me why I should vote on your argument; if you don't, this begs intervention and you can't be mad if we disagree on which one is more important.

PF specific:

-You have to frontline offense in the second rebuttal.

-I rarely call for evidence; if you don't have the warrant in the summary/final focus, I'm not going to call for the card and do the work for you

-If we're going to run theory... make sure it's warranted and, more importantly, merited. If your opponents are unfamiliar /uncomfortable with theory (maybe don't read it but if you really believe there was a violation I get it) I will probably prefer reasonability (sue me.) If both sides are familiar with theory then competing interps are chill.

Speaker points include delivery, strategic decisions, conduct in the round, etc. I simply do not think it's fair to potentially determine breaks/seeding off of pure speech clarity, ESP with the current digital-only world we're living in.

- if you make a link turn, you should explain what the consequence of having access to their impact does for you, otherwise what is the point. Also if you end up going for the turn you must extend the uniqueness, the (turned) link, and the impact. just saying "we turned their x argument so that's offense for us" does not do anything for you.

Misc.

- I'm open to being post-rounded, I think it's good for the community. If I can't defend my decision then I shouldn't have made it. That being said I am not open to being harassed simply bc you disagree with what I said. Additionally, if this goes on for a while or honestly if it's super late at night I'll probably say that I'll be happy to speak with you at a later time/date and/or give you my email in case you have further questions.

-if there is literally not a single way to vote I'll default to whatever side upholds the squo (this is almost always neg but the wording of some recent resolutions has been odd) this is because the aff (usually) has the burden of proving that a change is beneficial, not just neutral.

-defense is not sticky

Affiliation: Former Bandera HS

LD Debate Paradigms

In LD debate, I believe that the framework debate is paramount. The value/criterion relationship forms the basis of every argument. The contentions should be used to demonstrate a real-world example of the framework in action. Therefore, the contention debate is not enough to win alone; it must demonstrate that you also win the value/criterion discussion. I do NOT intervene, so I will not make the leap to that conclusion on my own. You must give me clear reasons to vote and explain why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. I do NOT believe that plans, counter plans, and other policy issues have a place in LD debate.

Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance.

Rate of Delivery 3 out of 5

Amount of evidence: 3 out of 5

Appeals: 4 out of 5

Use of Criteria: 5 out of 5

Approach to Topic: 3 out of 5