In Congressional Debate: Analysis is the most important factor. Sources are parmount. Clash is expected. Delivery is secondary.

*my email is babbonnete@gmail.com*

LD- I'm fine with speed, as long as you aren't spitting across the room. I'm fine with progressive args, run whatever you want but everything needs to be extended through your 2 rebuttals for me to use it as a weighing mechanism. (If you are a non-traditional LD'er ... refer to my policy paradigm for more potential tips)

PF- Steps to getting my vote: extend all cards you intend on using through round through to summary (no sticky defense), line by line rebuttal, if you don't address a turn made on case I will consider it a drop, collapse in summary, if you're speaking second then I expect your summary to address attacks made in last rebuttal. Also: weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh in EVERY SPEECH.

Policy: I am a tab judge

Here are some of my personal preferences: Don't go for too much. I'd like if you collapsed down to one position in your 2NR. Never finish a speech early, use that time to clarify arguments or bring down your opponents. I tend to be partial to K as long as it is very well done (it's fun..ner?). I need clear impact and link stories, the flow should be immaculate, and you should be able to signpost well enough for me to easily vote without rummaging through my sheets. I don't expect the 1AR to respond to a 13 paged card dump, just do your best by grouping arguments and responding in a way that allows you enough time to save your 1AC from falling into LOTR fire pit. Two most important things in the round: IMPACT CALC & SPLIT THE BLOCK.

GENERAL: don't be unnecessarily rude to your opponents, it doesn't make you look cool. I WILL dock points for any mean or snide behavior, as well as asking circular questions in cross that don't allow your opponent to generate an answer. If your opponent is noticeably less experienced then you, do NOT take that as an opportunity to patronize them.

7 years of experience judging various forms of debate and speech events on local/state/national levels. Currently the coach at St. John's Upper School.

Consider me a tab judge for events: no event specific expectations on what should happen, I prefer everything to be spelled out in round.

I default to reasonability if left to my own devices, but will entertain and vote on all arguments.

Speaker points are a tie-breaker, so I am a bit more conservative with them, but that doesn't mean I'll tank your points unless you're unclear, have frequent speech errors, go over time, or if you're rude. Expect an average 27.5-29.5 range. Perfect speaks reserved for those who truly exemplify great public speaking skills. Rudeness can also be a cause for a team losing.

Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever subject matter you're speaking on.

Ask before round any further questions you might have.

Policy:

I'm happy judging whatever crazy, creative argument you think you can make me believe (which you will do by providing awesome evidence, links, etc.) BUT you better enunciate those crazy arguments clearly. My number one pet peeve in policy debate is debaters who try to spread but stutter and stumble through their speeches. I can flow as fast as you can speak, but if I can't understand what you're saying, I will say "clear" once or twice, and then simply not flow what I can't understand.

I'm fine with tag-teaming in cx.

If the round is shared via email chain, I'd prefer you still make an effort to say actual words.

A few caveats to the "I'll buy anything" -

I'm fine with Ks, but it's got to be a pretty killer kritik for me to vote on one K alone - it's more likely I'll weigh it as part of a larger strategy.

PICs are abusive as they take too much affirmative ground, BUT occasionally there's a PIC that justifies the existence of PICs, and those make me happy.

Run topicality if it's justified. If it's not, and you're running four Ts as a time-suck, I won't buy any of them.

I prefer textually competitive CPs. If it's only competitive through a link to a DA, then I'm going to give it the stink eye. Never say never - I do periodically vote for arguments I claim not to like - but you better advocate for that CP really, really well.

IN summary with the PICs, Ts and CPs - just run a good, relevant argument. If you're throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks, I'm probably going to dismiss it as crap. But if you're confident it's an awesome argument, tell me why I should buy it; it's distinctly possible I will, just understand those arguments have a higher threshold for me.

Signpost, give me clear voters, be polite. When a team starts showing contempt for their opponents, I start looking for reasons to vote against them.

And have fun.

Lincoln Douglas:

Value/Value Criterion Clash - I expect you to have a clear value and value criterion, but I use them as a way to evaluate the round (framework), not as a voting issue (unless they're really, really bad, abusive, or maybe unexpectedly brilliant). Show why you meet your opponents' v/vc as well as your own, or why yours makes much more sense in context of the round, then move on. It's probably not going to be a big independent voter for me.

If you're doing circuit LD - please don't make it dumbed-down policy. Arguments still need to be fully developed, relevant to the topic, and coherently articulated.

If you're doing traditional LD - I appreciate someone who can talk pretty, I really do, but I want to see CLASH. Weigh arguments. Compare sources, and delve into what cards actually say. I like to vote for debaters who can help me see the big picture in the round, but can also weave a convincing narrative out of all the minutiae.

As with all debate - be confident, be aggressive, but don't be a jerk.

Public Forum:

I'm fine with speed in PF - but same as other debates, enunciate clearly!

More than any other debate, I expect PFers to be respectful of opponents. Be confident, be aggressive, never show contempt.

Please maintain a consistent strategy between both partner's speeches - you need to be on the same page as to what you're going for and how you argue things. If I'm seeing two different debates from one partnership, I don't know what I'm supposed to vote for, so I'll usually vote for the other team.

Most (not all, but most) topics benefit from a framework, so have one! Tell me how to evaluate the round so I can judge the debate on what's debated, not on my preconceived notions of what's important.

With the new pilot rules, the summary speech has become paramount for me, and I expect it to be somewhat similar to a 1AR in policy - cover it all. If you're just giving me a slightly longer version of the final focus, it's a wasted opportunity. You can give me voters if you want, but I expect the final focus to be all about those.

I was an Interper for four years in high school and now I am a debate coach- who would've seen this coming? not me!

You can include me on the email chain if you prefer- bdomino1@kleinisd.net- just put KISD first in the subject line to get past spam filters.

Do not spread- the roots of this organization is to use research and critical thinking skills- you do not achieve these goals by reading as fast as you can off of a sheet of paper, in an effort to fool or lose your opponent. Spreading is weak sauce.

You really should weigh the round for me- if you do not tell me why you should be chosen over your opponent, then I am going to assume you do not know why you should win the round either.

Sharing a last name from your research means nothing to me if you are not summarizing and presenting that research. Much like I tell my students in the classroom, do not just name drop and expect me to understand the significance of your evidence if you do not share it with me.

I take good sportsmanship seriously- if you are purposefully mean or condescending, or display any acts of homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism I will give you low speaks and have no problem discussing my reasoning why with your coach.

*Updated for Chey East 2020*

*Updated for Alta 2020*

*Updated for Evanston 2020*

*Updated for UMich 2020*

Experience:

2018-Present: Policy Coach at Rock Springs High School

2007-2011: NPTE Debate at University of Wyoming: Highest national ranking: 4th; 4x national qualifier for NPTE; attended NPDA/NPTE 6x’s (between both tournaments); highest placing at National Tournament: Semi-finalist; Between 2009-2012 ranked top 20 in NPTE points receiving First Round Bids.

2004-2007: Debate at Rock Springs High School in Rock Springs, Wyoming

Approximate number of rounds judged per year: 50+

Please add me to the email chain: etcheverryj@sw1.k12.wy.us

Spreading---X--------------------------------Conversation

Spreading is fine, speed is important but clarity is more important. Slow down on analytics, include them in the email chain. Also slow down 20% on tags and authors. *UPDATE:* Differentiate between tags and the internals of your cards. With the online format, make sure that you are either decreasing your speed on analytics or you are sending them out in the speech doc. I have noticed in cases that some analysis can get missed with the tubes of the internet.

Tech---------X---------------------------------------Truth

If it’s conceded it’s true, however reading more cards that aren’t true, doesn’t mean I will prefer.

Policy-------------------X---------------------Ks (Aff or Neg)

I am good with either a policy debate or K v. K debate; just make sure to explain your argument thoroughly.

Analytics---------------------------------X--Evidence

Analytics have their place, however they should be based in the literature, this also includes theory and theory blocks

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

Conditionality is generally good, but I could be persuaded otherwise. This is a vote down the team theory approach.

Actor/PIC/Consult/Process CP good--X------------------------------- Actor/PIC/Consult/Process CP bad

The CP is an essential tool for the Neg, all are strategic. That being said I am open to theory objections and if won by the Aff, I will reject the argument (if indicated).

*UPDATE: For Courts CP, run them, but be able to clearly articulate how the Courts would be able to hear the Aff plan; be it a test case (include your test case, or be able to defend the timeframe deficit awaiting the next available test case) or defend SCOTUS using a Writ of Crit to rule. Also, it would be wise to include the basis of ruling within the text of the CP. Args directly questioning the mechanisms by which the CP functions and can be very persuasive for me.*

Politics DA good------------------------X------Politics DA bad

Read the appropriate Tix DAs and you’re good, however, as in this year, reading Prez Tix DAs two days before the elections is frustrating and the uniqueness probably overwhelms the link.

1AR gets new args--------------X----------------------1AR doesn’t get new args

I will give the 1AR room to present new extrapolations of the Aff positions and to respond fully to the block, however running a new position/link turn/mpx turn or a new response to a Neg position isn’t the best and it’s probably too late in the debate to truly develop said position.

UQ matters most-----------------------------X---Link matters most

A solid link into an argument is incredibly important, no matter how unique an argument is, if it doesn’t apply, it doesn’t apply!

Love T-X---------------------------------------------Hate T

I love T!! Evidence again is very important and please read it. I will prefer your standards if you have evidence supporting. Explain your mpx, violation and why you should win. Make sure that if you are going for T, either send a doc with analytics or ensure that you are clear.

Limits------X----------------------------------------Ground

Generics solve your ground claims, all though they might not be the most in-depth or educational, they do provide access to clash, and even if they are generic, there is evidence that supports those claims which is still educational. Limits, however, means that the Neg can produce in-depth arguments due to having a limited research burden and lit base.

Fairness is an mpx--------------------------------X-----Education is an mpx

Debate is a game, but, it is a game is which the motive is academic.

Reasonability------------------------------------X---Competing interpretations

Reasonability opens the door for judge intervention, what I believe is reasonably topical and what the next person does, is inherently different. I’d rather hear the mpx of topicality weighed as a net benefit to the presented interpretations.

Longer ev--------------------X---------------------More ev

Whatever way you want to present your evidence is up to you.

*UPDATE: Your evidence represents your argument, not the tag, if the tag is misrepresentative or an embellishment of the ev then that argument will be given less weight in the round*

"Insert this rehighlighting"--------X---------------I only read what you read

I will only evaluate only what is read during the speech act, unless told to evaluate a rehighlighting (should be sent in the doc) or told to evaluate a card vs. another card.

Durable FIAT solves circumvention--------------------X---Durable FIAT is not a thing

There are a number of ways that a position can be undermined that FIAT cannot account for. However, FIAT would protect teams from args like “plan doesn’t pass”.

Secrecy-----------------------------X-Disclosure

A team doesn't need to hide their argument or not disclose their arguments, not disclosing makes for a sloppy debate and a bunch of people not knowing what is going on.

Analytic Perm-----------------------------X-Evidence-based Perm

The words "Perm Do Both" (or similar analytics) mean nothing to me unless you explain how it functions, what level of competition the perm is testing and read evidence indicating a net benefit to said perm. BTW...I love the perm debate!

Existential Mpx---------------X-----------------Systemic Mpx

Tell me how to vote and what mpx to evaluate. This is also more of mpx weighing analysis, not framework. Framework is how debate should be or included within the realm of debate. Mpx prioritization is a question of the specific magnitude of that mpx.

Overall:

Speed (Spreading): Don't spread if you can't do it properly! Speak quickly but if I can't understand you...I'm out.

Flow (Prep Time): USE YOUR PREP TIME! It is there for a reason. If you drop something or your argument isn't well rounded and you didn't use your prep time....hmmm...see the problem here?

Style (Interaction): I prefer the debaters to not get nasty towards each other but I also want you to stand your ground. There is a style to doing this without sounding like a teenager who isn't getting their way.

Arguments: You have your case...present it. Ask the questions that are needed.

I am a fairly quick thinker so if you miss some of the lingo that's okay but be sure I can pick out what is what in your argument. It should be well developed and structured so that both the judge and opponent(s) can flow your case.

LD: I prefer a round that is both debaters giving their cases at their best. Don't look for what I "prefer" or care about seeing; just give me what you've got and leave it all in the room.

Policy: I think my policy paradigm is the same as my LD. I love a good cross; it's there to ask as many questions as you can and get as much info as you can...be aggressive here if you have to.

sarah.gonzales@rcisd.org

I require extensive statistics and proof of credentials to accept and effectively compare an argument. I have several years of experience as a PF competitor and judge.

Hi! I competed in LD, PF, and CD in high school, along with several platform events (OO, Info, DX, FX). I did interp events in middle school, but didn't we all? I'm in college now and basically spend every weekend judging debate tournaments. If you have any specific questions about my paradigms or a decision, please reach out to me. My email is graceejudicee@tamu.edu! I love providing feedback!

LD

I don’t like spreading. The purpose of a debate round is to use critical thinking skills to convince your opponent/judge of a specific argument, not speak so fast that you lose your opponent and gain the upper hand in the round.

Generally speaking, I prefer a traditional style of debate. However, if you chose to go for a theory shell argument, I will flow it. Just be careful. If you ONLY/MAINLY go for theory, there is a good chance that your opponent will have an adequate response, leaving you with very little offense.

When it comes to evidence, if you are sharing it with your opponent, share it with me as well (graceejudicee@tamu.edu). Don’t just give me a card name and date and expect me to value its importance. Convince me that it is important, accurate, and more reliable than your opponent’s card.

PF

Doing the weighing for me is like an insurance policy. In rounds where there is a lot of clash, some arguments turn into a wash. When you weigh, in addition to extending arguments across the flow, you are giving me more reasons to vote for you.

When it comes to evidence, if you are sharing it with your opponent, share it with me as well (graceejudicee@tamu.edu). Don’t just give me a card name and date and expect me to value its importance. Convince me that your evidence is important, accurate, and more reliable than your opponent’s card.

If I hear something in final focus that wasn’t brought up in summary, you’ve just wasted your own time.

If you are second rebuttal, you need to frontline.

Congress

A great PO will make my ballot, but I always prefer great speakers. I know it is difficult to find a PO in lot of rounds, so I always appreciate volunteers.

If you aren’t the first affirmative or first negation, I expect some sort of clash. Refer back to your fellow representatives. I don’t want to hear 3 speeches with the same exact points.

Questioning is important. If you have great speeches, but fail to participate in the rest of the round, that will result in a lower ranking.

Don't speak just to speak with zero preparation if you know it will be a terrible speech! I'd rather a chamber move to previous question after 3 speeches than hear someone speak for 2 minutes off the top of their head. Keep in mind, this is different than writing a speech during recess. I always appreciate those that offer to write during recess to keep the round going.

I'd rather hear one "6" speech from you than three "4" speeches.

Once you enter the chamber, stay in "character", even during recess. Compared to other styles of debate, delivery and presentation is more important.

IEs/Extemp

Make me laugh. I love humor, but forced humor and stock introductions are awkward. Cringe.

For extemporaneous speaking, PLEASE provide a clear introduction with a source AND a preview of your three points. Extemporaneous speeches without some sort of preview/roadmap during the introduction are often unorganized. Also, actually answer the question. This seems like a no brainer, but you'd be surprised.

Delivery and presentation always matter, but CONTENT is SO important.

In out rounds, I expect the time of your speech to be pretty close to the time limit on the TFA ballot. Basically, 4 minute extemporaneous speeches in semi finals won't fly with me.

TL;DR: I won't punish you for not debating the way I like, but I can't "hang". Speed and Ks not recommended, but I won't vote you down unless your opponent gives me a decent reason to. Give me direct and clear reasons to vote for you. Have fun in the round.

I'm a community college Parliamentary Debate coach.

I protect the flow in rebuttals based on what I have on my flow. Feel free to call points of order if you'd really like to, though.

I do my best to vote the way the debaters tell me to and to be tabula rasa. With that having been said, I think everyone has biases and I want to tell you mine. I won't ignore any of your arguments out of not liking them, but my biases could lower the threshold for refutation on an argument I dislike.

What I like to see most in debates is good clash. To me, good clash means link refutations and impact comparisons.

I'm comfortable with theory and you can run whatever procedural you'd like. I prefer to vote on articulated abuse rather than potential abuse. While I'm happy to vote on procedurals if it's called for, I've never walked out of a round thinking, "Wow! What a great T!"

I don't like K's. I've voted on them before, I'll probably end up having to vote for a K again, but I'm not happy about it. Specifically, I have a hard time buying solvency on the alternatives of most K's I've heard.

I prefer that you don't spread, but I can keep up with decent speed. I'll tell you to slow if I need you to slow down.

Please be inclusive of your opponents and (if there are other judges in this round) the other judges on the panel.

It's important to me that this activity:

a) be a useful experience for competitors' lives outside of forensics

b) be enjoyable enough to be worth giving up weekends instead of sleeping in and watching cartoons.

Lastly, if I make jokes please pretend to think I'm funny. I don't have much else going for me.

Katy Taylor 2015-2019

UT '23

Congress:

- Argumentation > presentation.

- Clash is Really Important. I do like to see more rebuttal the further on we are in the round, but I'll take one really clear, direct argument against a previous speaker than 5 arguments with no substance in an attempt to address everyone in the room. Address your competitor's argument specifically! I'm here for well-constructed, direct refutation.

- Link to your impacts, please! Otherwise they don't make sense. Really strong links are impressive.

- Neg speeches need active harms somewhere, not just "this won't work-" otherwise there's no harm in trying.

- Use good evidence- really need to see more than a one-off line pulled from your source.

PFD:

- Good on speed but quality > quantity

- Line-by-line rebuttal is the best way to go for me. Also, make it obvious where you are in the flow- "under their second contention, subpoint A," "their Valeri card, which states ____" - all good! (Author name specifically is less crucial here, just explain what the card is saying so I know where you are.) Just tell me where to flow! I'd rather focus on the content of your argument rather than try to figure out where you are.

- If you're dropping an argument intentionally, make that clear. Also explain any extensions or turns.

- Final focus should be big picture.

Email me at clarisseman02@gmail.com for any questions!

I am a Tab Rosa judge. I will not make arguments for you, and if it is stated in the round it needs to be substantiated. Don't just make a wild claim and consider it as truth. If you can provide back up on each claim, I will value it in the round. I'm perfectly fine with all arguments, as long as they are run properly. If you speak fast and unclear, it makes it harder to value the arguments in the round. Please speak clearly.

HI.

I did LD, Impromptu, and Policy in high school.

Add me to the email chain pls: alina.wang@berkeley.edu

I don't mind if you sit during CX

off-time road maps don't offend me - I prefer you tell me the order of your arguments.

LD/Policy

Framework debate(MOSTLY FOR LD) - one that answers the question: which framework is more superior in the round?

Tabula Rasa for me.

Explain it well.

Clash and links.

Make sure links are clear and that your argument is easily traceable.

WEIGH your arguments/impacts.

If you are going to spread, slow down at the taglines for your own sake.

Theory

I don't like theory. Do not run theory unless there is an obvious reason for you to run theory. I won't vote on it unless it's necessary or credible.

I hate Disclosure theory. If generations of debaters can win without it, I don't see the point in you wasting my time.

K's

Always love hearing a good K.

Plan/CP

Internal Links should exist.

PLEASE DONT SHAKE MY HAND. Give me a fist bump instead.

If you have any questions about my paradigms, please ask me before the round starts.

I am the debate coach at Truman. I have previously coached high school debate in Missouri and Kansas. I was a policy debater in high school. I have taught at debate and speech camps and I frequently judge policy debate, LD, PF, and speech.

EMAIL CHAIN: jeriwillard@gmail

Things I like for you to do: send an email effectively and efficiently, speak clearly, and respond to arguments.

The aff should be topical. The aff needs an offensive justification for their vision of the topic. I find the arguments for why the aff should be topical to be better than the arguments against it. (Read: I rarely vote on T. Running T? Go all in.) If you are reading an aff that is not topical, you are much more likely to win my ballot on arguments about why your model of debate is good than you are on random impact turns to T.

Evidence matters. I read evidence and it factors into my decision.

Clarity matters. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me and you should stop doing that. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping.

The link matters. I typically care a great deal about the link. When in competition, you should spend more time answering the link than reading impact defense.

Message to Competitors:

You got this!

I am more excited to enjoy your performance, rather than critique you for your performance. You're courageous! Please. Above all else. Have FUN! If you have fun, we have fun, and that is when your message is communicated in the most powerful way.

Thank you for sharing your stories.

JUDGING PREFERENCES

When in doubt, I go back to the basics. In no particular order

- Were the rules of the event followed?

- Was the performance clean and polished? (Has more to do with effort than skill)

- Was there a palpable energy to the performance?

- Was the student having fun?

BACKGROUND & EXPERIENCE

Former Member & Captain of Speech Team at Wheaton Warrenville South High School

-IHSA State Champion of DI and HDA (Humorous Duet Acting)

-IHSA Six time State Finalist

Former Member & Captain of the IE Squad at the University of Texas at Austin

-AFA Poetry National Champion 2005

-AFA Eight National Out-rounds, Five time National Finalist

National Final Round Judge for AFA Championship

Coach at University of Texas National Institute of Forensics (UTNIF) 2004-2011

*** Scroll to bottom if I'm judging you for not policy events/Stanford***

***Short Version + General Notes - Policy Debate ***

Conflicts - Broome County Debate Alliance, GMU

I debated for five years for George Mason University

I do want to be included on e-mail chains if they happen, my e-mail is dwoodward92@gmail

I have very little knowledge/info on the college topic, will take time to catch up/get general ideas so explanations are appreciated.

More tech over truth, biases are below but unless you say something offensive good debating > my preferences. Read what you're best at.

Zoom/other systems of online Debate is hard, moreso because sometimes people have questionable internet quality, or questionable microphone quality- please do not go full speed as those issues can make understanding a bit harder than necessary.

ADA/Wake Addendum: My WiFi is not the best in the location where I usually can have a clear/quiet space to judge. As a result I usually will not have my camera on other than RFDs, and if my internet is particularly iffy I will simply not turn on the camera for the simple reason that camera on = better chance of my internet screwing up and DC'ing me mid 2NC or RFD (and noone wants that). As a result I don't care whether you speak with the camera on or off for speeches. Also please be loud, some mics aren't great and i'd rather me have to turn you down/you blow out my ears vs being unable to hear you.

Have questions? read specific sections below or feel free to ask/email me.

*** Don't troll in debates.*** IF you want to forfeit just tell me. Doesn't preclude off the wall strategies versus affs- if there's good faith involved points will be normalized. IF it's an obvious joke/waste of time then you + partner get a 15/15.1: If you make me laugh enough even after wasting that time then you'll get a 25/25.1 instead.

***End Short Version + General Notes***

***College Novice Division Specifics***

Still not fan of packet but if tournament mandates it then so be it

Still want people to be nice

Still ok with non topical affs in novice but keep them simple/to the point. general brightline for framework is MUCH lower than what it is in JV/Open debates.

Still giving full attention

***Topicality***

Always a voting issue- can't change this

T comes first. Aff could win theory/other arg comes first but unlikely

Competing interpretations generally better than Reasonability

Affs should have a counterinterp

***Counterplans***

I reward negative teams who correctly punish aff teams for lack of defenses to portions of their aff, or topic literature of alternatives to the aff, so things like "x portion of your plan is actually good/bad so do the rest of it other than the good/bad part." OR "the main author for your solvency advocate says do x thing instead, so do x".

I respect the hustle but do not reward teams who interpret this as "the aff doesn't have a congress/federal/immediate action key card" in the 1AC.

I don't kick the counterplan for the negative if extended in the 2nr

-this can obviously change IF Neg teams make the arg early (read not 2NR), likewise, if the aff doesn't say no judge kick/make the arg until the 2AR (and the neg did their diligence) then that's too late.

Theory specifics

Outside of perm theory, just about any theory argument can be a reason to reject the team.

Teams are too blippy on theory on both sides. For example, If the 1NC had 2 CP's and a K, or 2 CPs but one had 3-4 kickable planks, or 3+ CPs etc. and the 2NC response to condo is only "Neg flex, time/strategy skews inevitable, Reject the arg not the team" in 15 seconds then that is not sufficient. At that point I am hoping the aff goes for theory. Likewise, if the aff's 2AC to condo is a sentence long and has no warrants/specifics it feels equally irritating to watch blow up in the 1AR. Invest time on theory as needed.

New Affs/Start of season/End of season doesn't mean the neg gets to cheat excessively. Does mean i'm less sympathetic to aff theory but doesn't mean the neg gets 3 CPs with conditional planks and a K in the 1NC. This argument is not persuasive to me to answer theory arguments by the neg.

Specifics > generic, make your theory args/answers specific to the issue/round at hand, goes a long way on aff or neg.

Other thoughts on common args.

PICS - good, Word PICs less good than aff/topic specific ones.

Condo - in moderation is good, 2 Options is where the debate is 50/50. 3 is if the aff is new. More than that = no. Counterplans can have planks, but being able to kick the planks is bad.

States - I don't like it but if it's applicable to the topic/theory debate then have at you

International Fiat - I like these CPs but get how they're kinda absurd, depends on topic

Process/Agent CPs - depends, XO/Courts/Congress/Conditions isn't bad if there's topic lit. Con-Con, Consult, Delay isn't great in front of me.

Neg should get fiat

Aff stuff

Read above. I want you to go for theory to punish the neg for questionable CP practices. This does not mean I want you to go for theory IF you are winning on substance, but it's an option.

Solvency deficits go a long way as does good permutations

CP specific offense definitely gets you some speaker point boost.

***Disadvantages***

Not much to say, turns case args are good, i'd prefer beefing up one impact scenario vs reading a bunch more in the block (unless impact turn debate etc.)

Midterms/Politics: I will vote on it. At the same times these DA's have made very little sense/haven't been a thing since 2010 except maybe SKFTA/sometimes debt ceiling. Logical arguments based on current events are super persuasive in front of me. I'm not saying don't read midterms/politics in front of me but analytics about gridlock/current congressional problems (they're in a recess currently, etc.) are more persuasive than you'd think.

***Critiques/Critical Affs***

This used to be really long, but since i haven't done as much research/reading/judging on recent college (and HS topics) i've decided to shorten it. Those who've had me judge/know me nothing's really changed but this is the TL;DR version.

Explain yourself, all of it, do not assume i've read your lit, even if i've judged your aff 4-5 (or more times)

Do what you can justify/what you do best, I am down for K affs.

Not great for post modern things, but well explained args are good args.

Framework is a fine/acceptable argument. I think Ground/Limits are a bit more persuasive than portable skills args personally but however you want it to work then do it.

If you're aff vs a K, defend your aff/and what your specific method/solvency issue is. Offense is always good and needed.

Affs should probably do something and be in the general direction of the topic (or have good reasons to do neither of these things)

Any specific ?'s please email or ask before rounds.

***Other Notes***

I dislike embedded clash

Clarity over speed

Don't clip- if you think someone is clipping/cheating, have audio evidence. Round will stop. if accused is guilty, they get a 0, the loss and everyone else gets average points. If accused is innocent, team who made the challenge gets a 0 + loss, others get averaged speaks.

Be nice, we have to see each other for 4-5 years, being nice is not being a doormat, similarly, being sassy is not the same as being hostile.

I don't take time for prep unless it's blatantly being stolen. And at that point i'll start running the clock without telling you. so don't steal prep.

I like spin over evidence dumps. explaining your evidence and the warrants clearly and in a way where it sticks with me helps. Spin will beat a card unless the quality difference is massive.

I don't read cards unless necessary. It makes me question my decisions/RFD's in ways that I later question how I determine debates. I feel more secure when debaters take the time to not only explain the warrants and arguments within the evidence to persuade me why I should prefer them. If the debaters make it part of the debate with a warrant larger than just "read the cards at the end judge", I'll happily read them or if it is a vital point to determine the debate. I am less happy if I am forced to read cards because the original presentation was not clear or comprehensible.

Not Policy/other debate Events - READ HERE FOR STANFORD -

TL;DR if reading in 5 minutes, I'm fine with whatever you want to do, just explain it.

Don't be mean

Don't say or do racist/sexist shit in rounds, will cost you speaks and ballots

I vote on the flow, most of my background both in competition/coaching is in policy (Coached a couple of, did PF in high school but at this point I am not current/up to date on most trends in PF at the moment)

As long as you are clear I do not care about speed, however anti-speed arguments in LD/PF are more persuasive than in policy depending on skill level and situation

Most of my evaluation and decision-making for rounds is based on the flow/line by line, I find that usually technical drops or good impact calculus is the easiest way to win my ballot in round.

Explanation is key. Generally the easier you make the round for me in terms of making arguments understandable/clear, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

I am a parent of a high school student speech & debater, not a speech coach or debater myself.

It is very important to me that you have fun, and work your best to adequately express your points / arguments in a clear and concise manner.

In debate, if you spread, it is highly likely I will not be able to understand you or follow your side of the debate. I value personal, well thought out, convincing arguments, and rebuttals with supporting facts and sources much more than opinions, feelings or cases written by others that you simply read verbatim.

Since I am a "lay" or "community" judge, I encourage you to provide me with verbal roadmaps, signposts, frameworks, etc. when appropriate.

Have fun and show the utmost respect for the rules of your event and for your fellow competitors.