Tab judge so run anything you’d like as long as its nothing offensive ie impact turns to oppression. I don’t default to anything so all arguments must be communicated clearly in the round including the implications of those arguments. Spreading is fine but slow down and be extra clear on tag lines and author names. If you have any specific questions just ask me before the round.

LD:

1. Speak at a normal rate of speed; no spreading/speed talking

2. Attack & rebuttal "down-the-line" - val, crit, conts, sub point tag lines

3. Be aggressive in CX, but not belligerent

4. rebutt. Specifically why your val Trump's your opp's val.

CX:

1. Speak at a NORMAL RATE OF SPEED. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for args, refs, or rebutt.

2. Keep the esoteric jargon/terms/abbreviations to a minimum. ("K's" "disads", etc)

2. Hit the H.I.T.S. (Harms, inherency, topicality, solvency, )

2. I'm looking for cogent, well-exposited arguments supported w/ pertinent/rez relevant documentation.

3. Don't spend too much time on topicality unless your opp's off-topic args are egregious.

4. Neg doesn't need a c/p unless it is vital

PFD

See above

I am an experienced LDer who debated throughout high school on the state and national level.

I did mostly traditional debate but I am not unfamiliar with progressive argumentation. CPs, Ks, plans, and anything else that may be funky are cool as long as you really explain and keep that argumentation going.

If you want to win my ballot hammer those voting issues and give me heavy weighing and impact calculus.

I won't do a ton of work for you, if there is a dropped argument, bring it up.

I'm a tab judge and am completely open to judging based on how the debaters tell me to. I am open to all types and styles of arguments, from topicality to Kritiks. If debaters say nothing about the framework used in the round, I will default to a policy making framework, if you run something like a performance aff, etc., I expect you to flesh-out framework for me. At end of round I'm evaluating your offense/defense vs. your opponents. This is the easiest way for me to judge the round, with as little intervention as possible, I'm looking to hear generally how the aff is a net improvement over the status quo. From the negative I'm looking to hear how the aff is a net negative, or how it fails to affirm the resoultion.

General:

Did Policy and LD in high school. PF for some time as well. My preferences as far as CX and LD are pretty similar. Did policy and parli in college. Coached LD and Policy in the past. Arguments that I frequently had students run were obscure kritiks, hard-policy affs, impact turns. I have always been a huge believer in the linebyline.

As far as policy, I ran policy arguments more than kritikal arguments, but as I got later in my career developed more of a preference for the K. That said, I really love good policy debates.

On the K, I expect some time to be spent on framework if it's expected for me to evaluate it through something other than the traditional way. I've been judging a lot more kritikal rounds in LD and CX than I have in the past. Frequently I find that when i vote for kritik debaters it's because they do a better job on the k-proper/linebyline debate as well as framework. Especially so if they are making good link-level arguments(not generic), RTB args. and k turns case. Explain how you get "solvency" or offense off-of the Alt. Being nebulous about the alt is generally a bad thing and frequently issues arise in k debate if this is neg strategy. I welcome the 1-off k strat, or k-affs.

Used to go for T a lot. That said, I usually advise debaters to go for T if there's an abuse story. In general have a high threshold for voting on T. If neg, extend that t is a voter, and internal link it to fairness, education, etc.

I assume condo is cool. I assume PICs are cool. I even think multiple CPs are cool (you would have to win on the theory level if Aff contests multiple CPs). Perms I assume are ok.

I encourage you to read theory if you want. I enjoy meta-debates. I especially enjoy if you put a lot of your own work into it.

Disads, you win me over if you run specific links or run multiple disads with different terminal impacts. Aff gets points for putting offense onto disads or explaining how case outweighs, or how aff solves the disad.

Affs get wins from me when they kill it on the case debate. Affs get some lee-weigh in the tight rebuttals if they're efficient and avoid drops.

I like offense from both sides. Somewhat related: recently I've found myself voting on presumption if aff drops the ball. I guess this makes some statement about what aff is obligated to do, namely defend the resolution by proving it true via 1ac. If there's some late level question about the round I may be looking at the viability of presumption. If neg tells me to vote on it, I may if there is some doubt about what aff is doing, and whether they're hitting the threshold.

Stylistic/ other things:

I am very decent keeping up with high speed.I flow the analytics as best as I can. That said, if you rush through standards one after the other, I may miss something. Adjust your pace, sign post more, be extra clear here. Generally though, I can count on two or three fingers the number of times a debater has gone too fast on theory for me.

It is very helpful to tell me what is offense and defense, this just avoids the round getting too muddy and means I adjust your speaks upward for communicating better, and for better understanding how your arguments function.

In rebuttals I generally expect things to get more big picture, in the 1ar and 1nr with drops being pointed out. I expect some level of pre-empting your opponents arguments esp. if you are the 2nr. And then finally, I expect impact calc, weighing, and some sound defense strategy (impact mitigation, timeframe, risk, magnitude, etc).

Speaks

I sometimes give out 30's but generally best speakers at any given tournament get in range of 29.5-29.9. I try to keep in mind the level of competitiveness of the tournament when giving speaks, but also, try to give consistent speaks.

Things that impact me giving high speaks:

Lack of prep taken/ good use of prep time.

Good strategy.

Being fast and efficient. Avoiding rehashing stuff that you're obviously winning and instead explaining the weight of that argument and moving on. Knowing what your cards say without having to go look.

Flowing. If cross-x is asking what number 6 argument opposing team made in the speech, I'm assuming your not flowing.

Numbering arguments, clear sign-posting, overviews, underviews, impact calc, roadmaps, referring to cross-x.

Clarity and not just looking at computer the whole time. Being sufficiently loud.

Good use of cross-x, which is underrated. I'm not sure why people don't do this, but in cross-x you can read opponent's evidence, ask about warrants in the card (sometimes they're not there), and author quals.

Kicking arguments strategically or going for something unconventional.

Using logic, analyzing evidence (looking for warrants in the cards), or a good line-by-line. Also, if neg: covering the 1AC, as opposed to generic off-case heavy strats. On case argumentation seems to be a dying art, which is sad, but as the neg if you do a good job covering case in my book it goes a long way. Aff: being super organized, grouping arguments, etc, especially in rebuttals. Handling the 2ac well is also something that helps. If you're doing a 2ac without prep and the speech is super-methodical I'm going to notice.

Being polite to opponents. Being aggressive is ok, but use best judgement.

Having fun, making jokes or demonstrating your knowledge of the topic.

I like impact turn debates and conversely impact defense, these are a great way to deviate the round from typical tropes, and can be very engaging.

I will never give you an L if I didn't like your way of debating or what you said. But if you require me to somewhat intervene in the round because of a poor debate I will give low point wins. I've given low point wins before to teams that did the better job strategically but had issues articulating things. If you cross the line as far as politeness, again, I will give VERY low speaks. Generally though, that's only happened 4-5 times in 8 years of judging for me.

LD

LD has gotten more policy-oriented. I have no issue with this. I do see some strategic issues if a 1ar spends the majority of the speech reading cards. Conversely I see issues with a 1nc with too many cards and not enough of a linebyline.

I don't think I've ever evaluated/ decided a round off a framework flow unless it had something to do with a K/ K aff being ran. You can concede framework if you want I just need to how your offense gets some access to some framework. What I'm suggesting is not undercovering contention level arguments and the linebyline.

Something that really makes it easier for me to evaluate the round is organization: numbering arguments, roadmaps, signposting, overviews, underviews. Being very clear about where you are on the flow at any time.

There is a tendency for blippy arguments to be hidden in the framework, or as underviews. the only way I can vote on them is if they are extended and impacted out.

I'm really not sure what has happened on the cutting edge of LD since getting out of high school. I know that theory/ framework debates have gotten to be more commonplace, with the utility of some of this theory questionable at best. Since then I've judged a lot of theory heavy, k heavy and policy rounds; i would say I have not judged many of these "tricks" rounds. Arguments are arguments, and they all function the same way, generally, what I'm suggesting is avoid the buzzwords and tell me the function of the argument.

As far as theory, I have voted on all sorts of theory arguments, but they have to be impacted, and i have to know how they are voting issues. Can't ever remember voting on disclosure theory.

PF

Usually i vote for the team that communicates better, of course they should be making the better arguments, but communication and persuasion are so important. In rebuttals I need to know about drops and hear some sort of weighing. I'm not in the camp that wants a card for every argument, speech times are already so short in PF. Go as fast as you want but realize that going faster may just make the debate more messy.

If you want to know what you can do to have a better chance at winning: extend evidence, talk about warrants, compare your evidence to your opponents'.

Congress

As a debater I had a lot of success in congress. I view congress as being an adversarial, somewhat extemporaneous event where you make good arguments backed by evidence and logic. Knowledge of parliamentary procedure is a definite plus, and I am looking for engagement and responsiveness regardless of what speech it is in the cycle. In other words, clash matters highly in congress, especially because speeches can tend to get stale pretty quickly if there are not (new) original arguments being made.

Debate Ethics

I prefer to not be involved in email chains or document sharing but sometimes I slip up and look at the speech documents. Avoid clipping cards--this is a breach of debate ethics and could result in loss of the round if there is a repeated pattern of doing it. I prefer that debaters self-police any ethical issues, and direct my attention to the issue while the round is happening, then I'll try to resolve the issue.

I have progressive software running on traditional hardware. I like progressive arguments such as Ks and narratives, but I cannot flow speed or blippy arguments because of my disability. Rhetoric is important, oratory is important, substance is what I vote on.

I prioritize clash over everything else, including procedurals and framework. I don't care how many arguments you make or how much evidence you provide if there is no clash in the round. I will only vote on uncontested offense if it is both extended and impacted in a later speech. Do not frontload the AC with an absurd amount of offense, see what your opponent misses in the NC, and then only extend uncovered offense. You will not win this way, I do not allow debaters to throw in everything and kick out of all but the easiest route to win.

I have Dysgraphia which affects physical writing and information processing. I cannot write quickly, even if I'm flowing digitally, and it takes me longer to process what I'm writing. That means if you choose to spread, or have a speech full of blippy arguments I will probably miss some things. If I miss an argument for this reason, it is not a voting issue. Do not grill me after the round as to why I did not vote for X or Y, and DO NOT try to figure out my threshold for speed. I understand that you're just trying to understand what you can do for your best chance at success, but please understand how insulting that is.

I never want to interfere in a round, but in the case of abuse I will. Decorum is a voting issue!

I normally do not disclose at the end of the rounds. This goes for paneled rounds and elimination rounds as well. I also try to let the contestants time themselves, but if a team absolutely wants me to time as well, then I can.

I've judge the TFA circuit for about 6 years now, and judge just about any event there is. Although I only participated in LD and Extemp in high school, I have a grasp of just about every event there is and talk to other judges on the circuit to gain insight on resolutions and paradigms.

I am OK with speed, but not at the expense of clarity, so I'd like it if you could slow down for main contentions, taglines, your values, criterion, voters, etc.. I will also say that it is important to highlight your voters at the end of a round, and to give no more than 3. Honestly, 2 voters is a fine number as well. 1 voter would probably be too little, and 4+ would be too many.

Please do NOT just flat-out spread the entire round. If you must spread, then please do so during a card. I have never had to yell out "CLEAR," and hope I never have to.

I would suggest using all of your prep time and to not yield any unused time unless absolutely necessary.

I really shouldn't have to say this, but based off of what I have seen in the past, I feel the need to remind you that you need to respect your opponents and should not sass them. Please do not be rude or condescending towards them. I have voted people/teams down just because they were super rude, and that's despite them winning on my flow. Also, please do not be rude or unprofessional towards your teammates or me.

I love unique arguments and cases, but don't push too hard just for the sake of being unique. However, ways to be unique include giving me observations, telling me who has the burden and for what, and using clever definitions, standards, and tests. A lot of great work can be done with your framework so do not neglect it.

I also love it when you tell me what the turns are. A lot of arguments do turn on themselves, so if you point that out to me, I'll give you a lot of credence and that will work to your advantage on the ballot.

I do look at how well you work with your partner too (for PD and Policy), so teamwork and chemistry are a part of the ballot for me. Also, I do look at pathos, ethos, and logos. Pathos does not mean you should just yell the entire time. Please do not do that. As for ethos and logos, I will say that I went to law school, so I know a good source when I hear one, and I know how arguments tend to be flawed and I know how they can become more logical. With that said, logic is different from intuition. Keep that in mind. Logical arguments are great, but intuitive arguments can be strong as well.

For policy debate, I'm a cross between stock issues and policy maker. I love a good K and I really enjoy it when you can set yourself up during Cross-Examination and such. I don't like it when people start talking about space, and I think that extinction is overplayed. I have also voted purely off of T before.

I try not to overthink it. I always ask myself "who do I think should go to the next round?" At the end of the day, I do not want to think I let someone down by not voting for them, so I try to find peace and resolution with my final decisions.

A lot of times, confidence goes a long way, so even if you are unsure of yourself, portraying a sense of confidence really helps on my flow. The way I see it, you all are still young, so you have time to acquire knowledge, so what you need above all else right now is confidence. But there is a fine line between confidence and arrogance. Please don't be arrogant or cocky either.

On the whole though, I would describe myself as a pretty laid back person and judge. I am a bit quirky though, so my apologies in advance if I type something out in the chat and it throws you off.

Honestly, I'm almost never swayed by abuse arguments. That doesn't mean you shouldn't present them, but if you are, then make sure they are legitimate. I've seen too many compulsory abuse arguments. Look at the other side's intent. Can you prove it? Was it just an accident? Is your abuse argument about a fundamental issue, or is it just merely procedural?

I'll generally allow anything, but I am a bit old school and think that LD should still be Value-Criterion centric, CX should be policy, and Public Forum should be more communal, values based, and domestic. PF shouldn't just be another way for policy debaters to compete, but I also see PF as more than just LD with teams. I think PF is kind of a blend of the two where evidence and cards can be read, with some actual policies pointed out as well. But please don't turn PF into mini-CX.

Drops happen, so don't fret over accidentally dropping something, and if the drop was major, then please extend it and give me impacts and its significance. Please don't just extend without any kind of elaboration on the matter. Just telling me to extend doesn't really help me out, but an elaboration, justification, explanation, etc. will go a long way.

Crystallization is super important. Please tell me what the 2-3 main areas of clash are in the debate and why you should win on those grounds. These are essentially what your voters should be, but they should also help guide you with your rebuttals and the other speeches you have before the round ends.

Please don't forget to make extensions. Drops happen, but at least extend your own arguments. At times I've voted down a team that had a winning argument mainly because they failed to recognize it as a winning argument, and therefore didn't extend it properly.

Don't overlook the power of sportsmanship and following ethical guidelines.

Please type in the chat box how much prep time you have left and/or how much you have used. That would be very helpful.

I've viewed all of NSDA's Judge Training videos on YouTube and would HIGHLY recommend that all competitors view them as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq8gnbXDO10&list=PLbRmCbS7bdKJn2GAhHcWe6xIRj2NWPpgk&index=1

Sometimes it helps to look at the videos for IEs and such too. Speaking style is a mode of persuasion, after all, and IEs can show deep reflection. Such deep reflection can be important in a debate round, but is likely more important when conducting your research and creating your cases and such.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLbRmCbS7bdKJLJUgov9kj8kGG1A75q5Nl&v=TEWolJf0F2g&feature=emb_title

If you have any other specific questions, then feel free to ask me before the round.

Please include me on any email chains. My email address is kevin.kalra5@gmail.com

I'm a tab judge who defaults to policymaker if you do not give me any other framework in the debate round. I do require debaters to give me voters and impact calculus otherwise the round becomes messy as I judge the debate on the things that happen in the round.

I do not tolerate racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive arguments or behavior in-round, including being disrespectful or condescending to lesser-experienced teams. Additionally, I have no tolerance for male teams who belittle women who are being aggressive. I do not care how far ahead you are on the flow; I will vote you down if you engage in this kind of behavior.

I also need to add this as well: Please remember that this activity is supposed to foster education and a sense of community. There is no reason to be condescending or rude to your opponents, your teammates, your judges, your coaches, or tournament staff. If you do so then your speaks will reflect as such.

Also if you post-round me expect me to edit your speaks for them to be dropped as well.

Questions? Just ask.

Email Chain: kmartin08@gmail.com

Hope Moffatt Paradigm (She/Her): Updated 1/07/2020

Email: hopeemoffatt@gmail.com

Hello all! I am so excited that you are involved in an event that I've learned so much from! I debated Lincoln Douglas for all four years of high school, was the president of my debate team and involved my self heavily in learning about the different styles of debate. My circuit oscillated pretty frequently between progressive and conservative styles so I am very familiar with how almost all argument strategies should be run. This paradigm is lengthy but don't let that intimidate you, I am so happy you are here and am sure you will do wonderfully. I have only written a lot because I remember appreciating when others did so and want you to know that you deserve the fullest of my efforts.

If you are looking for a quick synopsis of what kind of judge I am here is a summery of what you should know:

I will evaluate any case you read to me and am comfortable with speed (I spread frequently in my time as a competitor). However, I do not think that progressive cases are inherently better than a traditional style and will consider counter arguments that question the traditional ordering of strategies in round. For the most part, I will evaluate the round how I feel that you and your opponent best communicate that I should. I think framework is a really valuable tool if used correctly, but is not essential to my ballot. Even so, if your opponent has a really strong framework that is uncontested you need to give me some sort of weighing mechanism if you don't want me to default to theirs. Weighing is your most valuable tool, and I often find myself wishing debaters would weigh more strategically. In any case, be nice to each other and try your best. Feel free to send me your case to look at during the round to Hopeemoffatt@gmail.com . Be forewarned I read quickly and critically so if your evidence is misleading in a way that I perceive as dishonest that may be reflected in your speaks. That said, I will try my best not to let my own view of what I read impact my evaluation of your case as a whole and will leave it to your opponent to point out the flaws. If there is a major problem with the way you portray your evidence and your opponent does not mention it, I will not fault you (unless it appears blatantly dishonest) but will mention on your ballot so that in the future you can improve!

Note for online debates: You may want to consider speaking slower with more exaggerated pronunciation than normal to reduce the effects of technology on your delivery! If an internet issue occurs in round we will follow tournament policy. I understand this format can be daunting and will try to be gracious where I can be.

For a more detailed view of my paradigm:

Speed:

Go as fast or as slow as you like, I will most likely be able to follow it. If your speaking is unclear or too quick I will say "clear." However, I expect that after saying clear you will make some kind of adjustment and if you do not that may be reflected in your speaker points. If you are skipping words or mumbling I will not be very impressed, nor will my flows for you be a great reflection of what you are trying to get across. Crisp speech can make your spreading much easier to flow and thus give you a better chance at winning your arguments.

In general, I am not of the belief that more arguments mean you are winning unless the round is framed that way or if there is no other weighing mechanism for the round. Thus, even if you have 6 arguments on the flow and your opponent has one or two they may still win if there is sufficient weighing or reasoning as to why that one or two points are critical for the round evaluation. I really love complex analysis so if you need to cut down one or two cards so that you can make ground breaking analysis you should. However, this does not mean you need to re-explain what your cards already have said - your tagline is enough for that.

Layering (what I default vote on first)

When I was on the circuit most rounds were evaluated with theory being the highest level to vote on followed by a ROTB or ROTJ followed by traditional framing and the offence that could be weighed underneath. This typically meant that theory trumped K's which trumped DA's which trumped Stock. As a whole I will probably evaluate the round in a similar manner UNLESS you or your opponent make a convincing argument for why I should otherwise. K's and traditional frameworks (especially the standard) can go head to head super strategically so if you want me to evaluate them on the same level make a case for it and I will probably agree. I also am not sold on the fact that theory has to be the highest. Re-order the round by telling me what is most important based on previous and upcoming arguments and I will do my best to evaluate the round like that.

Example: I ran a specific K in high school that when up against theory could implicate the theory itself thus making the K the highest level in the round. That same K literature I had restructured as traditional framework. As a result, in some rounds I could argue that my value and value criterion (standard) were a higher level than theory.

Make the argument if you think it is necessary. I will weigh the round based on what you and your opponent tell me is logically the highest.

Framework:

I will evaluate any framework you present and have a fairly high threshold for both traditional and progressive frameworks as I did both often and successfully when I debated. As stated above I will weigh the framework however you present it to me.

You do not have to have framework to win but you do need to provide me some tangible way that you can gain offense. Really clearly explain why you have offense and why that gives you voters and you will be making a good step towards winning the round.

A really well thought out and written framework is a dangerous weapon that not many people understand. If you are running a framework I expect to see really clear reasons as to why that framework deserves our attention.

On value / value criterion (standards)

Your value and value criterion need to be linked together pretty strongly, if they are not you are loosing a lot of possible ground. Philosophy is one of my favorite areas of research (especially Kant and Mills) and I have read a lot of primary work for a lot of the authors commonly used for framing. Most of the time debtors use these author's work incredibly incorrectly. If you or your opponent can convince me that the philosophy of the other is misrepresented it will effect how I evaluate the round. Know your philosophy well, understand the philosopher's pitfalls and be ready to defend your case regardless. You do not have to use philosophy for your value and criterion, and it can be really strategic not to, make a case for whatever and If you are convincing I will evaluate it fully. If you do use philosophy consider making a few clear lines of reasoning to explain the application of the philosophy. In your constructive speech there should be authored justifications.

The value criterion is typically an action but it does not have to be. I will also evaluate a value criterion that explains how to approach a philosophy or a specific value. This is the area where I think practical philosophy really shines through.

As a whole, implicate your framework fully. Explain how your framework plays out in both the world of the aff and the neg and how that colors the round as a whole.

ROTB/ ROTJ

Just as I expect that traditional framework is well explained, I expect that you provide clear warrants for the ROTB and ROTJ. It is not enough to just say something is bad (or good), you have to tell me explicitly why what you advocate for is the sole way to win the round. Implicate this out if you want your framework to hold up against a competing framework. I will vote on traditional frameworks over the ROTB if it is not properly understood to be the only viable mechanism in the round. Explain how your framework plays out in both the world of the aff and the neg and how that colors the round as a whole and you will be much closer to convincing me that your ROTB / ROTJ is worthy.

Your ROTB / ROTJ does not necessarily need an author to justify it as long as it is clearly linked to your case and has some sort of warrant.

Plan texts and CP text:

A good plan and counter plan are really fun in the debate space and I am all for it. The more specific a plan text the better. If your plan or CP plan text is not specific enough it may create problems for me when I evaluate the round. Structure accordingly.

K Literature:

I loved to run K's as a debater and would love if you do too. I am most familiar with Biopower (I know Foucault extremely well and his work is much more powerful than most think. Pros of running Foucault in front of me: I know his theories very well so it takes less explaining for me to understand, I will see links fairly easy, I just think its super cool. Cons of running Foucault in front of me: I know his philosophy well and can you do not, I evaluate counters highly, I won't buy a not implicated case). I ran into a wide variety of cases and authors when I was in high school and can understand them fairly well.

I do not know the complexities of every author (even some of the more popular ones). It is your job as the competitor to explain the complex theories in a way that is both accurate and effective. I will vote off of how I perceive the round and not off of my preconceived ideas on the literature. I ran a lot of authors not well known and did fantastically with them, you can to. Don't be afraid of Kritical literature that is not mainstream in the debate world, if you believe the discourse matters it matters. Read it, and I will evaluate it.

In general I have a much higher threshold for topical K's (I loved running a topical K aff), but am okay with non-topical K's as well as long as you have strong linkage.

Links:

I really do not care if you link to your opponent and kritik them or if your links are to an idea in the case, as long as you have a link standing at the end of the round you should be good. More links at the beginning are strong but it just takes one to implicate the case. However, make sure your link is secure and specific enough to your opponent or whatever it is you are kritiking. K's that are general enough to be read every round are fine, but I will vote on non-uniqueness if there is not a substantial reason why the world of your opponent entrenches the implications.

Impacts:

Have many of them and weigh them well.

Alts:

I will evaluate any alternative. Discourse alts are cool, more specific alts are cool, just make sure you actually know what they are and clearly communicate what they do.

Here is a list of K's I am most familiar with: Affro-pessimism, Ableism, Biopower, Cap, Feminism

These are broad categories of K's I either ran or studied a lot. However, I was familiar with many K's and read kritikal literature often so don't be afraid.

Performance

I have very little experience with performance, and may not evaluate it how you wish. In general, I prefer empirical evidence to back up claims so I would prefer performance only takes up part of the speaking time and is supported by evidence heavily. However, make an argument for how I should weigh performance and I will consider that in my evaluations.

Theory

I have a pretty high threshold for theory in that I understand how it works and will vote on it as a strategy. However I do get disillusioned with theories that are run by a competitor just to win the round. Frivolous theory takes away from the purpose of theory as an argument and although I will evaluate whatever you read to me, if a counter theory calls out your frivolous theory well, I may be moved to vote on it. Theory is an interesting strategy and has its place, I will vote according to how it was portrayed in round.

A note on disclosure:

Rarely have I found that lack of disclosure is more harmful than the way disclosure theory can be read in round. I will vote on disclosure theory if I am forced to by the way the round progresses. However, run disclosure theory at your own risk. If your opponent answers it well you could be in trouble. That said, I will evaluate disclosure theory like any other argument- it all depends on you and your opponent.

Be KIND!

I do not look kindly upon creating a space that is unsafe for other people. Show incredible kindness to others in everything you do. I will not vote you down for being rude but your speaks will suffer. Be kind. If your opponent is not comfortable with speed adapt. If your case is possibly triggering, warn others. If you are a champion against a novice be patient and understanding. I value debate and debaters and care that we create a community that is safe and enriching.

A Final Note

I can not wait to see what you can do. If this paradigm has left you with doubts let me reassure you, I am the judge you can run your most loved but weirdly progressive case against and at the same time the judge who would love a deep phil heavy traditional round. Run whatever plays to your strengths!

Lay Judge

If Debate: Explain your arguments in a simple manner. Don't go fast. English is not my first language.

If you make arguments about programming/computers make sure it is up to date and accurate.

The more persuasive and powerful speaker that is able to play the policymaker role

If IE: Make sure to speak clearly, make sure to have good volume so I can hear, English is not my first language but I am still proficient enough to judge, and follow the rest of the rules for your respective events.

Good Luck and remember you're bold for competing and your words hold power

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!

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!

I like creative arguments, you can run almost anything. I am fine with speed, I will say clear once and then put my pen down and stop flowing you. Remember to signpost, and make sure to list clear voters at the end of your last speech. DO NOT RUN DISCLOSURE THEORY unless absolutely necessary, its boring, overdone, and a waste of everyone’s time, I will not vote off of it unless there is literally nothing else to vote off of in the round. Yes, I want to be on the email chain Hannah.Len.smith@gmail.com

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

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

Feel free to ask any questions before the round starts.

Other prevalent issues:

Clipping Cards:

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

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

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

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

Policy Debate Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

Kritiks:

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

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

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

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

Lincoln Douglass Debate:

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

Trad and UIL Style LD:

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

Value Framing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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.

i will listen to any argument as long as the warrants makes sense. I tend to have a high threshold for voting on extinction scenarios, doesn’t mean I won’t, but your link chain has to be solid.
Non topical stuff needs to show me why giving you the ballot outweighs topical debates.

Not very receptive to shady theory. I want a reasonable argument indicating abusiveness.
I vote on arguments made in a voters section. These arguments must be substantiated throughout the debate. But I don’t want to intervene so it’s your job to write my RFD.

i want to be on the email chain but I find speech drop works best.

I don’t time. Time each other. Don’t be rude, keep it professional and avoid any personal attacks. Kindness will be rewarded in speaks.

if you plan on running anything different might double check before the round that I’m okay with it. I listen to most stuff. I love K debates over super policy rounds. I find debates that collapse to topicality and theory very boring, if the round necessitates such arguments I understand but I’d rather your strategy make sense to the context of the round.

Always send a marked version of the doc if you end up going off schedule and be clear when you’re reading anything not on the doc. I flow off the doc, I still want to understand you when you’re speaking so don’t abuse the fact that I flow off the dock and read so fast you’re incomprehensible.

Speaks

30-29: Expect to see you in out rounds. Amazing well thought out strategy. Clear arguments.
29-28: Few logical inconsistencies, good strategy and good overall performance.
28-27: Confusing at times and suspect strategy. Made the round unclear.
27-26: Mostly unclear. Strategy is poorly planned.
26-25: Non responsive and no viable strategy.
25-20: Reprehensible behavior.

I am a high school  debate coach. I have been judging debate for ten years, and am experienced in judging both Lincoln-Douglas and Policy Debate.

The distinction between the approaches to Lincoln-Douglas debate and Policy debate is important to me. Spreading, voluminous evidence, and complexity as competitive tactics make sense to me in Policy debate and are inherent to the nature and style of the activity. In contrast to that, Lincoln Douglas in both style and content should in my opinion emphasis values driven debate, logic, and articulate delivery that emphasizes eloquence and effective speaking. I do not think that spreading makes sense in Lincoln Douglas - it is not consonant with the nature of the activity in my opinion.

I am a tabula rasa judge in the sense that I do not enter a round with a predisposition to emphasize one side's burdens over another's. I flow the constructive arguments and rebuttal looking for which side most effectively addresses the resolution, creates the most coherent and relevant case, and effectively clashes most thoroughly and effectively with the elements of the case presented by their opponent. Speaking and poise help to convey the logic and clash that are the substance of debate, but it is the rhetoric itself that matters most to me.