If you're reading this, I'll probably be judging your round at a debate tournament. I'm a sophomore at UIW in San Antonio. I debated in policy all through high school qualifying for state, advancing past pre-lims, etc.

For email chains or if you have any further questions, use: abigaila4321@gmail.com

Overview:

For the most part, I'm a tabula rasa judge. I'm only going to evaluate what is present in front of me in a debate. Do not expect me to connect the dots for you, and definitely don't expect me vote for you because I can read your mind and understand intentions you're not explicitly stating in the debate. I don't tolerate any racism, sexism, etc. in debate. I do not tolerate disrespect, and should the opposing team call you out on that, realize I will take that into heavy consideration in judging the round and your speaker points. (To solve this issue, just be a decent human being). In any event, I'm not impressed with spreading (speaking quickly) for the sake of spreading. If I don't understand what you are saying, I will not flow. I will give signals such as dropping a pen, but if you keep going, ignoring my signals, your argument is not getting flowed because I don't understand what the heck you're saying.

Regarding speaks, I respect effort, humor, and decency. There will sometimes be obvious ranks for speakers on who did the best, but for the actual points, as long as I see effort and attempts made, your points will reflect that :)

I'll tell y'all my paradigms in round, so don't stress about needing to know all of this information.

Tadbit more specific (if you wanna read)

Debate in all aspects is split between defense and offense. It will probably help you a lot if you're able to access more offense in your case (yes it's even better to turn a great defense into a great offense). This doesn't mean throw out a bunch of points and be like "WooHOO! OFFENSE!" Offense is actually making a point that is beneficial to why I should vote for you, not the others.

Topicality: Make sure you have a clear T-Shell and you didn't just pull up a dictionary and expect me to interpret it for you. These are never huge voters because when teams try to run them, they usually do so to fill time then drop them at the end to waste everyone's time :( If you run this, please actually have it be constructive to your arg

AC/NC and AR/NR:As their names mean, respectively, these arguments should be spent building up your case, getting all relevant evidence and arguments out there, then making sure nothing goes unanswered and explaining why I should vote for you. See it as writing my ballot for me. I abhor bringing new arguments in the rebuttals due to no cross and trying to force the team to use their rebuttal time to acknowledge your newfound point. Make sure to keep arguments made relevant. Don't drop it in a speech then bring it up in the end, again, not giving proper respect to the other team to give them time to respond. Though, don't interpret this as I need a whole speech for a point. A simple, "Hey remember this," is more than enough for me :)

I don't like Condo.

for the chain- zaarah.azad@gmail.com

reagan '21, duke '24

pronouns: she/her

qualified to the TOC twice

for prefs:

if you're a hardcore policy team, i would not pref me high. i did k debate of 3 of the 4 years i debated so that should probably tell you how well versed i am with policy things. if you do end up having me in the back and only read these arguments, don't worry. you just have to simplify and connect the dots for me more than you would for other judges. for k teams i am probably in the range of a 1-3 and policy teams from a 4-6.

background:

my sophomore year i read settler colonialism and linguistic criticisms like anzuldua. my junior year i read a baudrillard aff and a bunch of k's on the negative like semiocap, wilderson, settler colonialism, and baudrillard. my senior year i only read warren on the aff and neg.

notes:

- clarity > speed

-tech > truth in most instances

- don't be problematic. i am unafraid to vote on microaggressions. (racism, sexism, death good)

- clipping is bad but needs proof (L and 0 speaks for the team who does it)

- try entertaining me! judging can get boring sometimes so enjoyable rounds are always good

- zoom debate can be miserable if you aren't careful. please have a good mic, try and have your camera on, and don't speak over others during cx because nothing can be heard

kritiks:

- these debates can either be really good or really bad - please don't make them bad

- im familiar with antiblackness, set col, cap, and baudrillard. even if i may know what you are reading, you still need to do nuanced analysis on the thesis of your k.

- i never understood long overviews cause you re-explain all of what you said on the line-by-line. if you do have a long overview, try and make it the least redundant as possible.

- i have a deep deep deep hatred for links of omission. please make them specific.

- framework determines the rest of the debate. you need a model of debate that is preferable and probably should have offense on why the other side's model is bad for debate.

- if you read a kritik against a K aff, i will reward specific engagement by holding affirmative teams to a higher standard for permutation explanation.

- you can kick the alt

- just cause you won your theory of power doesn't mean you won the round :P

t-usfg:

- i read k affs a lot but that doesn't mean i wont vote for t usfg. it just means i know a lot about how it should be ran

- clash as an impact>>>>

- fairness and limits > education and ground

- often negative teams forget to do impact comparison when going for t-usfg - this is the easiest way to win my ballot

- subjectivity debates matter and can implicate a lot of the flow

- i think switch side is very persuasive and solves a lot of offense

topicality:

- i lean towards competing interpertations but will still vote on reasonability

- case lists are nice

- i appreaciate intent to define arguments

- impact comparison is pretty important

- good counter interp ev is really cool.

- like t-usfg i am more persuaded by limits fairness and clash than education and ground

counterplans:

- smart, creative counterplans are appreciated if executed well

- i like counterplans that are textually and functionally competitive, but your counterplan by no means has to be. i mostly just think you should have a solvency advocate.

- i lean neg for most counterplan theory except for consult, condo, solvency advocate. theory debates get wack so do a lot of work here to make it make sense

- i need instruction for judge kick.

disadvantages:

- impact comparison is especially important for these debates

- evidence comparison is also pretty important

- turns case arguments when executed correctly are strategic and beneficial for negative teams

- 1ar gets new arguments to new uniqueness, links, or impacts in the blocks

theory:

- apart from things like condo and judge kicks i am not nuanced in theory arguments. slow down and overexplain things if you plan on doing this in front of my

case debate:

- you should probably do this besties

miscellaneous:

- i hate aspec. if you hide this in a t shell i hate you.

-be nice. being sassy can be fun but there is a limit

- respect your opponents. respect their pronouns. don't cut each other off. just be respectful

- put a trigger warning on your stuff!!!!!

- i am heavily influenced by Philip Dipiazza, Gavin Loyd, Sean Kennedy, Rafael Sanchez, and David Gutierrez. if you have any questions, their paradigms could probably answer it.

- taylor swift references gives you +0.2 speaker points

For the chain- davidbgutierrez9@gmail.com

Reagan '21, Dartmouth '25

General:
You can pref me high if you do k debate, and you can also pref me high if you do policy stuff. I have experience with both—you can go for anything you want in front of me as long as it’s not garbage. Examples of said garbage: hidden a-spec shell at the bottom of a T arg, (can’t really think of anything else—will update if I do).

Tech>truth almost always, be as fast as you want, be reasonable and not super annoying in round. Also don’t disrespect opponents in round—speaks will drop for sure if you’re laughing at your opponent for example.

Judge instruction/spin is important. You can win all your args on the flow and most likely pick up my ballot, but an exceptional 2ar or 2nr will synthesize the important parts of the debate, explain why you have won them, and then explain what that means for my ballot. You should be warrant-heavy, but your speech should incorporate judge instruction into those warrants.

Also, saying “The disad outweighs the aff on magnitude, timeframe, and probability……” is cringe. Just tell me why the DA outweighs in your own words—your overview shouldn’t necessarily use those words.

Also, debate is probably a game, but that doesn’t mean you cannot win that it is not. That’s the whole point of the game—I vote on things based on technical argumentation, not based on whether I personally believe in your args.

Kritiks:

Make your links specific. You’ll obviously have generic link blocks for your 2ncs, but those shouldn’t be copy pasted into your speech doc every round you read the k; they should be contextualized to the specific affirmative you’re debating.

In many cases you don’t have to go for an alternative assuming you’re making arguments about epistemology, scholarship, and education. The exception is Capitalism; you prob need an alt.

Don’t drop the case. At the very least make turns case arguments, tell me why the aff itself doesn’t matter considering that you have won x, y, z argument which structures how I should think about the aff. If you drop the aff you let the 2ar lie quite effectively and talk about how the aff outweighs—that’s not good for you.

Theory of power pretty important—if you win it you’re in a good spot because you’ve dictated how I should understand the world, the aff, etc. But just winning it is not enough—you have to tell me why winning it matters for the rest of the debate.

I’m a 2a at heart, so keep that in mind. Here’s an example of what this means: I hate when neg reads a standard k, describes it completely standardly, and then pivots in the 2nr and says “aha—it was a floating pic all along. We tricked you, GGs”. This strategy is not convincing and unfair. If you’re good at debate, you don’t have to lie to your opponents about what your argument is. I am unlikely to grant you the pic if you do this. This logic applies to other stuff too—be reasonable.

Also, winning framework is definitely important, but I lean towards weighing the aff against the K. It makes sense to weigh the adv against the K impacts.

CPs/DAs:

Read them if you want—the best strategies are the most specific, with recent uniqueness evidence and high-quality link evidence, supplemented with more ev in the block to overwhelm the 1ar, and then making fun of the 1ar’s mistakes in the 2nr while extrapolating all the warrants from your ev.

Not gonna evaluate these by “yes/no” standards. For example, you can win like 60% of your DA and I’ll weigh that against the amount of the aff they won. (I’m obviously not going to think about it numerically while judging)

Sufficiency framing is good for counterplans—solvency deficits to counterplans need actual impacts—if they don’t have a legit impact, who cares? CP is good enough.

The disad can be bad if you’re winning the counterplan. If you solve the case, then any small DA is enough of a net benefit—you should say this in your 2nr. This means that a 2ar shouldn’t devote a ton of time to things like impact defense on a net benefit. Even if you nearly zero the impact of the net benefit, the existence of a net benefit still means I vote for the counterplan.

I’m probably not judge kicking—kick it yourself. Judge kick is strategically bad—why would you spend like 2 or 3 minutes of your 2nr on a position that you’re comfortable kicking during the rfd? Do you really wanna give a 2 and a half minute 2nr when you could be giving a 5 minute one? If you’re in a position where you need to ask for judge kick, you’re probably already losing. Just go for the DA then.

Probably won’t vote you down on anti-counterplan theory unless you did something super uncalled for. Perhaps I’ll vote on condo bad if you have 6 condo positions and leveraged 2ac answers on each position against each other making it impossible for aff to say things, but otherwise, probably not.

Topicality against policy affs

Eh. Nothing to really say here. I prefer competing interpretations slightly, but that’s not super important bc I’m just gonna vote based on your args. Like, win your T shell and you’ll get my ballot, idk.

Limits, fairness> education and ground

Framework/K Affs:

Will obviously vote for both—I don’t have any particular preference or predisposition.

Limits and fairness are better than the other impacts, but I’ll still vote for whatever. Framework teams generally need to be ready to defend their model of debate critically—the 2nr should not just brush off aff’s DAs to their interpretation—it should use them to gain offense. Debate them like disadvantages, read turns and defense and do ev comparison, etc.

K teams answer framework every round so they’ll likely have more experience and practice with it. That means that good K affs will likely have good built-in offense against framework. This means framework teams need to answer the aff. Reading specific answers to their theory will always put you in a better spot.

Obviously, read your K aff in front of me if you want to. I need to know what the aff does pretty early in the round—it’s fine for the aff’s method to be something obscure from your lit base, but it needs explanation. For example, if you read some Deleuze stuff I will most likely be unfamiliar with it. Just tell me in a concise way what it does. I’m unlikely to be the judge that says “Idk what the aff does, I vote neg on presumption”, but my ballot will become a lot easier if you do that work. Also, leverage the aff against whatever the 2nr goes for. I’m quite persuaded by structuring your speeches with “framing issues” that I’m instructed to funnel all the information through—your goal should be to control that framing issue by the end of the round. This also applies to policy rounds.

Theory:

Feel free to make the debate a theory debate in front of me. I won’t be super excited about it but do what you need to do to win.

T debates are not about what you did—they are about what you justified doing. But that’s not the case with theory debates, in my opinion. If you tell me that neg justifies infinite condo positions by reading 2 condo positions in the 1nc, that’s not persuasive at all. I don’t really think it makes sense to understand many theory debates in terms of “models of debate”—it should be about what they did in this round that was unfair.

Case debate:

Feel free to go for the unanswered piece of offense on case in the 2nr—you don’t always need to go for a DA or CP. 2nrs that are really hard to answer give the aff no outs—so going for 5 minutes of a lightly touched impact turn from the 2nc is all good.

Hi my names Mish I debated at Brandeis for 4 years and am now a freshman in college!

Please put me on the email chain: mishkaathj@gmail.com

General:

- Time your own speeches

- Don't be rude, especially during CX my pet peeve is when the team asking the questions doesn't let their opponents answer

- Spreading is fine as long as I can understand it and I have what is being read so I can follow along

- Pretend I am a child that you are walking through the debate, at the start of the debate I know nothing which means I want everything explained well I prefer quality over quantity, nobody likes listening to 7 different arguments in the 1NC

- Tech over truth

- make sure to explain why you're winning each argument you are going for in the 2NR/2AR, I heavily go off of these speeches for my decision

- Have fun! debate is a game treat it as one

T args

- Do I think T args are stupid? Yes. Do I like T args? Yes (but this doesn't mean I'll vote off of it, unless the arg is insanely amazing)

CP's

-Nothing much here I like them again explained well

- Case turns I eat those up

DA's

- I love DA's I prefer facts which is why all the technical args speak to me more than k's if I'm being honest

- Case turns on DA's I love as well, keeps the debate spicy

- The link on the DA needs to be strong, if theres not a strong link theres no point in reading the arg

K's

- I like K's I was a K team

- K's are a lot of work, I will not assume anything for you make sure every part of the K is covered and explained well

- EXPLAIN THE ALT!!!!

- I need a strong link, again if the link isn't strong enough there is no reason to read the argument

AFF

- For aff anything if fine I don't prefer any specific thing on affs

- I will say for K affs just try to be a little more clear because I need everything laid out for me

Reagan High School – 2021

ale35093@gmail.com

Top Level- was a k debater but open to anything non problematic

-only judged a handful of tournament on this topic so if your going to have a super techy policy debate help me out a little more to understand the arguments and dont just assume that I already know things specific to the topic and aff or neg specific terms

-if you any questions feel free to email me

Speaks- spreading is fine with me as long as it is coherent and able to be understood

K's-read alot of diverse k's so I should be familiar with most arguments but that doesnt mean I will do any work for you it just means I will understand the arguments as you are reading them

Framing-I value framing alot in debates and it will definately go a long way with me in winning my ballot

Topicality- atleast be related to the topic don't bring that foolishness around here and althought I would preffer for you to engage in k affs on a content level topicality is still a good strat in front of me

Disad's- again not super familiar with the DA's on this topic so work with me and make sure they are fleshed out enough for me to understand or it will be much harder for me to vote on it in any capacity

CP's- must have a cp exclusive net benefit in order for me to vote on it i know this is kind of a given but none the less

my bio

-was a 2N

-making me laugh equals +.1 speaks

-i enjoy debates alot more whenever both teams are respectful towards eaech other

Gordie O'Rorke (he/him)

- University of Texas '26 -- not debating

- Winston Churchill '22

- Put me on the email chain -- gordieororke03@gmail.com

TLDR:

- I do not know this topic. Please explain acronyms accordingly. I am willing to listen to any arguments that aren't racist, homophobic, sexist, etc.

- I am tech>truth. You still however need to extend arguments completely even if they're dropped.

Other Relevent Things:

- I prefer word docs over google docs and pdfs.

- Don't say "see-pee".

- Disclosure is good -- send your ev.

Topicality

- Ok for it. I lean towards competing interps. Have an impact.

Counterplans

- Wildly arbitrary process cp's aren't my fav but I guess if you're good at it. Not good for intricate cp theory debates.

Disads

- No unique thoughts here. Love turns case args.

Kritiks

- Not familiar with niche lit bases and args. I prefer if you have an alt, but not necessary. I default to weighing the aff.

K Affs/FW

- Be in the direction of the topic. Love SSD and TVAs. I might get lost in deeply theoretical K v K debates.

LD/PF

- I am unfamiliar with the intricacies of these events. RVIs are a non-starter. I don't know what tricks are and I am not voting on them. I will regrettably vote on disclosure theory, but if you use it as a cheap shot against debaters who obviously are unfamiliar with the argument or national circuit norms, you will not like your speaks.

Hi all!

My biggest request as a judge, especially since we are online, is that you speak slowly. I'm not the biggest fan of spreading but I can comprehend it, but please don't spread at the speed of light during your round.

I am also not a fan of K affs and theory args but if you think you can argue it well, then be my guest :).

I would like to be included on any email chains as well shashaogork02@gmail.com.

For IEs, I'm okay with giving time signals just let me know.

hi! i debated 4 years at brandies high school and am currently a freshman at UT Austin.

put me on the email chain pls: soniaprao23@gmail.com

General thoughts –

if you don’t warrant your claims they don’t count as arguments

spreading is fine as long as you speak coherently - if i don’t understand what you’re saying, i won’t flow

hate speech will not be tolerated

extra points if you make me giggle

dropped arguments are only sufficient enough to win debates if explained by the debater

don’t interrupt your partner during their speech

i frown upon rudeness and mansplaining in CX periods

do not steal prep time

tech over truth

ASPEC bad

starting new arguments in the neg block is a bad move

2ar/ 2nr - explaining which arguments are most important and how they’re winning with persuasive evidence and clarity is key

ROJ and ROB are very important and i weigh these heavily

Ks

- even if i’m familiar with the literature of your K, don’t assume. explain it to me as if i’m not

- specific links to the aff are key

- don’t just blaze through prescripted blocks in the 2nc/ 1nr that have no connection to aff responses

- k tricks are great

- not every k’s sole purpose is to get the ballot, in-round impacts are valid

K affs

- very entertaining and fun to judge! i read one myself senior year

- aff has the right to reject the resolution based on whatever reasons they explain

- performative affs are cool but make sure to specifically outline an advocacy statement clear to me and the negative team

T, CPs, DAs

- im good with all of these

- i like case turns on das and cps

condo

- i generally do not vote on this argument but if it goes unanswered or you have good offense do it

Last updated: Spring 2023 -

I am currently in my second year of debate at Trinity University (Go Tigers!). I was in debate all 4 years in high school and competed primarily in Policy and LD; however, I have experience in most events.

I'm also currently an assistant coach at Basis Shavano in San Antonio.

Add me to the chain --- wwalker1@trinity.edu

Please create the subject in this format: "[Tournament Name] [Round number] [aff teamcode] v [neg teamcode]"

Send pet pictures/cute animal pictures in the 1AC/1NC I won't give speaks but it is kinda funny otherwise.

Tl:DR: I consider myself tabula rasa, and I like to think of myself as purely evaluating what is said in a debate and spitting out a decision, but I do have opinions and feelings like anyone else. However, I always make an effort to minimize the impact that has on my decisions. I do start from the position that the 1AC should establish some advocacy and mechanism to justify it, and the neg should forward some reason why the 1AC, 1ACs model of debate, etc. is undesirable. This view is certainly not set in stone; my decision is always based on what happens within the debate, but without an alternative way of viewing the debate, that is how I default. Winning offense in the last speech and weighing it against other offense in the round is really what is most important for me. LBL and warrant analysis is everything.

Please have the email chain and disclosure done before the round begins.

Speaker points - They are based on the strategic decisions made in a debate. Effectively collapsing, weighing, and making your line by line easy to follow is how you get good speaks in front of me. Please signpost, i find it hard to follow debates when there is minimal or subtle signposting. Please make it explicit so I know where to flow.

I don't Flow of the speech doc and won't even really look at it during the debate, I'm entirely listening to the words you say for my flow, This means I value clarity more than raw speed.

Speaker point note - I have noticed I'm not a speaker point fairy. I think what's really most important to get good speaker points from me is executing a well thought out strategy. I think this also needs to be supplemented with really good evidence. The people that get high speaks with me have a very solid strategy from the 1NC, and they executed it with cards that have highlighted warrants and good explanations and extensions in the latter speeches.

Topicality & Theory -I really love technical T debates. However, I think many teams don't execute it very well which makes it frustrating to judge. What's most important to me in these debates is judge instruction and warrant explanation. As in, I find these debates normally leave me with a lot of questions that could easily be resolved with better impact calc, as well as better line by line the teams actual warrants. Essentially, when these debates are super block heavy and/or aren't executed well, it can be frustrating to evaluate. When reading these positions, please just clean it up in the final speeches and articulate a clear interpretation of what debate should be like, how they violate it, and why it matters with impact calc that explains why your thing matters.

Disad & Counter plan - Not much to say here; I really like these strategies a lot. Well-executed policy strats make me very happy, and you shouldn’t be afraid of reading your process counter plan or disad + case strat with me in the back. As long as you can explain it, I should be able to hang. Ask specific questions pre-round or email me.

I think extending the counter plan into the 2NR does not automatically forfeit the ability for the judge to weigh the net benefit + status quo against the aff. Its a question of what the best policy option is that are being defended in the 2NR and 2AR. I think most of the weird ambiguity with when i should or shouldn't judge kick the counter plan can be resolved by more judge instruction, but as a default, I treat judge kicking the counter plan as a logical extension of conditionality and will default to it unless told otherwise.

The K - I enjoy well-executed critical debates, but I have found that I really dislike poorly executed Ks (aff and neg). I've spent most of my time in debate, reading, and learning about the K, and I really enjoy it. Rather than just listing off all the lit bases I've heard of or read, I'm just going to say that I am down for anything you can explain. Explain to me what debate is, why we should be here, and win offense. Technical debate does not disappear in K debates without some justification for why I should abandon the flow, but that would itself require the flow, so it's an uphill battle for me. K's as impact turns are really persuasive to me, I've found, more so than when the alt is just framework. Not that I am opposed to those flavors of Ks; I just tend to like Kritiks with large substantive components.

In K debates, I find that teams that don't establish a clear articulation of what my ballot does normally don't win in front of me. This looks different depending on what position you are going for; however, I think what it really boils down to for me is explaining what my job is, how I'm supposed to view an argument or debate, and a clear articulation of what I do with an argument if it is or is not won. This is really what makes the difference between a confident decision and an unsure or confused one.

T-FW/USfg - I don't think affs necessarily have to be instrumental defenses of policy to be topical. I really love these debates when done well and there is lots of clash on both sides. I don't have many specifc thoughts about framework, I have debated it and read it many times and familiar with both sides of the debate.

K affs in LD - I find teams often don't execute and/or allocate enough time to the fwk sheet to realistically win the debate by the 2AR. This does not mean that you should not read critical affirmatives in front of me; on the contrary, however, I think the 1AR should be much more offensive in most k aff debates that I judge.

Just for reference, I have defended both plans and planless affs throughout my career and love a good clash debate. I am absolutely willing to vote on framework against planless affs, and won’t hack one way or another.

Phil & Tricks - This is where i have spent the least amount of time thinking about in debate. I require a high level of warrant explanation for arguments like this because I think most tricks don't actually have warrants. Presumption and permissibility negates unless told otherwise. Tricks need to still be extended correctly with a claim warrant and impact; if there was not a sufficient level of explanation of the argument in the 1NC/AC and it was pointed out, then that would likely be sufficient to answer most tricks. I'm also likely to be extremely persuaded by any criticisms of trick debates or just some dump about why I reject them, which would likely be sufficient for me in most instances.

Note: I think it is almost impossible to win skep in front of me. I won't hack, but the 1AR uttering the words "pascals wager" and "morally repugnant" will always be wildly persuasive to me, and I don't think there is a skep debater that will be able to explain to me why it is not unethical.

None of this is to scare you away from reading your tricky 1NC; what the debate is about is always up to the debaters, but you should just be aware that I have a higher threshold for these types of strategies execution-wise than other judges might.

If you still have any questions, please email me or ask me before the round!

PF - All that is above applies here. I have no experience with 'progressive' PF. I am very familiar with kritikal arguments and theory arguments, and I am not opposed to these arguments existing in PF in principle. However, my expectations for a competently run kritik or theory argument are not different, and I will evaluate these arguments to the same standard as I would any other argument. I'm not well versed in any PF jargon or techne. I am also not convinced that PF can facilitate a quality K debate given just the structural time constraints unless teams are willing to completely forgo cards and have actually done the reading. Feel free to prove me wrong, but keep that in mind.