Hi! I'm Srini, a parent of a speech and debate competitor. In the rounds that I judge, I expect respectful, engaging debate and prefer a slower pace when you present your arguments. For speech, I'm looking for unique ideas presented in a confident, engaging way (humor definitely helps). Overall, just have fun, and the more interested you are in your topic, so will the audience! Good luck!

HI. You can call me Aaron. Currently a Senior at UT and I did LD at Northland Christian School in Houston, tx for 3 years and competed on the national circuit my last 2. I stuck to mostly DAs, CPs, T and Theory, but I've been exposed to a lot at this point. Please note I've been removed from debate for a WHILE. I judge a couple national circuit tournaments a year, so I haven't completely lost all knowledge. But err on the side of over explaining and slowing down some on important arguments/tags. (Don't assume I know the entirety of an argument from a phrase of jargon, tag the arg then explain por favor) If you're off the doc prob don't go full speed and make sure you're clear mostly because I haven't heard people speak fast since last february.

Add me to chain please: abarcio@utexas.edu

Quick Notes:

- BE CLEAR. I haven't judged in about a year so if it's early in the tournament let me get warmed up. Go a little slower on tags, card names, and especially blocks of analytics.

- If you're going to blitz through analytics please send them. If you don't, I'll probably miss some which hurts you.

- Please do framework interaction.

- Collapse and your speaks will be happier and less margin for error on decision

- The less I have to wait before the round begins the happier I will be

Pref Shortcut:

tech>truth (but won't vote off an argument that is incomprehensible---probably won't be an issue)

1- LARP

1- T/Theory

2/3 - Ks (don't expect that I know the lit tho, explain)

3 - phil (I'm fine w the more common stuff like kant, hobbes, etc., but anything more nuanced pls explainnnn) Likely if you really know what you're talking about, I'll be able to catch on.

4 - tricks (I can probably evaluate them ok just never read tricks in high school so explain well)

*If any questions feel free to ask me before rd or email/facebook message me.*

Speaks:

National Circuit

- 29-30 : makes the strategic decision when collapsing, good explanation, writes out the path to the ballot (I think you should break)

- 28-28.9 : either makes the strategic decision or has good explanation and the one you didn't do isn't horrendous (you're on the bubble to break)

- 27-28 : don't make strategic decisions and explain poorly

- 26 : defend something racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc.

Local (I'm pretty lenient I think)

- I'll likely give speaks by the 0.5

- 29-30 : speak clearly, sound knowledgeable about the topic, and make good arguments

- 28-29 : don't do one of the above

- 27-28: don't do two of the above

- +1 to speaks if you don't use all your prep time (by like a decent amount)

I'm old school. I like a good value/criterion debate. Argumentation and logic are important. Above all remember that less is more.

Note: Things that are bolded in my paradigm are things I think people are generally looking for or I think are worth noting about my preferences. Read the bottom for my speaks paradigm; the TLDR paradigm is the third paragraph in this top section. Everything in this paradigm has a logical justification; ask me if something doesn't make sense and I'll be happy to explain.

Intro: Hi I'm Austin. I mainly debated LD in high school, but I'm familiar with most other event formats. I graduated from Northland Christian HS in 2020 and UT Austin in 2022 with a psych major phil minor. I'm currently a 2L at Texas Law. I competed on the local and national circuit all four years of high school (and have been judging/coaching consistently since graduating), so I like to think I'm pretty up to date on the technical nuances of LD. Add me to the chain at abroussard@utexas.edu. Feel free to email me with specific questions before the round or thoughts on how I could improve my paradigm!

TLDR paradigm: I really love highly technical debates especially on a theoretical layer but I'm good with evaluating policy, kritik-al debate, etc.; by nature (even outside of debate) I default erring on the side of the person who is most logically consistent which means I will not vote for you unless you are ahead on a technical level (absent someone proposing an alternative method for me to evaluate by);my opinion on anything in this paradigm can change, just make the proper arg.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

- I default args must be immediately sequential and/or allow for a sequential response ("concessions are true," "new 2nr args permissible," and "new 2ar args impermissible" are some noteworthy implications to this); this is my default because any other standard allows for the 2ar to always win by either answering arguments from the 1nc conceded by the 1ar/extended in the 2nr in the 2ar or by making new 2ar uplayers (i guess this means my actual default is against any paradigmatic stance that theoretically allows either side to win every debate because that defeats the purpose of the ballot/there being an adjudicator); please ask me about this point if there is any confusion before the debate starts (also note this is not a rigid stance, just a default)

- I will NOT make arguments for you because I believe judge intervention is the worst for the activity; consequently if your opponent does something that propels a model of debate that is sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/abelist or something similar I will not drop them unless you mention it. It can be as simple as "they said/did x and that makes debate less accessible so they should lose." Otherwise the only thing I have jurisdiction to do is give them god awful speaks. To clarify if you don't say that they should lose for their discriminatory actions and they are ahead on the tech debate I will vote for them and be very very very sad about it. Please do not make me do this and call them out for being unethical. It's an easy ballot and better for debate.

- i'll evaluate arguments made as to why concessions don't make arguments true, extensions are unnecessary to win arguments, or any other argument you can think of

- I presume neg unless the neg reads an alternative that is farther from the squo than the aff's plan/advocacy (or presume aff/neg args are made, same for permissibility)

- tech>>>truth

- I default comparative worlds but love truth testing

- I will vote on literally anything given the proper framing metric and justification

- you don't have to ask me to flow by ear; I promise I'm both listening and reading your doc (to clarify, I'll catch extemporized blippy analytics)

- I probably default more T>K but that's really up to you

- Weighing makes me happy, as well as a strong fw tie/explanation

- For ethics challenges/evidence ethics calls reference the NSDA guidelines for this year; if the guidebook doesn't make a speaks claim I will either evaluate them myself given the speeches read (if any) or default normal round evaluation (meaning speaks spikes are viable)

- I don't have a default on disclosure at the moment but in debate I defaulted disclosure bad; regardless of my default it doesn't affect my ability to listen to either stance and adjudicate accordingly

- My ability to understand spread/speed is pretty good; feel free to go as fast as you want but please be clear

- Please please please ask your opponent if your practices are accessible before the round so you are 1. not exclusionary and 2. not susceptible to an easily avoidable independent voter; if you don't ask and end up doing something inaccessible you'll probably lose (provided they make it a voting issue); this includes giving trigger warnings

- flex prep is cool

- if you don't read a fw/fw is a wash I'll presume neg (same for voters on t/theory)

- you don't have to ask if I am ready for you to speak; I am probably paying attention (to clarify, default I am ready unless I say something that suggests otherwise)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pt. 1 Pref Shortcuts (by my confidence in my ability to adjudicate and 1 being most confident 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

Phil/High Theory- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

K- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

LARP- 1 to 3 (depending on density)

Pt. 2 Pref Shortcuts (by my desire to see them in round and 1 being most desirable 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1

Phil/High Theory- 1

K- 2

LARP- 3

note: I will be happy to adjudicate LARP it's just not my highest preference

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy

Plans:

- Love these please know what your own plan says though

- I default plans are abusive mainly because I never read one for its PeDaGOgiCaL VaLUe it was always for strategy but don't let this discourage you from reading a plan seriously they're fine

- Honestly severance is cool with me but if they point it out and make a theoretical reason to drop it could be hard to beat back; if they read a condo or dispo CP, however, it becomes a little easier to get out of

- the solvency section is important for plans, if you don't have one it's gonna be rough

- please have an advocate just for the sake of an easier theory debate

Cps:

- These are cool but better if they're actually competitive; read as many as you want just know anything more than 1 is hard to justify theoretically especially if it's not uncondo (although I love multiple cp debates)

- Any cp is cool (including actor, process, etc.) just make sure the 2nr extension is sufficient to vote on

- I default condo bad but don't let that discourage you from utilizing it as I think condo is super strategic (which is good for speaks), you just have to be technically ahead on the theory debate; feel free to read like 8 condo cps just know it's an uphill theoretical battle (but certainly not impossible)

- I default perms as an advocacy because they always seem to be extended as such but it is really up to you

Das:

- Probably my least favorite position because they all seem to go down the same path towards the 2nr, but a good explanation and coupling with a competitive cp makes this position much better

- the more unique the da the more I'll like listening to it (please don't make me listen to a basic three card econ disad unless you don't plan on going for it)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Phil/High Theory

General:

- Please do notttt confuse this with basic fw debate

- I used to read a few high theory positions but that doesn't mean my threshold for explanation on those positions is lower/higher than any other argument

- Kant is kool but I'm not a hack

- If the aff doesn't have a fw and the neg strategically reads a fw the aff can't link into, aff is probably losing

- If no one reads a fw I will probably not evaluate any post-fiat implications of either side and just vote on strength of link weighing (if justified)/presumption or a higher layer (i.e. I will NOT default util or sv for you this isn't pf)

- I'm hesitant to say this but I did read a decent amount of Baudrillard just know there is a reason why I stopped lol feel free to still read it though I love hearing it as well as any other high theory author

- I especially love hearing new philosophies that are either obscure or that I just haven't heard of yet; phil debate is one of my favorite parts of ld

- I am more likely to vote on presumption than I am to evaluate strength of link to fw in the instance I cannot decide which model to evaluate under

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kritiks

General:

- K Affs are fun but I am more inclined to err on the side of t-fw as that's what I mostly read and it seems intuitively true; it really depends on the framing metric though and I will definitely vote on a k aff vs t-fw as long as there is sufficient tech offense

- KvK is cool

- poems/music/art/performance can be offense and if you don't respond to it your opponent can extend it as conceded (I have no problem voting on conceded performance offense with the proper framing mech)

Fw:

- should have a ROB and/or ROJ (and the best ones are not blatantly inaccessible to one side)

- if your opponent asks you a specific question about the framing of your kritik and you cannot give them a cohesive answer it's gonna look bad

- if the distinction is unclear between the method the k evaluates by and the aff's you will have a hard time winning

Links:

- please don't read links that you yourself link into

- Having specific rhetoric from the aff itself or your opponent is great and much better than just topic/omission links

- I love seeing the extrapolation of links as linear das in the 2nr

- I am comfortable voting off state/omission links they're just boring

Impacts:

- you must have them and they must be unique; please do weighing as well because k impacts don't always contextualize themselves

Alt:

- explain plz; It doesn't have to be explained super well if your opponent doesn't press the issue but I need to have a basic understanding of what I'm voting on i.e. what the world of the alt looks like (unless a set col type arg is made about imagining the alt being a move to settlerism, etc.)

- Please don't make the alt condo/dispo if your k is about some sort of oppression it looks bad

- do not read two contradictory alts in front of me you will probably lose; if they work well together that's cool

Overviews:

- I LOVE these they make it easier to evaluate the line by line because all the big picture issues are out of the way

- Please make sure the overview is not just line by line in disguise (I was guilty of this) but is instead framing the ways I need to evaluate offense

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

T/Theory/Tricks

General:

- literally my fav the more you read the more I'll enjoy the debate as long as you know what you're doing

- friv is fantastic

Interps:

- please make them positively worded

- be careful of your wording; poor wording leaves you susceptible to easy i meets

Violations:

- have them and extend them in the next speech

- screenshots/photos are the best

Standards:

- there are really only like four good standards that the rest fall under categorically but it's whatever

- the more the merrier

- if you do fairness and education linkage inside the standard block I'll be happier

Voters/paradigm issues:

- I default rvi's good and competing interps unless otherwise specified

- I tend to default fairness first but am VERY easily able to be persuaded otherwise

- you must justify voters independently of the standards section (i.e. explain why fairness, education, fun, etc. matter)

Tricks:

- I evaluate these arguments like any other (if they have a claim/warrant/impact you're good)

- I think a block of text is funny but definitely annoying as far as the organization of your spikes/tricks so preference is at least numbering but it's really not a big deal if you can explain them well

- These arguments are generally so bad but if you don't respond or spend too much time messing with them the round becomes significantly more difficult for you

- I can be persuaded by some sort of spikes k so be wary

- I'm unsure if afc/acc are tricks, but know I'll listen to both and any other pseudo-trick

- aprioris and eval after the 1ac are the a-strat

- I'm fine with indexicals, condo logic, log con, etc. (idk how else to say i'll vote on literally any trick/arg generally)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speaks

General:

- I will grant a 30 speaks spike (i.e. give both/one of the debaters 30 speaks for x reason) as long as it's extended (or reasons are made as to why an extension isn't necessary)

- if no ties are allowed on the ballot I technically am unable to perform "give both debaters 30 speaks" and i'll evaluate like i normally would; if you know no ties are allowed/are uncertain if ties are allowed, spec 30/29.9 rather than 30s bc that's always permissible on tab (and i'll give the 30 to whoever would be ahead under my typical speaks evaluation unless told otherwise)

- if you're uncertain if tab

- I generally give speaks based on strategic decision making (and will try to justify the deductions if asked, although ultimately they're always on some level arbitrary)

- Anything that you do that purposefully makes your opponent uncomfortable, expresses discrimination/oppression, or generally makes the debate space unsafe will result in your top speaks being a 25 and more likely will result in a 0 or whatever the lowest allowed speaks value is

- for locals I generally give 28-30 and for nat circuit 27-30 unless the tournament has a specified structure; occasionally if the round is super underwhelming I'll evaluate a local like I would a nat circuit

- If you make me laugh you're definitely getting a speaks inflation but this is rare and it has to be genuine

- I'll clear twice without a speaks deduction and definitely have more lenience in the online format (i hardly ever clear anyways)

hi !! i'm lilly - I debated for Northland Christian from 2019-2022. I qualed to the TOC my senior year, got 2nd speaker/made it to octos there, and bid/broke at a few tournaments.

EMAIL CHAIN: lillynicole643@gmail.com

Defaults

Tech > Truth

Fairness > Education

1NC Theory/T > 1AR Theory

T/Theory > K

Comparative Worlds

No RVIs, Competing Interps, DTD

(obviously my opinion on these can be swayed if u make the arg - these are j defaults)

HOT FLAMING Ls

Racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/anything else that makes the debate space unsafe

clipping

SHORTCUTS

1 - T/Theory

1 - LARP

2/3 - Trix

3 - Phil

4 - Ks

T/THEORY

What I mostly debated and am most comfortable with

Pls explain semantics

Friv theory is good but the threshold for responses is lowered

LARP

Good for all types of positions + enjoy cheaty counterplans

weighhhhh oh my godddd

In depth scenario analysis in rebuttals/a display of understanding of plan nuances will make your speaks happy

debated heg good v bad debates way too often and now kind of enjoy IR debates

TRIX

are for kids but i will evaluate

need. warrants.

threshold for responses is pretty low tbh

your speaks prob won't be fantastic

PHIL

I don't spend that much time thinking about this

pretty good understanding of: util, kant, hobbes, prag, ilaw

anything else please please warrant and explain

Ks

good for k affs but also pretty receptive to t-fw

the argument i spent the least amount of time with in debate

alt explanations/analysis are extremely important

willing to vote on anything but the burden is on you to explain your literature

SPEAKS

30 - breaking @TOC

29 - late elims of any given nat circuit tournament

28 - you'll prob make it to a bubble round

27 - well youre def here and you def said words

26 - you said something shitty/just had really bad strat/incomprehensive after warned

25 - racist/sexist/we had a problem in the round

if u include a haiku ill boost ur speaks by .3 :) can't believe I have to put this but capping this at 2 haikus.

Games player judge - I view debate as a game. I look at the debate as a game board and the flow as an offensive and defensive structure. Strategy is something I value and tend to look for its usage throughout the debate.

I do not mind speed as long as words can be understood. I would prefer that if you want to visit spreading, to provide a copy of your case. I also evaluate on speaking ability. I listen for fluid speech and professional mannerisms. Vocabulary plays a part here.

I like hearing cited sources when making claims.

I am relatively new to judging.

PF: Please read slower than you would for a normal judge and prioritize weighing. I encourage you to drop arguments going into summary if you have one that is better than another. If you spread, I will give up trying to hear you. Running theory is ill-advised. I'm a parent judge.

Speech: I am a parent judge, so of course I am not going to be in the loop on all the technical aspects of your event. If you are the first speaker (or any speaker) in the room, you should probably tell me how timing will work as I do not know how you want it.

I have judged Public Forum once previously, one weekend of 12 rounds. I am a lay parent judge.

So please, no jargon.

I have a tabula rasa approach and I evaluate every debate based on what is presented to me in round.

I am open to all styles of debate.

LD- I'm open and can understand traditional and progressive arguments. I judge mostly on voters/impacts, clear and concise delivery and adherence to the prevailing framework according to the flow. I can understand spreading (if you know how to spread). Please don't misapply or abuse theory arguments. I weigh evidence and the most topical, latest or most logical cards coupled with framework/r.o.b solvency and voters usually wins out. I'm always available via email for questions about rounds or ballots. (agaunichaux@utexas.edu)

PF- As mainly an LDer, I can handle speed but since this form of debate is meant to be accessible to laymen, I strongly discourage spreading and including overly complex frameworks/advantages and arguments. Establishing impact and remembering to extend or drop arguments is very important for my flow and the team who best establishes advantages under the strongest framework/advantages always has an edge, even if the framework/advantages were co-opted from their opponents by linking in. And the framework/advantages which are most germane to the resolution are usually preferred. Up to date and relevant evidence with depth and scope is best. I'm always available via email for questions about rounds or ballots. (agaunichaux@utexas.edu)

I am a retired coach. I have judged LOTS of rounds in all formats. I consider myself traditional in my approach to all events. I have provided my paradigm for speech and debate events here.

Public Speaking Events

All speeches should have well structured introductions, fully developed body, and satisfaction for your audience thru your conclusion. Sources are key to your speech, you should use a variety of appropriate sources. I expect that your speech will include the "why do I care" - What draws your audience to want to learn more from what you have to say. In extemp, I expect you to answer the specific question you were given. I evaluate all non-verbal communication in your presentation. I accept all perspectives on all topics; however, I expect that your are aware of your audience and avoid language or statements that may be offensive.

Interp Events

First and foremost, pieces should be appropriate for the venue. While I understand that some pieces may contain some sexual innuendo, I will reject innuendo that is not a part of the original script or that is added for the "shock value" rather than the development of the performance. Your introduction should be more than telling me the storyline that you are presenting. There is a reason you chose this piece, a topic you want to discuss. Share that in your intro. Give me believable characters that I can empathize with. Be sure there is an identifiable difference in your characters.

In all debate rounds

Don’t depend on email chains or flashing briefs to include an argument in the round. If it is not spoken during your speeches, it is not in the round. I prefer a more communicative speed of delivery, especially when using online competition. I can keep up but, I think the idea of trying to spread your opponent out of the round is not in the realm of what debate should be. I would rather hear a good clash on the arguments presented.

In PF

I believe PF should be a debate with class. Interactions between opponents should be cordial. Crossfire should be used to obtain information NOT to belittle your opponent. You can not ignore your opponent's arguments and expect to win. Evidence and common sense are key.

In LD

I feel that LD should be philosophy based. Even if the topic is policy-oriented, the selection of a policy is always based on values. Therefore, you should be prepared to debate your value and criterion to support your view on the topic. If you can't support your view, how can I accept your position?

A Kritik on the topic is not an acceptable position. You have been given a topic to debate and that is what I expect to hear. If all you offer is the Kritik, you have not upheld your burden and will lose the round. Running a Kritik on the topic in addition to case arguments is a huge contradiction in your case.

If you want me to view the round from your viewpoint, you must provide voters in your final speech.

In Congress

This is a congressional debate. I expect that you do more than read a prepared speech. There should be responses to previous speeches. You need to be active in the chamber. Questions are an essential part of the process. With that being said, don't ask questions that do not seek to expand information. That is a waste of the chamber's time and takes time away from those with solid questions. Provide sources to the house to substantiate your points.

In CX

I encourage traditional debate in terms of format. That means I do not like open cx. With that being said, I accept progressive style arguments. I will listen to your arguments, but I expect you to provide warrants and logical analysis. If you are the opponent, don’t assume I will reject an argument on face, you must respond if you want to win the argument.

I DO vote on STOCK ISSUES. So Affirmative teams should be prepared to meet those standards.

Negative teams, please don’t throw out a dozen arguments only to drop the ones that don’t stick. If you bring the argument into the round plan to carry it thru to the end.

Label your arguments before you start reading your briefs!

I believe it is essential that you weigh the impacts of your argument in the round.

I appreciate if debator speeks clearly at moderate speed, and more importantly presents substantial supporting materials.

I have judged in each seaon for past 5 years. My son has graduated 3 years ago and now my daugher joines in this wonderful program.

1. Do not talk fast. If I do not follow your argument, I cannot give you points for it. I take notes but do not mistake that for flowing the round and thus start speeding up.

2. In general, I feel that the quality of contentions is more persuasive than quantity.

3. It helps to have Aff to my right and Neg to my left.

4. Please keep time yourselves.

5. I prefer not to give verbal feedback and instead will try to do so via the ballot comments.

*** I wish both teams happy debating - and always, may the best team win!!! ***

Parent Judge. Will do my best to make a fair vote.

I have done policy and LD for 3 years. I currently do parliamentary debate and IPDA debate.

What I like: I really enjoy line by line argumentation. Structure is key for a good debate. I enjoy critical arguments or anything fem

What I don't like: I really enjoy critical arguments but I rarely vote on K. I don't like cases that have no impacts or structures. As a female debate, I understand the sexism that some female debaters may face. So in no circumstance would I listen to an argument that is inherently racist or sexist.

I'm a parent judge. I won't understand and therefore not evaluate speaking at above a quick conversational pace. Please debate the topic, and don't run tricky positions. You can run Ks, Theory, and PIC's/CP's but you run the risk of me not understanding, so err on the side of over-explanation. I like weighing and outlining your path to the ballot. I am not great at determining the correct winner on the flow, so I will vote for the most persuasive debater, however empirics and good evidence will win you ethos. I try to give high speaks. TLDR; lay

Hi! My name is Sydney O’Connell. I competed for Northland Christian School in Houston, TX for four years and I'm now a junior at Southwestern University in Georgetown, TX. I primarily focused on Congressional debate and Extemp, dabbling in worlds schools as well. In WSD, I competed locally, as well as at NSDA Nationals, the Kandi King RR, and Greenhill. In Congress, I competed on the local and national circuit for three years finaling at tournaments such as ASU, Berkeley, UT, and more; I qualified to the TOC my junior and senior year and TFA state sophomore, junior, and senior year.

Congress:

• First and foremost, don't feel like you need to change yourself as a debater. I will evaluate you all equally regardless of your technique and style.

• Don’t lie about/make up your sources.

• Please stay active in the round. Even if you've already spoken, keep asking questions or getting up to question. It makes my rankings a lot easier when competitors are active the entirety of the round.

• Be mindful about the kind of speech you are about to give. Is it a constructive AFF/NEG, Rebuttal, Crystallization, Refutation, Combination? If you find yourself in a position where arguments have already been said, adjust your speech to bring a new perspective to the round or wait until the next item to speak.

• I'm not a fan of one representative giving 2 speeches on the same legislation as it increases rehash and takes away opportunities from other debaters to speak.

• For POs: Please be efficient. I'm not asking you to abbreviate parliamentary procedure but think about your word economy when calling for speakers and questioners after the first cycle. If you make a few small mistakes, it will not affect your rank, but if I see consistent mistakes it will.

Worlds:

• I am looking at teams that are sticking to the heart of motion throughout the entire debate. I want to hear a cohesive story down the bench.

• You need to have logical warrants, links, and weighing of the principle and practical down the bench. Examples are good but they don’t count as links or warrants.

• I would like to see a comparative worlds at the end of the debate.

LD/PF:

• Treat me like a traditional judge please.

• I'm fine with disads, counterplans, and plans.

• Do not spread. please.

Everyone:

• Have fun :)

• Be respectful and be kind

• Debate is an inclusive and educational activity, so if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, or anything that is targeted or harmful to a community, you will get dropped.

I am a parent judge, somethings I like to see are: confident speakers who project, don't spread, speak clearly, and be passionate. Also remember to be respectful to everyone in the round. I don't flow but I do make notes of the important points, so if you would like me to weigh something in the round be clear about it. I do read the news daily and know what is going, so don't make things up in round. Thank you for participating in this amazing activity, you will use the skills you learn in debate throughout your life!

I prefer pragmatic analysis over evidence, but more recent/strong evidence is important.

I am impartial to conservative and liberal debating.

Outstanding speaking skills and presentation are always a plus.

Articulation is key for me to understand your argument better.

UT'24

email- alexanderjamespoll@gmail.com

I debated CX for 3 years and stuck to policy mostly and dealt with Ks lightly. I will tell you right now that my optimal round is policy v policy. If you have a K aff it should ideally not be too critical and I want a plan text.

Stuff you should know

1) You share evidence, unless you have memorized all your arguments, you will be reading off paper or a laptop, share that with the opponent.

2) Don't flex, if you are clearly winning the debate using some convoluted K, you are intentionally vague in CX and are just trying to win by not allowing for any engagement, I'll dock points cause no one learns anything and you're just an asshole.

3) Slow down for tags and analytics, and make the transition from card to analytics clear

4) WARRANT CLAIMS, I'm not gonna buy bold claims with a buzzword thrown in somewhere if you don't warrant it, an unwarranted claim will not be evaluated by me at all in decision making. If you are debating in front of me and someone doesn't warrant a claim, say they don't and move on and the argument is gone.

5) Evidence with no warrants highlighted - if the highlighted evidence is just the tagline, it's bad evidence. This is only magnified within K debates. Also if you are running a K and the tagline has nothing to do with the evidence you should probably call them out, a lot of K debaters seem to be doing this more and more often.

6) Don't be rude in CX, it's just debate

DA - I prefer a specific link but generics can sometimes work just as well when ran correctly. I prefer more flushed out DAs though and I would much rather have 2 DAs that are well articulated then have 8 DAs that took 30 seconds each.

CP - btw consult CPs suck just don't run them, and I generally don't like condo but if you can justify it, go for it. If however the condo CP does contradict other neg arguments I am much more lenient with the aff on grounds of abuse and there is a decent chance I will straight up drop the CP. Besides that I love CPs and think they are super broken if you use them right and can go great with DAs.

Performance - please strike me

Theory/T - Competing interpretations is what I default to, run anything though as long as you can justify it. Really not much else to say but on the topic of voters and primarily fairness I have seen a lot of arguments like "discrimination used to be considered fair" to justify terrible theory shells, if you do stuff like this, I don't buy it and you won't convince me to buy it.

K - The main problem with a lot of people who run Ks is they seriously don't understand the literature, they just spread as fast as they can and usually articulate very poorly in CX, these rounds I hate and will not judge well. If you run a K, run it clearly and accessibly. I will not evaluate high theory like Deleuze with great efficiency so keep that in mind, stick to things like cap if you really want to run it in front of me. Oh yeah, and links of omission aren't real.

incredibly important facts about who i am as a person - I main little mac

I am an LD debater from Strake Jesuit.

As a senior I got 3 bids to the TOC. I also cleared and made it to octos.

Add me on email chains: porterjoshua2002@gmail.com

I want to objectively evaluate arguments to determine who wins the round. For this reason, I give you a list of round scenarios and give you my comfortability in evaluating them.

1 = best (as in fairest evaluation on BOTH sides)

K vs K = 1

LARP vs K = 1

Phil = 1

LARP = 2

K affs = 1

Friv theory = 2

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, weigh and develop a ballot story.

Theory: I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T affs: These are fine just have a clear ballot story.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity (clarity being the least important).

Prep: 1. I prefer that you don't use cx as prep time. 2. It is ok to ask questions during cx. 3. Compiling a document counts as prep time. 4. Please write down how much time you have left.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/offensive (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip.

Hey I’m Jack! I went to and now coach at Northland in Houston, TX. Feel free to ask questions before or after the round. Add me to email chains at jbq2233@gmail.com

TLDR: I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I most enjoy judging policy arguments.

Defaults

- Tech > Truth

- Fairness > Education

- 1NC Theory/T > 1AR Theory

- T/Theory > K

- Comparative Worlds

- No RVIs, Competing Interps, DTD

- Presumption flips neg unless they go for an alternative advocacy

- No judge kick

Preferences

- I'm cool with anything as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. None of my personal opinions or interests in arguments will factor into my decision.

- I want you to debate the way you debate best. I want debaters to read what they know and are invested in.

- No buffet 2nrs please

- Be nice to one another and don't take yourself too seriously

Hot Ls

- If you are sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist or something similar

- Clipping/losing an ethics challenge OR a false accusation

- Stealing prep

Things I'm not voting on

- Any argument concerning out of round practices (except disclosure)

- Any argument concerning the appearance/clothes/etc. of another debater

- Any auto affirm/negate X identity argument

- "Evaluate the entire debate after X speech". However, I will evaluate "evaluate ___ layer after X speech".

- IVIs not flagged as IVIs in the 1NC/1AR (possibly a 2NR exception)

Policy Arguments

- My favorite type of debate to think about and judge

- Evidence comparison and impact calc are the most important things

- Great for heavy case pushes. Impact turn heavy strategies are good and solid execution will be rewarded with solid speaks

Kritiks

- I don’t have a strong preference for or against certain literature bases

- I won’t fill any substantive gaps in your explanation (this goes with anything, but it seems most relevant to what I’ve seen in K debates)

- It really helps when the 2NR includes lots of examples, especially with more uncommon literature bases.

K Aff/T Framework

- The affirmative needs to provide a model of debate with a role for the negative

- Neg teams should have an answer to case

- It is vital that aff teams provide an explanation of solvency that I can easily explain back (maybe slow down a bit here)

Phil

- Not good for dense phil v dense phil (good for util vs other phil)

- I’ve noticed that lots of phil aff contentions are pretty weak, I’d like to see more neg teams go for turns on the contention

- Neg teams should read more CPs with phil offense

Tricks

- Fine if there is an actual warrant and implication.

- Not voting on something that I don’t understand/can’t explain back

- I would recommend going MUCH SLOWER in rebuttal speeches. The current standard for an extension of a paradox or some kind of logic based trick is functionally re-spreading through the exact same block of text or contrived piece of evidence. In these debates I have found that I err heavily on the side of the other team simply because I do not understand the argument in the rebuttal.

Theory

- Great for theory

- The frivolous nature of some shells does not factor into my evaluation. Although, reasonability tends to become easier to justify and the answer becomes easier

- I’ve never voted for a team that violates in a debate where they don’t disclose (this means they didn’t disclose anything in any way) the exception is obviously new affs

T

- Caselists are necessary

- The negative needs definitions. Debate over T definitions are great. Slow down when doing comparison

- Recent explanations for bare plural arguments by negative teams have been nothing short of atrocious – please understand the semantics before you read Nebel

Misc.

- Prep ends when the email is sent

- CX is binding

- Email should be sent at the start time - I'll dock .1 speaks for every minute it's not sent (unless I'm not in the room)

Speaks

- Less prep and sitting down early will be rewarded with higher speaks.

- Clarity is VERY IMPORTANT. If you are unclear and I miss a “game changing” argument – that’s a you problem.

- Speaks will be awarded for good debating (strategy, technical ability, good CX, etc).

Speak in a normal speed and tone. When you speak fast, it comes off very monotone. Debate is a conversation about specific topics. Be CONVERSATIONAL in your speaking. It's not about who gets the most information, but about who has the best information and presents it best. DO NOT SPREAD!!!

Please make sure your cameras are turned on.

Please don't tell me how to vote. You may SUGGEST how I should vote. But, when one says "you must vote in favor of (insert side here)," it sounds more like a demand.

In debate rounds, I always flow. I'm pretty open (tabula rasa) to whatever you want to bring into the round (trad, progressive, theory, Ks, etc.) as long as you explain its relevance to the topic and/or its relevance to debate (the activity as a container or that round in particular). It's your round (debaters) so do whatever you want with it. Speed ("spreading") is fine as long as you are clear. If I can't understand you, I will say "clear" while you are speaking to indicate that I am unable to understand what you are saying and subsequently, that what you are saying is not getting on my flow. That is either due to your speed, clarity, or both. Signposting is always helpful and appreciated; speed or not. Beyond what I've written here, feel free to ask me more specific questions before a round begins.

For round email chains: rowen.consultant@gmail.com

Contact Info:

Email: nevilletom1@gmail.com

Facebook: Neville Tom

Basic Info:

Hi! My name’s Neville. I debated for four years at Strake Jesuit (got a few bid rounds during my career if that makes any difference), and I’m currently a freshman at UH. I’m still kinda working out the whole judging thing, so there’ll probably be some edits to this as time goes on. As such, please feel free to ask me any questions prior to round if you need any clarification about my judging style or my paradigm.

How to Win (the TL;DR version):

You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

- Weigh: Do it. A lot. As much as you POSSIBLY can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate.

- Crystallize: Don't go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take time to provide me a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as we're winning this/these argument(s), we should win the round."

- Use Overviews: I find that debaters who use overviews effectively tend to win more rounds. It will definitely help me evaluate if you start off your rebuttal speeches with an overview, so... *shrug*. A good overview will have these three components: (1) explain which issues matter most in the debate, (2) explain why those issues matter most (why I should care about them most), (3) why you're winning those issues. After that, feel free to go to the line-by-line to do the grunt work. This will help clarify the round and will help me to focus on the issues that matter.

- Warrant your Arguments: When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them for the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you.

- Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any disambiguities that might affect my decision.

- Creatively Interpret Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit on first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. For example, if you win a Hobbesian framework and claim that the sovereign should settle ethical dilemmas, then feel free to make the implication that theory is illegitimate because it is not a rule that the sovereign has proposed.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Losing & Lower Speaks (Borrowed from Chris Castillo's paradigm):
1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too).
2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand, so don't just read some dense phil or K and expect me to understand it.
3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters.
4. Don't steal prep.
5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip. If I get conclusive evidence that you are purposely clipping, then I will down you.

Speed:

I’m fine with it – make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism (This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. Tags

5. Author Names

6. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

7. Analytics (in rebuttals)

**NOTE: I'm not asking to talk at a snail's pace when making analytical responses to arguments. However, if you blitz out ten 1-sentence analytics in the space of 5 seconds, I will not be able to catch all of them, so it would be to your betterment to slow down a bit. Additionally, it would help me flow analytics if you provide a verbal short 2-word tag prior to making your argument. For example, "A-point, no warrant: (insert argument here). B-point, missing internal link: (insert argument here). C-point, turn: (insert argument here). D-point, turn (insert argument) here." etc., etc. Feel free to be creative with your tags.

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategical decisions in round, but sounding pretty doesn’t hurt. I’ll start at a 28 and go up or down based on how you do.

Explicit Argument Preferences:

- LARP:

Read what you want. I'm cool with plans, CPs, DAs, PICs etc, as I tended to run them quite a lot as a debater. Just run them well.

Things that I would like to see in LARP rounds:

1. Rigorous Evidence Comparison. In my opinion, this skill is the key to being a good LARPer. It is much more compelling to me if you read one card about climate change being false and winning why your evidence is better than your opponents compared to your opponent spreading 18 cards on climate change being real.

2. Weigh. Do it as often as possible and make sure to do comparative weighing between your arguments and your opponent's. Prove to me why your arguments matter more than your opponent's. The earlier this debate starts, the better.

3. Advocacy Texts/CP Texts. I need to know what I'm endorsing.

4. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Case Debate is Amazing. People don’t do it enough. A 1N that isolates every internal link to solvency on the aff and line by lines the warrants + reads weighing and comparison for their turns vs aff solvency links / 2NR that collapses to the case debate and just gives a really good ballot story and explains all the interaction will really impress me. Similarly, a 1AR that deals with a heavy 1N press well and explains/weighs their own ballot story will impress me.

5. Small Plan Affs/PICs. These really interest me. Don't lose on the case debate as (a) if your aff/PIC is really a small one, they really shouldn't have any good answers to the aff/PIC and (b) it will indicate to me that you weren't all that prepared to defend your position to begin with, which will not be good for your speaks. Also, be sure to be prepared for the theory debate as I tend to err towards the abuse story of the interp, especially if they provide round-specific abuse stories.

- Kritiks

Again, read what you want. While I was definitely fascinated by critical literature and knew how to read and go for one, I admittedly didn't read Ks all too often, and so may not know/be aware of all the nuances of this style of debate. I have a decent understanding of some critical literature, including (but not limited to): Wilderson, Deleuze & Guattari, Edelman, Puar, Lacan, Agamben, Baudrillard, Tuck and Yang, etc.

I tend to view debates as an issue of testing the truth and falsity of the res (but this can easily be changed). Unless convinced otherwise, I view Ks similar to frameworks: to me, Ks filter what offense matters. As such, I view ROBs and FWs to function on the same level (you can convince me to think otherwise in round, but that's my view).

Things that I would like to see in K Rounds:

1. A Clear Link. I need to know explicitly what the K is criticizing. It doesn't matter whether it is the method, the reps, the discourse, or whatever. Just make clear to me that the aff has done something wrong and what exactly that is.

2. A Cohesive and Comprehensive Explanation of the Alt. Make sure to spend a decent chunk of time in the 2N explaining the alt. Explain to me (1) what the world of the alt looks like, (2) why this is net preferable to the aff, (3) why the alt solves the impact, and (4) why the alt is mutually exclusive. If you can explain all of these very clearly to me, I will be much more inclined to vote for you and will definitely boost your speaks.

3. Normatively Justify your ROBs. While not ABSOLUTELY necessary, I find completely impact-justified ROB somewhat uncompelling. Providing a conclusive ethical theory (this doesn't necessarily have to be justified by analytic phil - it can be justified by your critical author of choice) that provides a framework for your ROB will provide more nuanced discussion and will definitely give you a leg up in justifying your ROB as the framing mechanism. If done well, I'll give you speaks a big boost.

4. Make your K Accessible. Show me that you understand your K. Explain it to me (especially in the 2N) in easy-to-understand language. Also, even if you're using generic literature, use your K to provide a very close, nuanced analysis of the aff and paint a very detailed picture of the world of the aff vs that of the alt. This will help me to learn and understand more about the K and garner you good speaks.

5. Provide an Explicit and Unambiguous ROB Text. Give me an explicit metric through which I should view the round and adjudicate. If I can not make heads or tails of how to weigh using your ROB, I will use an alternate weighing mechanism. If the ROB is ambiguous and doesn't provide a clear way to weigh arguments, I will be much more compelled by a Colt Peacemaker-type shell that has a contextual story to the round, should it be read.

6. Notes for Non-T Affs. I have no problem with them. If that's your style, then go for it; just do it well and tell me why I should vote for you. However, if T-FWK/T-Defend the Topic becomes an issue, then be sure to: (a) provide good justifications for why you could not have been topical as I tend to be compelled by nuanced TVAs, (b) provide ample well-justified reasons for why the aff/your voters come prior to fairness and any impacts to it, (c) depict a clear picture of what your model of debate looks like and why it's net preferable to that of the interp, and (d) (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm), generate impact turns based on your aff, not just random impact turn cards like Delgado. I’ll vote on these external criticisms, but it’s much much less compelling and persuasive than your specific arguments about the aff.

7. Notes for Aff v.s. K. (a) PERM THE ALT. I will listen (and evaluate) any type of perm that you come up with, even "silly" ones like judge choice or method severance. (b) Go for "Case Outweighs", ESPECIALLY if the alt is very vague: I have not heard many great responses to this argument. (c) If your opponent's alt is vague, point this out: if I think you're correct in your assessment, I will be much more lenient in your responses to the K as a whole.

8. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Performances are fine, but it ends after your speech. If you try to play music during your opponent’s speech, for example, I will drop you. Believe it or not, I need to hear your opponent’s 1NC to evaluate the debate.

9. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Personal attacks in a debate round are unacceptable. I will not vote on an argument requiring someone lose for something that happened out of the round or out of their control, such as an attack on someone for their school/coach/affiliations. This is not limited to the K debate, but it is where I have seen it happen most.

- Phil/FW

As a debater, I loved the framework debate as I found the literature super engaging and the style super strategic. Unfortunately, the style seems to be falling out of fashion (#bringbackfwdebate), and so I am definitely down to judge this kind of debate. I'm decently well-versed with a lot of philosophies, such as: Util (duh), Kant (and Neo-Kantianism), Hobbes, Deleuze, Innoperative Community, Agamben, Particularism, Virtue Ethics, Derrida, Existentialism, Testimony, Levinas, Butler, etc.

Things that I would like to see in FW-heavy rounds:

1. Have a Meta-Ethic. Not only is this super strategic in excluding other frameworks (and thus, offense), but it also provides a great starting point to any framework.

2. Provide a Syllogistic-Framework. Explain why each premise (following your starting point) is necessarily the only possible derivation from the former proposition. This will make your framework (a) a lot harder to attack, (b) a lot easier to understand, and (c) a lot easier to defend, which is a definite win-win. It's a lot more compelling than random blips about "preclusion" or impact-justified frameworks. Also (especially if you're aff), draw out implications from your premises so that you can apply it to different scenarios. For example, if you've justified that there is an intent-foresight distinction (i.e. all that matters in judging the morality of an action is the intention behind it), feel free to draw out the implication that this means that you should not lose on theory because you did not intend to violate the shell. If you do this, I will definitely give your speaks a boost.

3. Use Skep. Do not be afraid to justify why skepticism is true as long as you justify why your framework resolves the problem. Use it to justify why your theory is better than others. If necessary, feel free to trigger skep in round for your strategic necessity - I feel that this is a legitimate strategy and that the onus is on your opponent to prove why it is not, should they have a problem with it.

4. Provide a Explicit Framing Mechanism. Be able to explain in simple terms (a) what your normative starting point is, (b) why your framework is the only one that can be drawn from this point, and (c) what actions your framework cares about. In other words, be clear about your view of what ethics is. Be sure that you provide a clear weighing mechanism that explains how I should evaluate arguments.

5. Don't be Sketchy. Make it clear to everyone what offense links and doesn't link. if in CX you do not provide a clear answer to your opponent about the offense that links to your framework, chances are that I won't know how to use your framework. As such, I will be very lenient to new reinterpretations of your opponent's arguments and will be much more like persuaded by a theory argument about vague weighing mechanisms.

6. TJFs/AFC are great. Read them if that's what you want. I will definitely be impressed if you manage to have decent nuanced theoretical reasons to prefer frameworks that aren't Util as I feel that this is an area that is (as of yet) unexplored by the debate community.

7. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Framework hijacks are super strategic. Well explained and executed strats based around hijacks will get you high speaks. If you are able to provide good clash in defending your framework against a hijack, that will also garner you high speaks.

- Theory/T

This style of argumentation was one that I initially struggled a lot with. Later in my career though, I grew to love and implement it in a lot of my round strategies. If you are able to run theory and debate it well, I believe you will definitely go far in your debate career as it definitely improved my winrate and my capacity to generate arguments quickly as well as my critical thinking skills.

Things that I would like to see in Theory Rounds:

1. WEIGH and CRYSTALLIZE. Theory has a bad rep of being super blippy and unaccessible and I can't say I blame the people that feel this way. The theory debate tends to collapse down to who blitzed out the shortest analytic responses which tends to result in very, very messy and hard to adjudicate debates. Doing this can make you a "good" theory debater. However, in order to really get to a higher level in this style of debate, you have to master the essential skills of weighing and crystallizing, which are generally seen in the later speeches. These speeches on the theory debate should be less and less blippy and focused on the essential issues of that debate. In front of me, you should (a) provide an overview where you isolate how I should evaluate the theory debate and what offense matters under this framing, (b) explain your offense really well, (c) prove that your offense comes prior to your opponent's, and (d) clearly indicate why this offense links back to a voter. If you do this successfully, I will definitely give you high speaks.

2. Do Comparative Analysis between the World of the Interp and the World of the Counter-Interp. Use this framework to explain what the net benefit is in terms of the interp/counter-interp. Don't be afraid to explicitly say, "Under the world of the interp, there is (some net benefit). The counter-interp can't resolve this issue, and as such, you should reject it."

3. Default Theory Paradigms. I do not like to default to any specific issue in this style of debate, as I believe that it is your job to justify them. However, if there comes a situation in which I need to default, then here they are:

(a) Theory > K/ROB

(b) Fairness > Education/Other Voters

**NOTE: I will only default to these if these voters are read. If you do not read voters on your shell, then I will not evaluate the shell - the onus is on you to provide a framework through which I should evaluate the debate.

(c) Competing Interps > Reasonability

**NOTE: if you're going for reasonability, PLEASE provide an actual brightline that tells me conclusively what counts or doesn't count as reasonable. If you tell me to gutcheck the shell or something along the lines of "you know this shell is silly", I will simply evaluate the line-by-line of the theory debate to determine the winner.)

(d) No RVIs > RVIs

(e) Meta-Theory > T/Theory

(f) T > Theory

(g) Semantics > Pragmatics

(h) Text of the Interp > Spirit of the Interp

**NOTE: If you go for spirit of the interp, provide some sort of metric through which I can understand the "spirit" of the shell, as (a) I dislike gutchecking as it can lead to arbitrary decisions and (b) I'm rather compelled by the argument that the text is the only objective metric as I cannot truly know what the spirit of the interp is.

(i) Drop the Argument (DTA) v.s. Drop the Debater (DTD): I do not have a default on the implication of the shell. The onus is on you to read them.

**NOTE: Conceded paradigm issues do not need to be extended. For example, if Competing Interps and No RVIs are conceded, you do not need to extend them again. If you need to refer to them again for whatever reason, feel free.

4. Be Creative. This style of debate really rewards those who like to go off-script and try new things. As such, I encourage you to try new ideas with theory in front of me. For example, use creative independent voters and argue why said voter comes prior to other voters.Just be sure to explain how to evaluate the argument and why it means that you are winning.

5. Be Nuanced. Make your shells as contextual as possible to the specific round. Feel free to extemp your shell (just be sure to provide either a written or digital copy of the actual interp before your speech so that I have something to hold you to). This will not only boost your speaks, but is also much more strategic as it becomes more difficult to respond to.

6. Policy on Frivolous Theory: To be perfectly honest, I've never quite understood what frivolous theory is. If you can provide a definition that conclusively defines what differentiates frivolous theory from a "normal" theory shell and why it's bad, then I won't evaluate the shell. In other words, use theory however you want.

- Tricks

I got introduced to this style of debate late in my career, but I really developed a liking to it as I found justifying and running meme-y arguments very entertaining. If done well, it can be a really fun round to both watch and adjudicate; if not, though, it can be near-impossible to judge.

Things that I would like to see in Tricks Rounds:

1. Be Upfront. I like debaters being tricky by reading tricky arguments (like NIBs or burdens). However, this does not give you free license to be shifty. In other words, be open with the implication of your tricks and how they function. That being said, I am okay with you providing slightly ambiguous answers. However, I heavily discourage you from providing responses like "I'm not sure, it COULD be a trick," or "I have no idea what you're talking about," or "What's an a priori/spike/NIB?", or just blatantly lying and later doing a complete 180. I will dock your speaks heavily if you do this, will significantly lower the burden of rejoinder for your opponent, and will want to vote for a theory argument indicting your practice, should it be read..

2. I'm not a huge fan of a prioris. I will vote on them provided you do a good job both (a) warranting why they should be my foremost concern under a truth-testing paradigm (if necessary, win that truth-testing is true and should be the framing mechanism first) and (b) provide a well-warranted reason why the a priori tautologically proves the resolution true/false. I will hold you to a higher threshold on proving these issues. If you do this well, then I will not dock your speaks and will likely pick you up if I deem that you won the argument. If you do not do it well, then I will likely dock your speaks and adjudicate the rest of the debate. Other than a prioris, I'm perfectly fine with every other trick, including, but not limited to: NIBs, Burden Structures, Triggers (i.e. Skep, Trivialism, etc.), Contingent Standards, Theory Spikes, etc.

3. Be Creative with your Tricks. Try not to default to recycled tricks like the Action Theory NC or a recycled Distinctions Aff from yesteryear with a slightly changed up burden. Creative tricks will be rewarded with higher speaks.

4. Weigh. Win why your winning of the trick is a prior question to adjudicating the rest of the debate. This can be done via making some claim towards fairness or education, for example. Admittedly, this can be tricky in a trick v.s. trick debate. In this case, attempt to provide unique reasons for why your trick is more true/comes first, and also have an additional out if that debate becomes too messy.

Random Notes:

- Tech > Truth: Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

- Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts. In order to avoid any mishaps, please provide a trigger warning prior to reading any (possibly) sensitive issue. If you are doubtful on whether you should give a trigger warning, then provide one anyway to be safe.

- Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste, however; there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong".

- Disclosure is probably good: I find myself compelled by the argument. This does not mean that I will auto-hack for Disclosure Good or any of its variants - I believe that it is a legitimate debate to be had and if you conclusively win that disclosure is bad, then I will vote for you. That being said, do NOT run it on someone that is clearly novice level/just started circuit debate. If you win the argument, I will vote for you, but I will not be giving you higher speaks.

- Strength of link is a great weighing argument. Use it.

- People I Share Similar Judge Philosophies With: Chris Castillo, Matthew Chen, Tom Evnen, Erik Legried, Etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Edit - Here’s my wikis from senior year so that you can get an idea of the type of debater that I was:

Aff: Senior Year Aff Wiki

Neg: Senior Year Neg Wiki

Parent judge with no debate experience but a somewhat comprehensive background political knowledge, speak slowly and clearly. I have a PhD in international relations and I work in the oil and gas world. I would like debaters to make clear strong arguments, there is no type of argument I wont go for but I am more likely to vote on substance than anything else, but if you lay out how I should evaluate the round then I will try my best to vote accordingly. I don't want to see any hateful speech or egotistical attitudes, I want a clean fair round and anything else will not be tolerated.

Update for Nationals 2021:

I am a math and philosophy major in college as of right now. It has been months since I last judged LD.

I listen to all arguments and judge the round solely based on arguments provided in the round, unless I deem an argument outlandishly false or offensive.

If you make the ballot easier for me to decide, your speaker points are going to be higher. This means to make the round clear.

Do not assume that I am familiar with your position. A good overview and thorough explanations are always appreciated. They will likely win the round for you.

Please don't spread (that means don't speak like Eminem in Rap God).

Have fun! I always welcome paradigm questions before round.

Update October 23, 2020:

I won't say slow or clear on the internet environment. It is too distracting. So you should ere on slower

If you don't try to steal prep and instead start your speech right after you "end prep time", you get extra speaks.

If you are debating online, don't go as fast as you would in in-person tournaments! Slowing down a bit will only help you. Spend your time on the cards. Slow down on taglines.

Update Feb 14, 2020:

Have fun debating! I listen to all kinds of arguments. I was an LD debater in the national circuit two years ago. I am now a philosophy major in college. I am slightly tech over truth, although I believe they are really inseparable. If you have any other questions, ask me before round.

In Short:

1. Slow down on taglines and analytics. I will say "clear" and "slow", but if I have to say multiple times it will reflect on your speaks. I would like to be on the email chain. My email is yancheng_wang@northlandchristian.org

2. Speaks are given mainly on how clearly you interact your arguments (voters) with your opponents', and how you explain your arguments in context. Also, a clearly articulated presentation will probably beat a fast but muddled speech on speaks.

3. I will generally only vote on arguments and voters given in round. That being said, please don't run offensive or stupid arguments to extend that I have to consider my responsibility as a judge to create a safe academic safe.

4. Ask me questions before the round if you are uncertain about things.

5. Explain. Explain. Explain. Reading a prep-out from your coach doesn’t mean you are the better debater, hence it won’t mean you are entitled to win automatically. Argument interaction is key.

6. Respect everyone in the room and have fun! LD is fun :)

Specifically for 2018 Apple Valley Tournament, it is likely that I am not super familiar with the topic, so don't expect me to know your topic specific jargon. Explain well.

Full

I debated for 3 years at Northland Christian School in LD. I went to both local and national circuit tournaments. I never considered myself an excellent debater, but I think I have a solid understanding of arguments. I might ere on tech over truth, but only to an extent.

General

-I default to comparative worlds

-I prefer a more moderate/slower debate. I am ok but not great at speed.

-Give me voters.

New Positions

I love new and fresh arguments! If you bring up something new to debate and interesting, i.e. an inspiring framework, a unique diagnostic kritik, I would be happy and you could get more speaker points. I do this because I think it is good to encourage adding something new to LD.

I will rank how I like the following types of arguments from 1-5. 5 means it is my favorite to judge/vote on, and 1 means I would have a headache.

Theory--3

Theory should be an observation of what a good LD round should or shouldn't look like (your interp) and its justifications(standards) and the impact in this round. Hence, I would vote on potential abuse. Your standards/voters need to justify why your interp is a good normal/rule to have in debate.

Theory debates tend to be very muddled and unclear. There can be a lot of information in a short paragraph. That being said, if you can make the theory layer very clear, I would be more likely to vote for you. The following are my defaults, but they only play a role when there is no argument made in round about them: Competing Interps, Fairness and Education are voters, Theory is a higher layer. For RVIs, it is up to the debater.

Frivolous theory is fine, but I prefer not judging a round that has thirty standards and fifty subpoints and ten voters. Again, make it clear why you should win. Pick one voter to go for.

Topicality--2

I do believe that the aff needs to be somewhat topical, but you still need to tell me why—it is about you debating. If you want to win on topicality, it is vital that you tell me why your definition is better than your opponent’s. I think T and theory are the same layer, which means you have to do weighing.

Kritik—1

I like kritiks, and I think they are really important, but the interaction between dense Ks sometimes throw me off. I am more than willing to judge good K debates because they tend to be very clear and thoughtful. What I don't like is when you run stuff you don't even understand, which is shown when you keep repeating yourself without explaining it in depth or in context. In general, I am not a good judge for you if you expect to run something that no one understands and just win because of it.

I am fine with radical kritiks. I also like it when you are enthusiastic about your Ks. But if you are running any K outside of the realm of the common ones, PLEASE articulate and explain it well for me to understand. That means, I encourage you to run new, but you need to be good at it.

When I evaluate K debates, the most important thing is how your criticism applies in context. If you are criticizing your opponent’s position, it should be more than generic. What does it mean in context of the aff? How does the aff advocacy/methodology fall to your criticism specifically? What does it mean?

In addition, I do think the impacts of the K need to be weighed. I think K is a higher layer only because it re-defines what the ballot means. That doesn’t automatically mean that your IMPACTS are more important. Your opponent still has a chance to outweigh you under your framing, so winning the ROB doesn't mean you automatically mean—you need to explain how you meet and outweigh, even if it is just a brief extension.

Framework/Philosophy—1

I think philosophy debates are very interesting and educational. I think it is also the best form of debate to allow a good debater to win, not just good case positions or good cards.

In philosophy debates, I won’t vote on blippy arguments or arguments that are poorly explained. Reading a bunch of short arguments is fine, but you have to extend and expand them into voters to put weight in them.

I like weird philosophies, but again, you have to understand it first and be good at it. Especially for phil—I won’t vote for you unless I see your harms clearly linked to your framework. I consider skepticism as a philosophy (sort of), so you can run skep in front of me. But I don't like when you run it as tricks—I think that is what has earned it such a bad name.

LARP—1

I like judging LARP debates. They are usually pretty straight forward. Telling a good story will probably get you good speaks and a win.

There is not too much to say. Your extinction impact won’t automatically outweigh, unless it is the only weighing in round. A dropped or under-covered turn is not a guarantee for a win. You need to make weighing arguments.

I am a parent judge and prefer a traditional/lay style of debate.

Please do not spread or run progressive arguments-- a moderate or conversational speed with clarity works best and will get you higher speaker points.

At the end of the round I will vote for whichever side presents their arguments in a more persuasive and logical way.