I'm a fairly new judge, so please stay away from any debate jargon or talking fast. Please time yourselves during speeches and prep time. Tell me how to vote, judge, and weigh the round. In the end, I will vote for which side makes the most sense to me and has the most important impact. I don't know K's, theory, or topicality, so if you are going to run one of them, make sure to explain it very well and tell me how it impacts the round and my vote. I judge rounds based on how persuasive the teams are, and how well they respond to counter-arguments. I've judged LD and PF, but not policy so make sure to explain things and not use jargon. Most of all please be kind to the other team and have fun!

Baylor '25

Colleyville Heritage '21

Email: shahinadebates@gmail.com

I did policy (and some LD) for 4 years in high school and am currently debating at Baylor

Try to make the subject of the email chain: "Tournament - Round # - School 1 (AFF) v School 2 (NEG)" or something similar

--

TLDR

I'm not going to do work for you. That being said, you should write my ballot in the 2NR/2AR and tell me what I’m voting on -- this means these speeches need to be heavy on judge instruction.

Evidence quality matters a lot more than evidence quantity -- a more technical and organized debate is easier to vote on than a card-heavy debate.

Clash is good. Line by line is good. You should interact with the debate you're actively in, don't just spread through your blocks and move on.

DAs:

I start the round with a 100% presumption of a risk of the DA. This means I need impact calc... Do the risks matter? Do they outweigh the aff's impacts? I don’t know, you tell me.

The same 5 affs and disads on every topic gets boring and you know it -- a good impact turn debate is much more interesting to evaluate than people just reading ev at each other.

Tech>Truth is probably the most applicable here.

Counterplans:

You need to explain why it solves better than the plan. Don't just say "counterplan solves" and expect me to vote on it. Same thing with perms too -- "perm do both" isn't an argument.

Well thought out PICs/PIKs are fun and strategic when debated correctly

I will not judge kick the CP unless explicitly told to do so.

Kritiks (Top Level):

I was a K debater throughout high school and now at Baylor, so I'm probably a good judge for you if you want to go for the K

I've debated/researched a lot of Asian Identity, Pessimism, Logistics, and Racial Capitalism in the past and some Settler Colonialism/Grove and Psychoanalysis currently if that is important to you.

Try not to go for things you're not familiar with -- you're missing out on critical substantive debate when you're reading something just for the sake of it

K v Plan:

Sometimes K debates get muddy if there aren't specific links to the aff, so you should probably find some sort of link that is specific enough to the AFF (or at least attempt to contextualize it). That being said, I’ll vote on a generic link if it's insufficiently answered or dropped.

Tell me what the world of the alt looks like; I'm not going to vote for an alt that I can't understand. Same thing with the perm.

I think the aff gets to weigh the plan, but the neg should also get residual links of reps to the plan -- I can be convinced otherwise, though.

K Affs:

I literally don't care what kind of aff you read -- I have experience reading straight up policy affs to K affs. However, most of the Affs I have read/cut have been K Affs -- this is the kind of debate I'm more used to.

I think your Aff needs a topic link at the very least, unless you have a cohesive answer as to why you don't have one.

Topicality/Theory:

Topicality debates are my favorite when done well. I love good T debates and hate bad T debates. Don't make this a bad one.

I really like nuanced T debates against policy affs. I think a lot of these affs get away with WAY too much than they should (like fiating away literally everything) which is why I really appreciate fun little arguments like extra T and effects T being impacted out in the 2NR.

Case lists + examples of ground loss + a good interp = a good T debate.

Topicality is a question of models of debate, not THIS debate. I would rather you go for an education or portable skills/testing impact as opposed to procedural fairness.

I think that condo is probably the only theoretical reason to reject the team, even then, please come prepared with robust explanations of your theory arguments. For all other theory arguments, you should err on the side of over-explanation and more judge instruction.

FW v K AFFs:

Even as a K debater, I'm still going for FW against K affs in 75% of our neg rounds, so I'm comfortable/familiar with both sides of this debate.

I think a lot of teams have trouble with TVAs and SSD, both on the aff and the neg. Your TVAs should have clear plan texts and SSD arguments should be able to solve the content of the aff as well as the 2AC's answers to framework.

I tend to err neg on the fairness question absent specific aff answers as to why FW can resolve aff offense via the TVA/SSD debate.

I think presumption is SUPER underutilized in these debates. K affs are usually very vague in terms of explaining the advocacy/solvency and I think that presumption is probably a winning strategy against K Affs 9/10 times. A 5 minute 2NR on presumption would probably be my favorite (and most preferred) type of 2NR in these types of debates.

PF

Set up an email chain before the round.

My thoughts about PF are basically Judy and Katelynne's paradigms put together -- look there if you have any lingering questions. Email me if you're still confused.

I think Dave Huston's thoughts on progressive PF are probably a good answer to a lot "Ks" that PFers try to read. I'm not against progressive PF BUT you have to make a strong case for why you're reading what you are. Don't tell Dave that I agree with him (he doesn't need to know that I think he's right).

--

Notes:

I appreciate sass and assertiveness (don't make this boring), but be respectful. That being said, use your critical thinking skills to decide what you want to read in front of me.

Other than disclosure, I won't make a decision based on anything that occurred outside of the round -- I probably don't know you and I don't feel comfortable evaluating the character of a person that I don't know.

If you're interested in applying to/debating at Baylor, please reach out! You can send me an email or find me in person if you have any questions.

Background:

4 years at Lincoln North Star; 2 LD <3, 2 PF. Competed at local and national circuit. Ran the trad & progressive ish and a tiny bit of phil w/ absolute hatred (Rawl's, Kant, Macintyre). Mostly read antiblackness (+ Warren, Wilderson, Curry, Karera) and Islamophobia. I do NFA-LD (single policy) at UNL.

Virtual debate will be wonky so speech drop/email chain is highly recommended. Yea I want every card read in round (debaters cut iffy evidence 25/8 -- lez not do that).

Email -- azzadebate@gmail.com

*Do what you want as long as you’re not being problematic. My job is to adjudicate the round as is. Even if I hate the arg, I'll evaluate it if it's warranted/impacted/dropped/conceded/etc. Adaptability is in yo favor tho.

Few big things:

1. Being racist, sexist, homophobic/transphobic, islamophobic, xenophobic, ableist, etc. will get you absolutely nowhere. I will ruin any chance you have at getting a speaking award and you def wont win. Choose your words wisely.

2. Debate should inclusive, as long as that's not being threatened then coo. I vote for identity-based args more.

3. Disclosure is always good -- Idgaf how you feel about it if you think it puts you at a disadvantage. It dont. Just disclose. READ DISCLOSURE THEORY.

4. I love sassy and confident debaters. I cant stand arrogance (and if you are you better not suck). Drop any unnecessary attitude. You look down bad and will irritate me.

5. Engage your opponent's args substantively. Comparing, collapsing, weighing, and impacting is justice. Line-by-line is my preference but big picture analysis at the end is always better.

***PLEASE DONT DO THIS: pick 3 "main'' arguments and summarize why you're winning them. Just no. Hella rzns why dis bothers me and it's not strategic. Please go down your flows.

6. If your extensions don't include warrant and impact, get it together bruh. Tell me how and why you're winning your args, I ain't doing any work for you.

7. I hate it when debaters read identity args that they can't identify with. Speaking for others/commodification is 100% true. You’re gonna bug me if you do this.

8. I wont vote on any yay death or oppression good. Trust me you wna take the L over wasting my time spittin bs and making me tell you how bad it was.

Speed:

- 6-7/10 but don't get too crazy now. I hate having to yell clear, dont make me.

- Accommodate opponents who don't mess with speed for whatever reason (novice, disability, ESL/ELL, etc). Go for speed theory if there's abuse.

- Start. your. speech. slow. Gimme sum time to get into it.

- Pause between cards for like 3 secs yo, it won't kill you to be comprehensible and gimme pen time. Signpost!! If I miss stuff bc i dont know where your sentence began and ended hehe das all you.

- Go at conversational pace and be punctual for t/theory, interps, ROB/J, overviews, underviews, framework/standards, etc. They're mostly text and don't involve hella cards so it's tough tryna get everything down. Chill n bear with me.

*** With online debate, Imma b chilling with "I didn't catch that" in my RFD if you're not clear and go too fast.

CX:

- Don’t ask “summarize/explain your entire contention for me” — it says you suck at flowing and/or weren't paying attention.

- Do what you want, cut it short or extend it with prep idgaf as long as everybody coo.

- Most likely won’t be paying attention so lmk if you’re tryna get me to realize sumn important.

- Do. Not. Bicker.

(Value)Criterion/Standards:

- I don't care for values -- they're not that important. Please collapse if you can. There's no need for yall to be debating morality v justice ong you'll live.

- VC/Single ST is first thing I look at. It's in your favor to win your fmk. Win offense under your opponents too- its strategic and spares me a migraine.

- Extend uncontested justifications on the standards and don't waste my time (shocker but its offense).

DA:

Pop off ig. Find specific links, generic will only get you so far (lez jus not b basic). NR needa do impact calc and case turns.

CP/PICS:

- Make sure CP is textually and functionally competitive. Establish mutual exclusivity/net benefit or a perm is persuasive.

*** Delay CPs in LD are nonsensical- read a better strat.

Theory/Topicality:

- Not the best judge on them so don't expect me to be hella versed. If I'm left with a bunch of blippy args, I'll have a hard time adjudicating it. Big pic analysis is the move.

- I will vote for almost any theory with valid standards.

*** Meta-theory: debaters who read this think they did sumn and they didn't. Don't think about it.

- T/Theory is always a voter and never a reverse voting issue. Nothing about your 6 bullet point answers in your backfiles will make the case otherwise. Just beat the arg.

- "Don't vote on potential abuse" is bs - if it's a bad interp then warrant that.

- Extend all parts of the shell throughout the round.

- Theory is cool to critiquing debate norms and very persuasive if you're winning that it results in better education.

K:

- My favorite.

- I ain't a walking encyclopedia. I'm not familiar with a diverse amount of K literature. Assume I have no clue what you're talkin about and break it down.

- I'm familiar with identity (antiblackness, fem, ableism, etc), militarism, anthro, biopower, abolition. K's I'm not good with are Samio-Cap, Deleuze/Guattari, Baudrillard, Bataille, Puar, and alla that abstract dense lit.

- Alt needs to be explained. Neg is responsible for implementation of the alt. If I don’t get what your alt will do, that ain't it.

Speaks:

I'll give a 30 if you blow my mind and leave me with no criticism. A 20 you done messed up bad, I'm livid, you owe an apology, and your coach will hear of it.

Tricks:

Do I look like a clown? Am I the circus director? Yuh I'm the wrong b, you got me bent.

Other stuff:

- I strongly dislike phil but feel free to read it.

- Don’t care if you’re standing, sitting, laying down, etc. Get as comfy as you want.

- I’m the LAST person you’d ever want to post-round. Don’t try me.

---------------------------------------------------------- PF -------------------------------------------------------

- Tbh; I'm prolly punching the air if I get thrown into judging this. It's been a hot second since I was involved with PF so for better paradigm references (Avani Nooka Addisson Stugart)

- I don't care if you speak fast. If you can do it with clarity and your opponent doesn't care, please do.

- I expect a good clash but don't just re-state stuff. If you clearly have opposing evidence, one of you please do me the favor of reading your opponent's and tell me why yours is better, theirs is trash, yours is more recent, theirs is outdated, etc. Yall only got 3 mins of prep so I wont take prep for exchanging/emailing/checking out evidence but don't abuse it and make me regret it.

- If I ask for evidence please highlight the warrants for me, don't just give me the article link.

- Line-by-line is fine; actually preferable but big pic analysis is always better especially for summary and final focus.

- First team speaking; the rebuttal should only be attacking the other side. Building your own case does nothing for you. The only exception to that is a quick overview at the beginning of the speech about the impacts of your case (here's where you can throw in one tiny new card if you want) but only do this if it interacts w/ A2 your opponent's case. Don't do this if it's not insightful because you're wasting time you don't have. And that OV should be 30-45 secs max.

- Second team speaking; rebuttal should defend and attack. Defend first -- you don't want to risk losing offense. I'm not timing so idc about time allocation but it's best to split the time as evenly as possible.

- Summaries; needa do hella collapsing and weighing, this speech should be set up to frame the final focus. The offense/defense you want to win should be here.

- Final focus; tell me why you won and how your args were better compared to your opponents. It's very important to do the impact calc here. I default to comparative world analysis so use that to your advantage.

- For the most part, I'm not paying attention to CX and especially not the grand CX. In the rare case that I'm paying attention; I don't care who does/doesn't speak in grand CX so don't ask lame questions just to participate in it.

Learn and have fun :)

Hello!

I would like to be on the email chain (if there is one) please-- colleyvilledocs@gmail.com

I have debated on the state level for over 3 years so I am familiar with most arguments so feel free to run anything BUT this doesn't mean I'm going to do any extra work for you (ie. this is what I think they mean or what I think they were trying to say). Debate is a game about explanation and I hold great value in that.

*Trigger warnings should be included at the top of your case or be said before round*

Here is my short paradigm (I have specifics below this):

I am cool with whatever you want to run, don't feel pressured to change your strategy because of my paradigm. Please explain your arguments thoroughly and give me voters as to why you are winning the round. Interacting with your opponent's case is key, don't attack just the tag attack the inherent warrants to the card as well. Also, don't give me a card name and expect me to know what that is lol--explain the argument briefly or the important part of the card that you are extending. Don't be rude to your opponent-- there is a difference between sass and outright rudeness-- I will give you a 25 speaks so don't do it. No -ism good please (racism, ableism, sexism good, etc). Don't forget debate is supposed to be for learning purposes and a fun way to develop your speaking and thinking skills so take a deep breath and do your best!!!

Here is just a few extra things that you might need. If I forget anything feel free to ask me before round:

- Speed:

I am able to keep up with speed but since we are online sometimes the audio gets garbled. So it might not be the best idea to speed through your important arguments. Try to go 80% of your normal speed, if that helps.

- Framework:

I love a good framework debate, it is something that is missed from LD debates nowadays as debate gets more and more progressive. The framework is the lens through which I'm going to look at your case and your opponent's case, so this debate is key to persuading me but don't completely drop the rest of your case either.

-Voters:

Voters, voters, voters! I won't know why you should be winning the round if you don't explain it to me. Be strategic, if you are winning on a key impact but losing on other minuscule impacts then explain why that specific impact is key to you winning the round. Why is your opponent wrong about a card or what have they dropped that outweighs anything they say? Those are some key questions that need to be answered that really help you crystallize the round in your favor.

- Phil debate

These debates are very cool but they also sometimes go over my head. If you plan on running this please baby the terms down for me or at least have a thorough explanation about what you are talking about.

- K debate:

I have run (mainly feminism, capitalism, and necropolitics) and gone against Ks so I am quite familiar with their structures. However, I am still pretty fresh towards the literature so PLEASE EXPLAIN!! How does your alternative interact with your opponent's case either pre-fiat or post? What is the solvency of the alternative or how should I view the round? Answering these questions will help in your favor.

- LARP debate:

I am probably most comfortable with this kind of debate, however, please explain your impacts or solvency.

- Theory/Topicality debate:

I am comfortable with this kind of debate but explain why the debater should be dropped or why this should be viewed as the highest layer of the debate, I'm not gonna assume that for you. I default to competing interprets unless told otherwise.

- Tricks debate:

I have not gone against nor run tricks so if you plan on running this has a good explanation as to why you should win this round.

I'm a junior at Colleyville and did pf for 2 years. My email is hannahnlr@icloud.com

How to win my ballot: consistent weighing in every speech, good case/ impact extensions in back-half speeches, and well-warranted arguments.

Consider me a flay judge, tech = truth. I'll bump up speaker points for teams that disclose case/ speech docs. Also, if you paraphrase expect low speaker points.

Hello! My name is Zachary Li (he/him), and I'm a freshman at NYU!

Education:

New York University '27 (B.S. Business + B.A. Mathematics)

Coppell High School --> TAMS '23 (debated 3 years LD as well as some PF and CX)

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain! My email is zcl1578@gmail.com. I will skim the doc but won't intervene on evidence ethics unless it is brought up in the round. I do keep time, but I would love it if you timed and stopped yourself. Feel free to sit or stand, and spectators are fine as long as competitors are okay with it.

General Thoughts:

1. PLEASE TELL ME WHY YOU WIN. You can do this in a couple of ways.

a) First, ballot painting - write my ballot for me by telling me exactly how you win the round.

b) Second, impact calculus - weigh your impacts against theirs and tell me why they are more important (magnitude, probability, scope, reversibility, timeframe, whatever) and why that particular weighing standard is important, as well as why you weigh better under the framework (LD).

c) Thirdly, clash/argument resolution - tell me the most important questions in today's round and why you're winning them - if two cards make competing claims, give me a reason to prefer your card/evidence/analytics, whether it be timeframe, credentials, we take into account something they don't, biased view, whatever - just give me a reason why you win a key argument rather than just extending the card.

d) Fourthly, argument impacting - why does conceding/losing this argument matter to the round? Does it disrupt the CP? DA? Sever the link to the K? Does this mean they have no offense? Does this mean I have to evaluate through sufficiency framing? Does this mean your impact o/w?

2. I'm a 7 out of 10 for speed. Not a huge fan of spreading but I'll survive with a speech doc. Maybe about 275 words with speech doc and 200 otherwise - I will use clear if necessary.

3. I consider myself to be a flow judge. That is, I will look at my flows after the round, adjudicate arguments, and decide on a winner.

4. Generally, I give speaks between 27-30 based not only on your clarity but also your strategy and organization. I try to view it as independent of the ballot - that is, you might get higher speaks but not the ballot - but more often than not, the ballot goes to the debater who is more clear and has better strategy and organization. (for math nerds) Speaks~Norm(28.5, 0.5)

5. (for novices) PLEASE STOP DROPPING MAJOR ARGUMENTS - please respond to important arguments during the 1nc/1ar or I'll be forced to accept them as true :(

Lincoln-Douglas (LD):

1 - LARP/Policy-style arguments

2-3 - Theory/T

2 - Phil

3-4 - K

5 - Tricks

LARP/Policy-style arguments: I ran these almost every round in high school. I am fine with plans, CPs, DAs, and other LARP stuff. LARP debates are almost always hard to resolve, so please tell me why you are winning an argument/the opponent is behind, and then why that argument is important.

Theory/T: I am generally ok with theory/T, but be reasonable.

Phil: I am not the most phil-educated person, but I do really like phil arguments and often find them persuasive. If you go for phil be sure to explain why I should prefer your framework/way of thinking.

K: not the hugest fan of Ks but I'll evaluate them, especially if they are topical. I can understand basic Ks, but chances are I won't understand more complicated ones. In my opinion, Ks function as DAs and CPs - you need to win that the DA (link and impacts) matter and the CP (alt) solves/reduces. You should also probably win framing. I tend to take the side of LARP debaters against the K on issues such as fiat and the state, but you can still win if you show me clear warrants.

Tricks: tricks are for kids

Public Forum:

debated a little public forum (~10 rounds) in high school, so I'm relatively familiar with how the event works. I'm ok with disclosure and counterplans, but other than that I would like to see an actually topical debate on the genuine merits of the resolution. Please read #1 on my general thoughts, because I find that PF, in particular, is very difficult to resolve. Put yourself in my shoes - why should I vote for you?

Congress:

never judged this before but I go off of who was the clearest and had the most insightful arguments/analysis. Be sure to genuinely respond to points brought up by your fellow representatives and senators and advance substantive debate about the topic rather than theatrics and hand-waving. POs start slightly above the middle of the pack and move up based on performance; PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE respect the time limits not only for speeches but for questioning periods as well to create the best experience for your fellow members of Congress.

You have worked hard. Now is your time to shine.

Interp: I have been teaching speech for 8 years; and teaching, directing, and performing theatre for over 40 years. I know an engaging, well-rehearsed performance when I see it. I will give you the kind of quality feedback I give to my own Interp students.

I am looking for clear characterization(s) both physically and vocally. Establish setting with blocking and business. Pantomime should be realistic and establish object permanence.(ex: a glass of water must be picked up and put down while maintaining a consistent shape and size. Refrigerators don't move unless the character moves them as part of the performance.)

Every performance must tell a story. You must convey the who, what, when, where, and why. Emotion is borne out of action.

Drama is is not all screaming and crying. Pauses and soft spoken words can often covey far more than NOISE.

Great acting may boost your rank, but I must understand what is happening and why. The performance must tell a story to receive a high rank in the round. Show that you have chosen material that is meaningful to you and with which you have a connection.

Humor arises from a character's total commitment to and belief in what they are doing and what is happening. Never TRY to be funny. It doesn't come off as humorous or believable. The absurdity of a situation should be evident to the audience, not the character. That's true comedy.

Most importantly, I want to be moved and entertained. Nothing is more thrilling than witnessing a great performance.

Please, let me know what time signals you prefer.

I truly appreciate all of the time and effort you put into preparing for these tournaments. Break a leg!

Debate: Please, make it clear to me what is happening. My audio processing issue makes it difficult to comprehend 350 wpm spreading. If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow the round. I can't tell if you are making a good case or argument. I have judged too many debaters who have ignored this part of my paradigm, and I am left HOPING that I have chosen the winning side.

I am a 5th year coach who knows enough about LD, PF, and Congress to judge, but I am not a seasoned veteran. I teach speech and interp as well, so I KNOW about speaker points.

Simply because "everyone" in the debate world knows a term's meaning, doesn't mean your judge knows it. Ex: Flow that through to the neg/aff, structural violence, disad, block, kritik, voters, etc. (I know what these mean, but most lay judges do not).

I prefer to judge a debate that is won on your skills as a debater rather than running a theory shell. Show me what you know about DEBATE. I'm not a big fan of kritiks.

If you want to ensure a fair decision, you must give VOTERS. That helps me make sense of my flow.

If you say "Bella Ciao" or make any references from Money Heist or Grey's Anatomy at the end of your last speech, I will bump up your speaks.

Do I want to be on the email chain? Yes please: colleyvilledocs@gmail.com

Okay, now on how to win/things you can do that will persuade me:

1- Extend your args explaining why they're important.

2- WARRANTS. When extending, don't just extend the tagline, extend the warrants instead. Give me specifics from your cards which prove your claims.

3- Impact calc. Probability, Magnitude, Time-frame, Scope, Reversibility, all that jazz. (If you're unsure of your opponent's impacts, ask in CX. Trust me, it will make your life a lot easier in your final speeches. You don't sound stupid for asking clarification questions. What is stupid to do though is to assume arguments that are not really being made).

4- FW. I feel like FW is something that distinguished LD from other debates, so you should always contest fw. This gives me a lense to view the round from. In other words, if you win fw, you have a solid chance of winning the round. This however does not mean spend all your time on it. Make sure to also argue why your arguments uphold your framework and why that's important.

4- Lay out the ballot for me/GIVE VOTERS. Tell my why you deserve my vote. It can be as simple as "___dropped___argument which holds the highest position in this round because ___." Or simply give me how this round boils down in your favour.

5- No spreading/CPs/Theories. Novices are still learning. These progressive practices harm education because not everyone is familiar with the structure of those arguments.

However, there are exceptions(If you have never debated varsity before, don't bother reading this because all this will be extremely confusing): 1) I'm okay with a CP if you and your opponent somehow indicate that both of you guys know what they are. This can be done in CX or before starting the round by simply asking them. 2) Novices should not be running theory, but I will permit it if it is established that both sides are familiar with those arguments. Even then, I will only vote on theory if the Aff is not upholding the resolution or either side just specifies a tiny random part of the resolution. Notice how I have emphasized on random. THis means that whatever they specify needs to be a familiar aspect of the topic. For example, if the topic was about standardized testing, and the AFF reads SAT, then I don't think theory is significant here because SAT is a very common standardized test. But if they were to specify one test given in one state, then theory is allowed here because I do believe neg's ground is massively limited here. 3) Absolutely no exceptions to spreading. Trust me, I am least interest in calculating how many words you can fit in a sentence without breathing; also, I don't want to be a part of a situation where I feel like you're having an asthma attack.

6- Be nice. If you are being rude to your opponent during CX or labeling them or their arguments stupid, I will probably give you speaks of 25 or lower :/ Rather than just labeling them as "stupid," explain why you are better or what they don't do that you do, and how/why is that better.

General note for the novices: It's okayyyyy! Trust the process. Yes, you will feel like quitting debate after your first set of tournaments, but you have no idea how much you are getting educated. Debate is a game. One side wins, one loses. Sure, the L's may seem depressing, but that's part of the process. Your losses will motivate you to rectify yourself and learn, but don't be arrogant with the wins; there is always room for improvement. I suggest doing rebuttal redos of your speeches and implement judges' feedback in them. You have no idea how much this activity will teach you and how many friends you will have from different schools from debate. Honestly, just have fun, and don't worry. It always happens for the good.

Before the round, if you have any questions from here, feel free to ask me.

ALL THE BEST!!!!

Add me to the email chain: dhruv.shetty1234@gmail.com

tldr: I'm a flow judge and i'll consider any and all arguments that you read. i'm heavy on impact calc, the flow, and give decent speaks

in general.

General:

- speed is fine, just be clearish

- please time yourself (I'll do it as well, I just don't want to have to cut you off because you haven't realized time's up)

- I'm most comfortable with LARP and T debates. I can evaluate basic Ks (Set col, Cap K, etc.) and some phil (Kant, Rawls). Anything beyond that should probably be explained well, especially in the context of weighing.

- If you're reading "progressive" arguments as a novice that's cool, but don't do it just to exclude your opponent or because someone from varsity gave it to you

- Remember to weigh. Please.

- Compiling a document is prep-time, sending the email isn't

T Paradigms:

- I default to reasonability but will weigh under CI if you want me to

- I don't like friv theory, but I'll vote on it if I have to (ur speaks may see a slight drop tho)

- Reading condo on one advocacy would be hard to win on in front of me, 2 or more and I think it becomes viable

- I err aff on most Cp theory tho (PICs bad, etc.)

Hi my name is Annie Thomas and I'm a parent judge.

I haven't judged this year but I did judge some last year.

I'm not familiar with progressive arguments, I am a lay judge.

Be professional and if you read things with a policy approach stay within a value framework.

If there is an email chain I would like to be on it. My email is colleyvilledocs@gmail.com.

General Info:

- Don't just extend the card name and tagline, extend the actual warrants within the cards

- WEIGH, you should do your best to spell out why you won the round. I'm talking probability, solvency, magnitude, time-frame, scope, reversibility, etc. I want to see interaction between the two sides!

- Going off my previous point... VOTERS. As a debater, you want to clearly lay out why I should vote for you. Don't make me pick up the pieces that you left for me to try and fit them together because that may not go in your favor, especially if your opponent actually gives me clear reasons on why they won.

- Make sure you actually understand your opponent's arguments! Don't be scared to clarify during cx, I don't want to listen to a debate where no one is interacting with the other side

- I am always going to be looking at who upholds the winning framework the best, always address why your framework should be upheld above your opponent's.

- I am only okay with speed if both sides have stated they are comfortable with it. You can ask each other before the round starts. If your opponent spreads and they never asked if you were fine with it you can call them out for it, I would like to know so I can judge fairly.

- Same thing with LARP, Theory, Kritiks, anything out of the ordinary. If you're opponent hasn't told you they are comfortable with more advanced debate DON'T run it. Debate is a place of education and growth, if one side is unable to understand the other neither can grow as debaters.

- Have confidence! I understand that tournaments can be really nerve wracking, it's totally okay! Everyone's been in that same boat. Losing will just give you a better understanding of what you need to fix about your debate style. Just do your best, you got this!

- Speaks. I'll probably give good speaker points if I can see that you tried throughout the entire round (don't forfeit halfway through, you never know what could happen). If you are in anyway homophobic, racist, sexist, transphobic, ableist, or anything discriminatory I will drop your speaks and vote you down. I will not tolerate you calling your opponent names or making fun of their arguments, this should be a safe space where everyone is comfortable with trying their best.

- My pronouns are she/her/they/them.

Specifics:

If you are to run

- kritiks, I would like your story to extend all the way through the round. When run correctly I should be able to understand what you are going for, what makes the alt unique, why the alt is so important, why your solvency is better than your opponent's, etc. I generally really like listening to K's, they give a unique perspective and make you think about all of the complicated structures that have led society up to what it is now which makes rounds more engaging.

- theory/topicality/nibs, don't run stuff like frivolous theory. If i'm going to listen to it in the round I want it to be a legitimate complaint on how the debate grounds are skewed in an unfair way.

- tricks, you should know I am very unfamiliar with what they are. Please be clear and thoroughly explain everything.

- LARP, I am probably most familiar with LARP stuff. You should understand what you're running and explain it and I should be good.

- phil, I also think that this would be really interesting to listen to. I am not super familiar with philosophers so you do need to explain your philosophical standpoint well enough for me to get what you're going for.

- skepticism/permissibility, you need to run this very well for me to vote for you. I would be more accepting of permissibility than I would be of skepticism since I think that it is your job to prove why your opponent is wrong if they are.

If I missed something then you can ask me before the round :)

Good Luck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am Dyspolity@gmail.com on email chains.

NSDA update:

I love judging here. Principally this is because the schools who compete the most robust circuits have to slow down and I get to be a meaningful participant in the debates. I am not fast enough to judge the TOC circuit and even my home circuit, TFA can have me out over my skis trying to follow. But here, my experience has been that the very best schools adapt to the format by slowing their roll and this allows me to viscerally enjoy the beauty and rigor of their advocacy. Do not confuse my pace limitations with cognitive limits.

Who I am:

Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.

I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools and currently I coach at Athens in East Texas. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments.

I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.

Likes:

Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.

Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is almost never one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.

Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.

Dislikes:

Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.

Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?

Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.

Circuit level speed.

I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.

Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you are functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.

One More Concern:

There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.

Policy Debate:

I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.

LD Debate:

Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.

I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.

PF Debate:

I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.

Congress:

1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. 3)I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. 4)If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. 5) Your language choices should reflect scholarship. 6) All debate is about the resolution of substantive issues central to some controversy, as such clash is critical.

she/her

Colleyville '22; UT '26

I did policy for 3 years and PF for 1

Yes I want to be on the email chain: zhujudy280@gmail.com

Speaks/Notes

I start at 28 and go up from there based on strategy

I appreciate humor and assertiveness, but I'll dock points if you're being straight-up disrespectful to your opponents. 25s for homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. debate is toxic but it doesn't mean you have to be :)

If you can make the round enjoyable for me/make me laugh, I will boost your speaks

Spreading is fine. I will tell you to clear if I can't understand you, but if I have to do it more than twice my flow will start missing arguments

I don't flow cross so if you want something on the flow, you should mention it in your speech

Policy/LD

Run whatever you want, but I tend to get annoyed with some tricks/theory in LD so proceed with caution

Condo is good

Frame/weigh, please. Tell me what impacts/flows are important and why

Ks--I mostly ran Ks and K affs when I did policy. I understand most of the lit bases that are read, with the most experience in Asian identity, racial capitalism, the fem k, and I understand queer theory, afropess, and academy/university ks pretty ok.

I'd like to know what the alt actually does. However, if you can win framework and articulate why that means that you don't need an alt, I guess it doesn't really matter.

Specific links are preferred, but if a generic link isnt answered and is extended through the 2nr, I'll vote on it

line-by-line>long overviews

Aff gets to weigh the plan, but I also really like good reps links and framework debates

K affs--I like these! I do recommend that you connect it to the topic/resolution somehow. just because I like k affs doesn't mean I'll evaluate T/FW any less; I actually like creative framework debates a lot, but more on that in a second

It's really crucial that you win solvency here--your burden of proof is higher than just winning framework on the aff--so please explain in detail how your advocacy works. I tend not to buy mechanisms that rely purely on your speech act; while I think there's truth to the argument, it's not going to hold up very well against well-developed framework teams, so I recommend complicating your solvency beyond that

I really like historical examples! Use them to explain your solvency mechanisms or in your framework debates about the history of the activity, I find them very persuasive, and maybe I'll learn something from you too

T/FW--I enjoy debates about debate because I do believe that this activity has some impact on our personal lives and how we think about the world; everyone takes different lessons from this activity and we should talk about it. this is also why I tend to weigh args about education, skill-building, etc. above pure procedural fairness arguments, but I also like when teams entangle them; is one a pre-requisite to another?

Caselists are very welcome

Contextualize your blocks to the round please

PF!

I like "progressive" debate, but don't read straight-up Ks in PF. They are almost always generic, the advocacy underdeveloped, and there's not nearly enough time in the round to have the in-depth discussions that the literature deserves, so proceed with caution.

Weigh! Final focus should mirror summary and make a cohesive narrative that way, so don't get too bogged down in the line-by-line at the end of the day. also please talk to me about soft-left/structural violence framing. I wish more PF debaters went out of their way to incorporate diverse impacts in every pf topic; it helps you win rounds and also expand your perspective as a person.

If you paraphrase, I'll dock speaks. If you still choose to, your cards need to be ready to present to the other team once they call for it. This does not mean that you show them an article and control f for the section that you summarized, it means everything's cut and cited properly. If it takes more than a minute for you to find the card, I'll start your prep.

If you do an email chain and actually keep up with it (sent constructives and speech docs for the cards you read in the speeches after) I'll boost your speaks.