University of Texas at Austin '23 (Business Honors & Accounting) - he/him

email for evidence/further inquiry: michaelbyers@utexas.edu

Policy Debate Paradigm:

I am a stock issues judge. I do not solely base my ballot on these issues but they are very important to me.

Please speak clearly. If I cannot understand you, I am less likely to flow your arguments. For this reason, I do not really enjoy spreading, but if you feel the need..go for it/ I won't mark off on the validity of arguments for this only speaker points.

I am generally laid back about the types of arguments ran during a round, however, I am less likely to vote on kritiks and theory arguments.

Please stay professional, I will not tolerate personal attacks of any kind. There is never a reason to be blatantly rude in a debate round.

Most importantly have fun and learn something!

The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL so respect is key. (Yes, I also find it strange that I have to clarify respect is a need, but hey I've seen some bad rounds) So any ad hominem, whether directly stated, insinuated, or indirectly introduced to the round (for example through a card/argument) will NOT be tolerated.

General Debate Philosophy: At the end of the day debate is about persuasion, your job as a debater is to persuade me as the judge to vote for you. That means that just because you run an argument that does not mean you will be able to persuade me on that argument aka just because you run it does not me I have t buy it.

Debate is a communication event so guess what I believe is key…communication! I do believe that speaker points hold value, I repeat SPEAK POINTS DO HOLD VALUE and believe that speaker points come from multiple areas in the round. I am stingy with speaker points so you EARN every point with me. With that being said, every speaker will start in the middle of the range and either move up or down dependent on communication ability argumentation, and decorum; YES decorum does matter A LOT.

LD Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. If there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. I am a traditional judge when it comes to LD debate aka do NOT run a plan. It will be hard for me to get behind an Affirmative who advocates for a plan when they shouldn’t be advocating for a plan. Aff, you must uphold the resolution, do not try to spike out of it. I believe that observations are not voting issues, however, if ran correctly they may frame the round correctly to influence my vote. If an observation is not refuted or a counter observation is not proposed, and you bring this back up then that is how I will view the round.

Neg, for all that is good CLASH WITH THE AFF. I do not want to hear another round that is just two ships passing in the night. I want you to make arguments against the Aff and PROVE why they are wrong.

When it comes to FW, this is not the holy grail argument that will win the round, but it is a pretty good one to make. If you cannot uphold either VC then why would I vote for you? I do not find it abusive to absorb your opponent’s VC while also advocating for yours.

However, just because you win the VC that does not mean the round flows to you, if you can remove the opponent’s case, whether it be through removing impacts or attacking their warrants, then your opponent doesn’t really have ground to stand on.

I said this first, but I am reiterating this now. GIVE ME VOTERS!

Policy Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. IF there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. Similar to LD I am a traditional judge. I normally do not pref, but AFF it is your job to prove that SQ is not preferred, so read into that what you will. Constructive are used to construct any new arguments, do not run anything new in the rebuttals. If you wish to bring supporting evidence or extensions that is fine, but you better be sure that it is 100% not new or I will not flow it. (This won’t cost you the round, but I won’t be happy with it as it is abusive).

YES the neg block does exist. NO Aff, just because they split it, that does not mean you get to. You are more than welcome to run an argument against this if you wish, but you see my philosophy on the matter.

In regards to. Neg strat, I will vote for generic arguments, but don’t want to. Aff you have every right to refute with non-uniqueness, but that does not mean the argument just goes away, it is your job to argue why this matters and why the non-uniq should be a voting issue. Also, Topicality is NEVER theory, it IS a stock issue, which is one of the foundations of this event. However, if you argue topicality be careful that you do not contradict yourself.

Below is a little more detail about different strategies and approaches to the event to help each team out, but full disclosure the easiest way for the Neg to get my ballot is to prove the Aff has no Inherency:

Closed Cross Examination X---------------------------------------------I need my partner to ask good questions and answer questions for me (same holds for prompting)

Policy--------------X-------------------------------K

(If you run a K and then On-Case without kicking OR playing scenarios, you are risking losing my ballot)

Tech-----------------------X------------Truth
(This is a tough one for me as I have seen both sides unfairly cost someone the round. I will listen to arguments, but as I stated earlier you need to persuade me on it, just because there is a card that says x that does not necessarily make it true. For example there are "cards" that argue the Holocaust never happened. So basically I do my best to keep my knowledge or understanding out of the round, but there are just some things that I cannot let slide (next sentence is an exmaple). Essentially, just make sure your arguments hold validity and warrants to them, don't tell me that Haiti will cause nuclear war when it's the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere...no one should accept that argument)

Read no cards-----------------------X------------Read all the cards

(Analytical arguments can 100% be used against cards)

Quality ------------X------------------------Quantity

(I do tend to lean more quality, but this is tough for me. Here's why, if you can layer arguments then do so, but if you run 5 different arguments and the opposing team can group and refute/disprove with one card then kudos to them!)

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

(Just give me a reason to buy either argument)

States CP good----------------X------------------States CP bad

(Eh…it is what it is, just tired of hearing it)

Politics DA is a thing-------X----------------------Politics DA not a thing

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

Clarity X---------------------------------------------Um...who doesn't like clarity

Limits------------X----------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption-----------------------------X---------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev---------------------------X---------------More ev
(Please do not read me a novel)

I’m a book worm-----------X----------------I only read what you read

(I will only flow what you said/what can be understood, but be aware 9 times out of 8 [yes you read that correctly] during prep,I will read the evidence in your card that you didn’t read to ensure you are not misrepresenting or power tagging. Dependent on the severity, this may cost you the round without opponent call out. Don't think this is fair, then you should have cut the card correctly and fairly. If you did powertag and your opp calls you out, good luck getting my ballot)

Fiat anything you desire--------------X----------Let's be realistic about this

CX about impacts--------------X------------------CX about links and solvency

DA’s -----------------------X----------------------On Case

Theory -----------------------------------X---------- Traditional (The more believable the chain link the more likely I am to to buy the impacts. It is hard for me to imagine sending Smallpox Vaccines to SSA will lead to Nuclear War)

Dash from Zootopia ------------------------------X-----------------Amateur Auctioneer

(I am fine with speed, debate should be faster than conversational, but not a race. I hate spreading/rapid fire because let’s be honest no one is good at it, you sound horrible, and it’s not impressive)

Quantity of Arguments ----------------------------------------------X-Quality of Arguments

(I have voted on a round because of T, despite the AFF having a 12 page case)

At State in LD and Policy my default is 27, unless you are truly impressive or the opposite.

Congressional Debate: If you just read out loud to me do not expect a speech ranking higher than a 3 or to be ranked in the room. The purpose of this event is to make extemporaneous speeches, yes research is key, NO do not have a pre-written speech. The students that deliver the best speeches, while also showing they are aware of the debate in the chamber will win my ballot.

PF Debate: Don’t have me judge PF

WSD Debate: I have somewhat of an idea of what I am doing in this round. I am wanting to learn this event to judge, but just not there yet

Interp

Do NOT try to read me. Don't try to read me to determine how you are doing, you can be giving a performance of a lifetime and I may look disinterested, even though I am fully captivated. Or I may react to the literature, but that does not mean the performance is on par with the strength of the piece. I have heard many funny pieces that were not performed well and heard very powerful lines that were just thrown away.

There is no magic/secret thing to do to win my ballot, except give the best performance. I know super helpful, right? I consider multiple different aspects when judging: polished (holding and mastery of the manuscript), presence in the room, delivery style, performer connection to selection, audience connection, did I get drawn into the performance, etc.

I do realize that because you are interpreting you have to be extra big, but I do look for realism in the performance. Ex: Should someone be sobbing because they spilt milk? Why is someone smiling when the love of their life just died? Remember, this performance is all about peaks and valleys, if everything is delivered the same, or on one level, then nothing is important and nothing stands out to me. If I am convinced that the performer is actually experiencing the piece, that is the best way to win my ballot, because it will draw me in. If I am not drawn in then I don't believe you really interpreted the piece. Make me care about the characters, if something is suppose to be sad I want to be sad with the character. If you don't draw me in/I don't make a connection with a character, then "I won't care that your sister died".

In introductions, I like to get to see you as a person. I want the intro to sound natural and not like a memorized piece of information. Let me see/hear YOU.

My paradigm is that I don't believe in one. This is your round, I am open to any argument, which means that you frame and tell me how to weigh the round. Speed is fine. Do you, basically. If you have more specific questions feel free to ask!

*Bolded information is for skimming if you're short on time.

**Online Tournament Notes: I'll unmute and let you know if you're having audio problems. Still comfortable with speed, but ask that we slow down a couple of notches from top speed to account for lag.

Round Info:

Feel free to just call me Kay; pronouns are she/her. I did policy for four years at North Lamar High School and graduated in 2017. I am currently a full-time social worker, so I don’t judge as much as I used to, which means that my topic-specific knowledge isn’t super high this year.

If you are using an email chain, my email is kay.edwards1027@gmail.com. If you are flashing, I don't want the flash and I'll ask if I need a specific piece of evidence post-round.

Attaching to the flash/email isn't prep unless it's excessive. If you're moving stuff between documents or around inside the document, that should be on the clock. If anything gets excessive, I'll let you know to start prep again.

Philosophy (all events):

Debate should be about the arguments you find "best" for you. I am comfortable and equally happy in well-warranted policy debates as I am in well-warranted kritikal or performance debates. When not given another framing mechanism, I tend to default to an offense/defense paradigm. My general answer to what "should" be allowed in a round is that theory read/answered by the debaters will parse that out.

[added on 2/23/2023] - For the sake of transparency, I want to add a few caveats to the above. The more I listen to it, the more I've discovered that I have a pretty high threshold for voting on disclosure theory. Just something to be aware of if you choose to read it in front of me.

Speaker Points (all events):

I assign speaker points on strategic decision-making and organization (including signposting and coherent line-by-line). I will dock speaker points for excessive rudeness, demeaning others in the debate, and intentionally making offensive/discriminatory arguments or comments in the debate.

Easy Routes to my Ballot (policy but also everything else really):

1. You should construct the narrative you want on my ballot. This means that I don't want to have to fill in internal links, test truth claims, or filter your offense through the framing that wins the debate.

2. Consistency across speeches is important. That means I'm not voting on 2NR/2AR arguments from the 1AC/1NC that aren't in the block or 1AR. I also have a pretty high threshold for buying arguments that are shadow extended through the block/1AR.

3. I prefer evidence analysis/extension over card dumps. I very seldom find dumping cards onto the flow in the 2NC/2AC compelling if I'm not getting some articulation of how the evidence functions in the round.

LD Paradigm:

I'm fine with everything from more traditional value/criterion debate to more policy-style debates, performance debates, etc. Have the debate you want and are most comfortable having. That being said, some of the less common LD arguments (skep, NIBs, etc.) are pretty out of my wheelhouse and will require some serious explanation for me to understand them enough to feel comfortable voting on them.

One other thing I like to add for LD'ers: winning framework (morality good, util good, etc.) isn't enough to win the debate if you aren't winning a piece of offense through your framing. I won't do the work of weighing your offense for you, either, so please show me how your offense connects to your framing.

PF Note (updated September 2020): I don't judge very much PF, but you all ask this question, so I'll go ahead and make it easy on you: defense isn't sticky. If you want me to vote on it, I need to be able to track the argument from speech to speech.

Feel free to email or talk to me in person before or after the round with any questions that come up!

TL;DR:

You should be good to run whatever you want as quick as you're comfortable running it. If there’s no framing, I default to offense/defense. Yes, I want the files too. Prep time doesn't stop until the doc is uploaded.

If you have any questions for me, or need to put me in the email chain: jteverett53@gmail.com

If you are a junior or senior and want to do debate in college, ask me about Texas State!! We have a nationally competitive program with speech events, NFA-LD (policy), parli, and public debate. If you have any questions about debating here at all just hunt me down or email me at the same email above!!

Hello! I am the current debate coach for Claudia Taylor Johnson High School in San Antonio, and was a 4 year policy debater in high school on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits for China Spring High School, and I competed in NFA LD, NPDA, and IPDA for Texas State, so I’ve seen tons and tons of debating styles. I'm here to evaluate arguments not to tell you what to run, so you can probably read any argument you're comfortable with if I'm in the back of your room. I tend to evaluate rounds based on an offense/defense paradigm, so I enjoy rounds with a lot of interaction between arguments and good articulations of their stories.

Speech drop is ideal, but email chain is fine. I'd like to be included in whatever form of file sharing y'all engage in. Prep time doesn't stop until the doc is uploaded (unless y'all are physically uploading to a flash drive and walking it to the other team, then prep stops when you start to walk the drive to the opponents)-- too many teams have taken advantage of their ability to "save the doc" to steal prep time.

For pref sheets:

Clash- 1

LARP- 1

K- 1

Trad- 2

T/Theory- 2

Phil- 3

Tricks- Strike/5

Feel free to ask me any other questions pre round!!

POLICY/NFA LD:

I enjoy watching K v K, K v Policy, and Policy v Policy rounds equally.

T/Theory: I love T and hold it at the highest standard in the round, when it’s used effectively. If T isn't your game, you probably don't want to run it in front of me because I always have a hard time voting for Ts that are blippy and not impacted out. I enjoy T debates that have a lot of clash on the reasons to prefer, and that attempt to compare the division of ground/education of each interpretation. Reasonability does not mean "You shouldn't care abt me bcuz im REASONABLY topical-"-- I have no idea what this means or how to decide whether you are or aren't "reasonably topical". Reasonability is about the aff's interpretation and its place in the literature/its division of ground.

Condo is fine, but it's on thin ice. I don't really have a preset threshold on how many conditional advocacies are okay, but I generally find myself enjoying watching rounds with less than 4 conditional advocacies more than rounds with 4+ in CX rounds. This doesn't mean that I'm not willing to vote on condo bad in rounds with less than 4 negative advocacies, this is just a statement of personal preference. For the LDers looking over this (NFA, or HS), I find myself enjoying rounds with less than 3 advocacies more than rounds with 3+.

I'm probably not voting on disclosure theory at a HS tournament unless we're at a TOC bid tourney (UIL norms, and new TFA rules), if you're a college debater you should be disclosing and I am very open to voting on disclosure theory.

I typically start theoretical questions from a "reject the argument" mindset-- I need a well warranted argument as to why I should reject the team to overcome this (with the exception of condo/dispo bad).

DA: Disads are great. Impact calc of some sort is key to win a disad (on both sides). DAs are won through the link chain, and lost through the aff’s offense.

CP: Counter plans are great. I like most CPs, and I really have any dispositions toward any CP (I've voted on PICs, Consult, Delay, International CPs, and many many more) however I am also more than down to hear a great theory as to why their CP isn't legit. I typically start the round from a drop the argument mindset and need warranted reasons as to why I should drop the team in these debates though. The only CPs I'm really suspect of are artificially competitive CPs (if you're confused what I mean, look here: https://www.debatemusings.org/home/stupid-cps-are-stupid ) but, I have in fact voted on them before.

I'm not the biggest fan of judge kick and start the round from the assumption I'm not judge kicking (however, you can make arguments for why this should change).

K: I love K debates, and I wish more teams would go for the K in front of me. This is the argument I collapsed on the most when I was competing. I like well constructed Kritiks that have good link chains, and solid alternatives. I probably haven't read the lit you're talking about in the K, so just assume that I haven't and make a concerted effort to explain it to me. Probably not the best judge for most Baudy (and friends), psychoanalysis, or any other high theory K-- I have voted on them, and am willing to vote on them again, but often teams who read these args just fill their overviews and tags with paragraphs of the most esoteric wording I've ever seen, and I often get lost in both flowing and understanding the round when teams do this.

K Affs: Go ahead, whatever is most comfortable to you. I enjoy good Kritikal affirmatives, and love both KvK and K v T/theory debates. Framework is definitely a viable collapse in front of me, but often teams who collapse on framework just won't resolve the offense on the flow when they go for it so I usually vote aff in these debates. If you are going for framework, make sure you're doing the work and establishing a clear link chain to the impacts on the T sheet.

A lot of judges say to be "in the direction of the topic"-- I think this is vague and arbitrary. You will probably have an easier time on the framework sheet with me if you are able to explain how your advocacy affirms the topic in some way or form, and you should still be arguing that we should change from the status quo (even if you're running pess), however I am also a fan of "debate about debate" Ks and I don't feel that the aff should be bound to being "in the direction of the topic" if they can win args about why the topic (or debate) is bad/exclusionary. That being said, if you can't win that debate then you'll probably lose the round. If you're not reading evidence that is at least somewhat in the lit for this year's topic, I'm also probably more likely to buy into impact chains on fwk/t-usfg (i.e. If you're debating on the college nukes topic and none of your ev is about nuclear weapons, predictability and limits become a lot easier to win on the neg. Same goes for the current HS CX income inequality topic/LD topic of the month)

Case Debate: I love good case debate, it's really a lost art now. If you're a good case debater, you should rely on that with me in the back of the room-- it will help you and your speaks out a ton.

Speaks: speaks are awarded based on performance, strategy, comfort, and your ability to bs without me catching you. Average speaker points for me typically come out to be a 27-28, stellar speakers range from a 28.5-29, and perfect speakers get 30s. Speaks will be docked if you’re mean, rude, or say something that comes out as harmful in any way possible (if you are being racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, etc. it's L 20s across the board). Speed is cool, just make sure you're being inclusive-- I also flow on paper because I'm not the quickest on a computer so you'll probably want to give me some pen time on tags and analytics.

-.5 speaks every time you say "Game over"-- idk how this became the standard grandstand of debaters, but it's the worst and you're better than having to rely on this to make it sound like you're winning.

(The average speaks I've given in the spring '24 semester are approximately 28.26)

Miscellaneous things you might want to know:

You probably won't see my face a ton in debates. I am typically a "nose in the flow" type of judge and don't really look away from the papers on my desk to make sure that I don't miss anything. If I am making facial expressions, or if you see my hands in the air/on my head it is because you have said something incredibly confusing, egregious, or I have absolutely no clue where to write down what you are saying (or some combination of the three).

Prompting/open CX is generally fine, but if it's overused it could result in speaker points docked

How I evaluate things: Procedurals/theory first, Pre-fiat arguments second, Post-fiat arguments third

Tech over truth, but truth influences tech.

Most of these assumptions are subject to change from round-to-round depending on the args in round.

The only rules of debate are the speech times.

When I was competing I primarily collapsed on system/reps ks and T in NRs, and ran soft left/topical K affs with a bit of trad policy affs sprinkled in. I never ran a planless affirmative but have coached/judged/debated quite a few.

My ideas on debate were shaped by: Jeremy Hutchins, Michael Donaldson, Tony Wyatt, and John Anderson-- if you like these judges you'll probably like me as a judge.

"The past tense of flow is flew" -- Tony

High School LD:

I'm typically in the policy side of things, but I have been in many a value round and know more than enough to judge this activity. That being said, I typically find myself more engaged in progressive LD rounds than traditional rounds but please just run the round however best suits you and your style of argument. I love comparative analysis, impact calc, and rounds where there is a lot of interaction between y’all’s arguments. You can go as fast as you want. My off case positions remain pretty close to the exact same as policy, so you can scroll up to get a more in depth look at those specifically.

I typically find myself using the framework of the round as a heavy component when making my decision, so use your value and criterion strategically-- make comparisons, tell me why your opponents framing is wrong, and tell me why I should care about your impacts through the lens of your value, debaters that do that work usually have an easier time winning my ballot.

If the values in the round are the same, or if there's no sort of clash on values for why I should pref one over the other then I typically find myself defaulting to looking for offense and defense on the flow. I'm probably a bit more flow oriented than some other judges you might see, I pay very close attention to my flows and if there's not an argument on it then it's not in the round. That being said; having good case structure, signposting, and line-by-line really helps yourself out with me.

I thoroughly enjoy good phil debate (especially on topics that don't use the word "ought"), although I am not a philosophy head myself. I will make a pretty key distinction here though-- I am not a fan of these cases that are 5 minutes of abstract framing that, half of which aren't carded, spewed out as quickly as possible and then two cards that are like "oh yeah, and one minor link to the rez", I do not enjoy this style of argumentation. 1) these cases are incredibly hard to flow (too much flowery language, confusing concepts, lack of cards, and spreading through taglines/analytics), and 2) they rarely make a full argument which means the other side doesn't have an incredibly high threshold to meet in terms of answering these cases. That being said, if you're doing the work to explain your case, how the contentions back up the framework, and explaining what my ballot does and what it says when I vote for you you will probably do just fine with this style.

Tricks is bad debate, and I have a hard time justifying a vote on most tricks even if they're straight dropped. I wouldn't recommend running this style of debate with me in the back of the room-- even if you win on tricks with me, your speaks are probably getting tanked (expect a 27, tops).

World Schools:

I competed in collegiate NPDA style Parliamentary debate, so I have relative familiarity with the event and how it works, although I am very unfamiliar with the norms in this style of debate. I operate off of an offense/defense paradigm, so I appreciate a lot of interaction between arguments. Please focus on your warrants, and the logic behind your arguments-- just because this is a non-evidentiary form of debate (or at the very least, the evidence standards are not as rigorous as other events) doesn't mean we shouldn't have complete arguments with a claim, data, and warrant. There are a lot of WSD rounds where students will get to the third or fourth speeches and will be saying "We said 'x', they dropped that" and then that's all they say on the argument-- don't do this, it will not get you very far with me. When extending arguments tell me why it's important that they dropped it, and/or how the argument impacts the round as a whole. I usually find myself deciding these rounds based off of the framework, so good comparison between the competing burdens and resolutional analysis will probably help you. If you have any specific questions before round just be sure to ask!

Hi. I'm mostly a tabula rasa judge.

I want to see that you not only have a good case, but you know your case and aren't just reading something that was handed to you. I pay close attention to speaking ability, as well. It's not a race, but speed is good only as long as you can be understood.

Explain to me why your case is the best choice in your words. My favorite part of the debate is AR/NR because that's when you really use your own words and prove yourselves.

I'd prefer to not judge K's. Be careful with spreading, because we are online it can be difficult to decipher what is being said.

I did policy in high school and have been judging for the last 10 years.

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In the absence of a framework, I will revert to policy maker. Unless you have an exceedingly strong policy advocacy and an exceedingly clean link story, I do not want to see a performance aff or neg.

SPEED- I prefer a moderately-paced debate. I understand the need for speed in the 1AR, and I can follow well signposted fast argumentation. However, I want to hear the text of the evidence. I am not okay with speed so fast that the words in the evidence are not enunciated.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts and then signpost as you go including numbering. Additionally, before you speak put your speech on the flash drive or email chain so that it is easy to track prep time. I prefer most negative positions to be started in the 1NC . Disads,CP and T should always be started in the 1NC.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks and affs. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond reject.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- Disads are almost essential for the negative. I will vote a disad down if the aff articulates and wins that the link fails. I want impacts to have a reasonable chance of happening before I consider them in my impact calculus.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

INHERENCY-I will not vote on inherency unless the negative proves outright that the aff plan is already happening.

SOLVENCY- I like solvency and vote on it often usually in conjunction with another argument.

COUNTERPLANS- I vote on them and generally accept that they can be topical.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss based theory arguments and will vote on them.

GENERAL- Be certain that one gender is not preferred over the other through interrupting or condescending. Rude/sexist behavior and/or racist speech will result in lower speaker points. I will not, on principal, vote for those engaging in racist or homophobic speech. Kicking is fine but be certain to make it clear.

2 year Lincoln Douglas Debater

2 year CX Debater

2 year State Qualifier, 4th Place State 2019, 4th Place Speaker

Mass Communications/ Theatre Technology and Design major Midwestern State University '23

Email: haggardtiff@gmail.com

Please include me in all email chains.

I am a tab judge, but I am not a fan of Kritiks, so it will take some extra work to sell me on those.

I do not tolerate any form of disrespect or hate in a round, and I will flatline your speaker points at 20.

Key Notes:

I will not include flashing in your prep time unless I find you are abusing the time.

Quality>Quantity

If you would like to keep your own prep, just announce starting and ending times during each prep, or I can keep it for you.

If your audio cuts out, I will ask you to start back from the last thing I heard.

I do require cameras to be on unless extreme circumstances.

Overall, I will judge based on the highest quality evidence, arguments, and organization skills brought into the round. I wish the best for all of you!

Jeremy Hiesler

Grandview High School Graduate

CX-

Debate for me is an educational practice, in which the main goal of the competition is epistemological, social, and political growth for all students. Debate should not only be fun, but should be respectful as well. The opponents should respect each other, while also providing great clash within the round. Unless told otherwise, I will be evaluating the round through a policymaker lens, thus provide warrants for impacts, and flesh out every argument. I will not do the work for you, so extend and flow across arguments.

Before I dive into the specifics, you absolutely need evidence to make arguments, whether it be your opponents or one's own. The only unwarranted arguments I will listen to are the blatant, right in your face arguments.

Speed

During a presentation, I do allow Spreading, but I also believe that if we have to read every word, that is not educational thus will dock speaker points. I want to be able to understand and hear clear enunciation of the arguments being presented, so just be comfortable.

Argument Specifics (1-5 Scale)

Disadvantages (5) - The negative should have a solid uniqueness, while clearly showing the link to the AFF. You should flush out the impacts of your DA for them to flow on my ballot.

Counter Plans (5) - Must be competitive with the AFF, show me why the AFF can't or won't solve better than the CP. For the AFF, permutations are amazing, but be sure to isolate the net-benefits.

Kritiks (3) - I am familiar with a lot of K literature, but nothing to crazy. Please just run the fundamentals, and prove the Alternative solvency.

Topicality (4) - Again just run the fundamentals, and you must have standards for me to vote. The aff just needs to prove that it is tangentially connected to the topic, and must be able to go through the rigorous tests needed to prove this.

Framework (4) - If you run a K, this is vital to you even getting a vote on the K. Other than that, just make sure the arguments are competitive and answer them.

Reject the Resolution AFFs are very harmful to debate. They destroy the prep that the Neg was given, and should not be ran in front of me. If need be and its the only AFF prepared that is fine, but try not to read them in front of me.

Feel free to run the arguments anyway that you are good at, I just want to see a solid debate that is competitive and upheld to the respect all deserve.

Ways to get a quick L

1. Anything said that is blatantly racist will receive a loss automatically.

2. Anything said that is homophobic, or an assault against the LGBTQ community.

3. Not having any knowledge on the subject at hand, or being able to answer any questions. I will be able to understand who was given their material, and who worked for it.

Last of all have fun, and remember that debate is not about winning but the education and experience involved with the debate.

LD-

Essentially the same from my CX paradigm with a few tweaks throughout.

I believe framework is needed in ever debate round, you need to prove to me why evaluating your Value and Criterion through your framework is the best world for me to live in. I also believe however that you should continue to prove the necessity of your value through out each contention you present to me.

Speed

During a presentation, I do allow Spreading, but I also believe that if we have to read every word, that is not educational thus will dock speaker points. I want to be able to understand and hear clear enunciation of the arguments being presented, so just be comfortable.

Argument Specific ( 1-5 Scale)

Disadvantages (5) - Again just provide the link between the the DA and the value debated. Make sure to extend the entire argument across. Also make it very clear when using as a NB, present the warrants needed to prove this.

Counter Plans (5) - Make sure to read the theory necessary present the argument adequately, also prove to me how the CP is a better world than the Affirmatives world.

Kritiks (3) - I am familiar with a lot of K literature, but nothing to crazy. Please just run the fundamentals, and prove the Alternative solvency. You MUST have framework for me to evaluate effectively.

Framework (5) - This is just a mandatory part of LD, very seldom are rounds won in front of me without F/W.

Feel free to run the arguments anyway that you are good at, I just want to see a solid debate that is competitive and upheld to the respect all deserve.

Ways to get a quick L

1. Anything said that is blatantly racist will receive a loss automatically.

2. Anything said that is homophobic, or an assault against the LGBTQ community.

3. Not having any knowledge on the subject at hand, or being able to answer any questions. I will be able to understand who was given their material, and who worked for it.

Last of all have fun, and remember that debate is not about winning but the education and experience involved with the debate.

I am a policy and stock issues judge! I want to hear plans that will actually make a change, not just a basic or generic 1A that everyone else is running. If you are running a generic case, I want to hear extravagant arguments to those generic ideas.

CLASH is extremely important for me. I need something that will excite me. Both teams bouncing back and forth with good arguments that can tear down each other. I really like to hear arguments being set up in the cross-examination periods.

Clearly state your stocks, ORGANIZATION!!! Please do not be all over the place.

Be clear on each speech on why I should vote for you, not just rereading your cards, what do those cards mean.

Most importantly, even if you aren't sure what you are talking about I have to hear confident speaking! Clear and precise.

-I will not flow your speech if you spread.

This is literally my passion, so please no petty arguments in the round. Good clash and remember debating is always a learning experience.

I will value whatever I am told to value.

However I will default to T above all else, then Impacts.

No 'new in the 2'.

Make sure to signpost.

Hendrickson HS'20 --- Debated all 4 years in High School

Email - Beklanelia@gmail.com

-- Not updated for recent topic specifics-----

She/Her

--- Top Level ---

Tech > Truth; but I do tend to lean Truth < Tech on K debates (usually depends on how the debate is)

Clarity over speed; Please slow down for analytics and overviews

Explain your arguments and impact that out - it'll be a lot easier for me to weigh the argument

I also like top-level 2AR/2NR overviews that states why you're winning the debate and what arguments are in your favor

-- Topicality and Framework --

Not a huge T fan but impacted/explain it out well for me and I have no reason not to vote for it

Do calc bt standards - tell me why your standards matter and why that model of debate is important and better

For framework - SSD usually persuades me; tell me why your model of debate is better overall and why that allows for more conversations to happen; debate is a game

-- Kritiks --

I read Afro-pess in high school and I also know the generic kritiks

Contextualize the link to make it specific to the aff

Most teams don't have a good rebost explanation for their alt; explain the alt to me like I'm a kid who doesn't know anything, if I'm lost and don't know what you're talking about I'm most likely going to vote aff

For aff, pragmatism/state good arg are persuasive to me - give me examples if you can

-- DAs --

Impact calc is really important and needed here

Please have a clear explanation of the link

When a team goes for a DA I usually end up voting on DA o/w due to their impact calc and turns case arg

-- CPs --

Explain why the CP solves for the internal links of the aff

Re-cutting an internal link or solvency advocate of the 1AC is a quick way for me to give you weigh a lot of weigh on the counterplan

-- Theory --

Slow down

Please impact it out. if I don't know why it was abusive in specific to the debate round, I have no reason to vote on it

Colleyville Heritage High School 2014

Affirmatives should be topical or related to the topic at the very least. I prioritize technical concessions over truth. Dropped arguments stay true throughout entire debate. Speaker points generally range between 28.5-29.5.

Counterplans: CPs should be functionally and textually competitive. I like case-specific CPs (especially PICs), not huge fan of consult / conditions CPs. I will kick the CP and evaluate the status quo on its own unless told not to by the aff.

Disadvantages: Absolute defense is possible.

Kritiks: I ran mostly policy arguments so explanation is essential. I usually default to weighing the aff on framework. Negatives should explain what the alternative does. Affs should impact turn as opposed to link turn if more strategic option. Cap good, hegemony good are arguments and need to be answered.

Theory: I usually reject arguments and not teams unless dropped / seriously mishandled. Conditional advocacies good.

Topicality: I usually default to competing interpretations but there are good reasons to prefer reasonability. Topicality not reverse voting issue.

More context:

Kelly Cody: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=11629

Lydia Lee: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=28408

Congress:

As Don Draper once said, "Make it simple, yet significant." The more understandable and well thought out your argument is, the higher points you will land, and therefore most likely higher in the room. Please do not drag on a speech, and be confident when you speak!

CX:

I am in the round to be a judge rather than a participant in the Debate, therefore I am going to listen to any argument with full attention. I would say I lean towards policy in my paradigm, but will listen to anything you want to try. Have fun, be respectful in the room, and show me a good round!

I am primarily a policy coach/judge, but do have experience with LD and PF. I have been judging for more than 15 years and have judged on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits.

In CX, I consider myself to be a policymaker judge, but what it comes down to is that the debater that convinces me is the debater that is going to get my vote. This means that I am looking for strong evidence as well as good analysis. I am looking for arguments that make sense. I am looking for cases that not only prove their own points but counter the opponent's points, as well. I strive to start the round with no preconceived notions. I want to see strong framework and strong impact calcs.

Do not make the mistake of presenting your case without arguing your opponent's. Yes, I am repeating that statement. It bears repeating.

Speed is ok, but at the end of the day, I still like to hear good speaking. If I cannot understand what you are saying, then your speaking habits are not showcasing what you should be doing. I would rather hear fewer quality arguments than to have so much crammed into your time that I am unable to see clearly how it all works together.

While I do not judge as much LD as I do CX, my paradigm remains much the same. I like very structured speeches with clear signposting, clear organization, and delineation between arguments. I want to see evidence early in the round but more analysis as the round progresses. Make sure that your Value and Criterion are strong and show me why I should vote on those - and back that up with what you are presenting with your evidence and analysis.

In Congress, it is important that you are active in the session. I know it becomes a game to see who can get the most speeches in, but unless they are quality speeches, it's going to backfire. Speeches should be quality speeches. And on that note, while I know it is super easy to read straight from notes while competing virtually, I don't like it and will not score a speech high if you are reading straight from your paper. Evidence is important and I want to hear sources. You should have at least one, and preferably two, sources per point. Once the initial speeches are made, it is vital that new arguments to keep things fresh and to promote clash are essential. The PO should have control of the chamber and be confident in his or her style and movements. A good PO will keep things flowing without stifling competitors and will manage to get an optimal number of speakers in. '

In IEs, I look for poise and confidence, good speaking style, strong movements and posture. In INF and OO, as well as extemp, quality evidence is essential but should flow seamlessly with the information. In all events, including interp, I would like to see you far enough away from the camera that movement is natural and not distracting. In OO and INF, as well as in interp, I would like to see a connection to society and/or to your own experiences. For me, the best pieces do both.

In interp, intros should be casual and conversational. Tell me why your topic is important, even in HI. What is the connection to society? To yourself? Blocking, movement, and bookwork (POI) should be natural and not distracting. Characters should be distinct and recognizable, vocally and physically. I don't mind the use of curse words, but do want to see pieces that are true to the author's intent.

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

Sandra Peek

CX Judging Paradigm

I have been teaching 32 years and coaching 17 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80’s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have.

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. In the absence of a framework, I will revert to policy maker, which is my personal preference. Unless you have an exceedingly strong policy advocacy and an exceedingly clean link story, I do not want to see a performance aff or neg.

SPEED- I prefer a moderately-paced debate. I understand the need for speed in the 1AR, and I can follow well-signposted fast argumentation. However, I want to hear the text of the evidence. I am not okay with speed so fast that the words in the evidence are not enunciated.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts and then signpost as you go including numbering. Additionally, before you speak put your speech on the flash drive or email chain so that it is easy to track prep time. I prefer most negative positions to be started in the 1NC . Disads,CP, and T should always be started in the 1NC.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks and affs. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond rejection.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are almost essential for the negative. I will vote a disad down if the aff articulates and wins that the link fails. I generally will not vote on a minuscule chance of the disad or on a “try or die” analysis from the affirmative. In sum, I want impacts to have a reasonable chance of happening before I consider them in my impact calculus.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

INHERENCY-I will not vote on inherency unless the negative proves outright that the aff plan is already happening. I don’t think I have ever actually voted on inherency.

SOLVENCY- I like solvency and vote on it often usually in conjunction with another argument.

COUNTERPLANS- I vote on them and generally accept that they can be topical.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss based theory arguments and will vote on them.

FUNDING- I cannot remember a time when I found funding arguments convincing (by saying this I am NOT saying that I do not like funding-based DA’s).

GENERAL- Open CX is fine if both teams agree except at UIL tournaments where the rules forbid it. Be certain that one gender is not preferred over the other through interrupting or condescending. I will not vote for those engaging in overtly racist or homophobic speech. Kicking is fine but be certain to make it clear. I do prefer the negative to sit on the right and the affirmative to side on the left.

LD Judging Paradigm

I have been teaching 30 years and coaching 17 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80’s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have.

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. In the absence of a framework, I will revert to value/criterion, which is my personal preference.

SPEED- I prefer a moderately-paced debate. I understand the need for speed in the 1AR, and I can follow well signposted fast argumentation. However, I want to hear the text of the evidence. I am not okay with speed so fast that the words in the evidence are not enunciated.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks on both aff and neg. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond reject.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are sometimes out of place in LD. I will generally vote a disad down if it is not intrinsic to the resolution.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

PLANS/COUNTERPLANS- I'm not a huge fan of these in LD but will not automatically vote them down. When there are policy-based resolutions, they often get my vote.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss based theory arguments and will vote on them.

GENERAL- Rude/sexist behavior and/or racist speech will result in lower speaker points. I will not, on principle, vote for those engaging in overtly racist or homophobic speech. I do prefer the negative to sit on the right and the affirmative to side on the left.

PF Judging Paradigm

I have been teaching 30 years and coaching 17 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have. In PF in particular, I think slower debate is better since the intent of the event is for everyone to be able to understand it.

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the pro wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the con wins framework, I will evaluate that way. In the absence of a framework, you put yourself at risk of me simply judging on policy impacts.

EVIDENCE- I think paraphrasing is fine, but be sure those that paraphrasing can be defended with actual correctly cited evidence.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- In my opinion, there is very little time to flesh out arguments like this in a PF round, so unless they are extremely easy to understand and carefully linked to the resolution, I would prefer debaters not use them.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- While the arguments do not have to be labeled as advantages or disadvantages, in most PF rounds I actually weigh impacts to make my decision so regardless of what you call the arguments, you should impact out this way.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

PLANS/COUNTERPLANS- In my opinion, plans and CP's are rarely a good use of the limited time in PF. Occasionally, CP's work if they provide a counter-narrative to the resolution.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss-based theory arguments and will vote on them.

GENERAL- Rude/sexist behavior and/or racist speech will result in lower speaker points. I will not, on principle, vote for those engaging in overtly racist or homophobic speech. I do prefer the con to sit on the right and the pro to side on the left.

1/8/24-edited to update years experience

I am a tab judge. Email for link is soccergoaliejames@gmail.com

I am fine with anything but in terms of what I weigh with each individual argument here is how I view each of them:

K - If you run a K I want to know the specific role of the ballot and why the alt will solve for the problems manifested within the K. If the alt is just a rejection of the opposing team I am less likely to vote for your K.

T - Standards and voters in terms of the real world are how I vote on topicality. If there is ground loss but you do not talk about why that is a voting issue, I am not going to vote for it. T's have a tendency to irritate me if it is obvious they are topical. If you make a topicality as a time suck I will be less willing to give you ground for other theory arguments based on fairness.

DA - Really vague links irritate me, but you can lose the terminal impact and still have a risk of the DA succeeding.

CP - I need a flushed out method on why the Net Benefit of the CP should outweigh the case.

Case - I find oncase really important, and needs to be stressed on both the aff and the neg. Case specific impacts on either side can easily sway a round

Speed - I am fine with speed, however I much prefer quality of arguments as to why they are logical rather than extending impacts that the other team did not hit as well.

I firmly believe policy debate should focus on the policy - and that the point of the debate is education.

Simplified: The resolution was chosen for a reason. All teams have spent countless hours (hopefully) researching, thinking critically about, and formulating a plan that answers the resolution topic thoughtfully and intelligently. Don't muck up a debate about criminal justice reform talking about LBTQ rights or increasing teacher pay (I'm all for both of these, by the way) unless it somehow legitimately ties into criminal justice reform. I don't care if you think the resolution is not the most important issue right now - it is the most important issue in this debate and should be given it's due respect. I'm good with CP's DA's and even the occasional K (though I rarely vote for the K), but let's keep it real and on topic. I want to see that you can listen to and think critically about, then civilly debate one another's ideas about the topic given to you.

It would be hard for me to support that coconut candy is the best because, well, it just isn't. But I can hear someone else's argument, critique it, make compelling arguments against it and then promote my thought that Reese's Peanut Butter Cups are the world's finest food. If someone makes the argument that coconut candy is the best, and I start saying, "Who cares about coconut candy? Big Bang Theory is better!" no one wants to listen to that disjointed conversation. As a judge, I want you to draw me in and show me what you have as far as thinking and communicating, not reading pre-planned arguments that are not even relevant.

Spreading is fine so long as it isn't so fast or unintelligible as to complicate the round and put an unfair burden on the other team. Slowing down for tag lines is good, but tag lines alone do not convey the details of your case. All of it should be intelligible.

Speaking clearly is of utmost importance in these competitions.

I expect over enunciation as pace increases to be sure that none of your words run together.

Advancing contestants weave the elements of pace, pitch, volume, facial expressions, and body language effectively and convincingly.

I am looking for natural performances that feel like you have really committed to the character. Melodrama is highly discouraged.

Introductions should not only introduce your piece, but yourself as well. This is an opportunity to create a clear distinction from your narrator's voice and your own.

Have fun. Enjoy yourself. Show me why you chose to perform this piece :)

Email: joshbutdebate@gmail.com

College: UT Tyler 21-Present

High School: Lindale 17-21

General philosophy: Feel free to read whatever you feel most comfortable with. I went for critical arguments almost every debate my senior year, but the previous three years I spent reading exclusively policy arguments and I read a mix of the two in college. You know what is and is not appropriate to say within rounds and if you don't adhere to that, your points and ballot will reflect it. If you have any questions about your argument and whether or not I'd be receptive to it, it's better to ask than be bothered by my ballot.

Comments:

If you say the words "for a brief off time roadmap," I am going to be sad.

Tech>truth. A dropped argument isn't assumed true without an extended and weighable warrant.

Depth>breadth. I'm not the best judge for more than 6 or 7 off, but if you feel like you need 13 pages to win a debate, I'll just be sad.

I prefer you to not read 30 cards in a speech. Evidence quality is really important and if you throw that out of the window just to throw the other team off, your speaks will reflect it. Comparing evidence quality is a great way to turn the tide in your favor in debates in front of me, as I will do my absolute best to evaluate only what was said in the round.

If it gives you better context, the most influential people to how I view debate are Cody Gustafson, Quaram Robinson, Yao Yao Chen and Nico Juarez.

Disads

-Uniqueness controls the direction of the link, this goes for both sides. If you want to win a link turn, you must win that the disad is non-unique and if you want to win the link you must win that it is.

-Zero risk is possible

Counterplans

-Much more persuasive if they have a solvency advocate, just reading a line in the 1NC just to dump 6 minutes on it in the block means that I give the aff leniency in rebuttals to catch up, but that isn't an excuse for sloppy 2ACs

-This is one place I am very up for a theory debate, whack counterplans that wipe out much of the aff lit base are probably bad for everyone, but the amount of times I've gone for counterplans that definitely cheat on some level puts me in the middle here.

-Doesn't really bother me if they're specific or not, but even if you don't have specific cards you should be able to explain why the counterplan solves the specific harms of the aff with a risk of a net benefit

-Generally for judge-kick, you just need to actually say it. This doesn't mean I can't be dissuaded by the other team in the final speech though.

Kritiks

-Feel free to read them on affirmative or negative, but don't get lazy with them and engage with the arguments the other team is making. Just reading the blocks you wrote at the beginning of the season and not referencing specific authors, lines of evidence from either side and engaging with arguments without specificity is a good way to get really behind in these debates.

-Framework isn't as important to win on negative in a lot of these debates, but if winning a research method through framework is what your critique is all about, of course you must win it.

-Most familiar with critiques of capitalism, settler colonialism and various areas of literature involving anti-blackness. Have read a bit of PoMo, but it is probably the argument you will need to spend the most time explaining. Regardless of my familiarity with your argument, you should be doing the work as if I've never heard your argument before.

-Specific links and explanations of links to either the topic or the affirmative are really important. Even if your link is generic and fits into every shell, that doesn't mean your 2NC or 2AC should sound the same every round. Great link explanation and application is a great way to get better speaks. The inverse is true as well.

-Impact and alt debates are often very muddy. Explaining your impact in a way that it can result from the links and be resolved by the alternative is something that is important. Alt explanation doesn't have to be hard, you just need to do it. History is your greatest resource in these debates, don't forget about it. Examples and explanations are great ways not just to get better speaks, but to win my ballot.

Framework

-Do your thing here and go for the impacts you are most comfortable going for. These debates often get lost in the internal links and fall short in the impact debate, be very careful there.

-Topical versions are important, but you need to make inroads outside of them to implicate why they're important within the debate. Don't just shallowly extend it or acknowledge it and move on, these can shred most of your offense on either side, but are very important to win when aff.

-Impact turns and impact defense are important here, but fleshing these arguments out is something a lot of teams don't do.

Topicality

-I have a higher threshold for voting for this against policy affs, some of these T interps are getting out of hand. That being said, T and advantage counterplans were my favorite arguments to go for, so feel free to read it if you think you can win it. Sometimes you might need to take these debates a little more slowly, it will benefit my comprehension given there are generally fewer pieces of evidence in these debates.

-Having good definitions (that define words in the resolution) is important.

-Please don't refer to a sheet by the authors name, instead refer to it by the word/phrase that the author intends to define.

Theory

-Please no tricks, they're bad for everyone

-Reasons to reject require warrants and weighable impacts

-Counterplan theory is probably a good idea, look above.

-IVIs/RVIs are cool, but not every sheet is an IVI. For example, if the negative reads a topicality shell in the 1NC and then choose not to go for it, that isn't a reason to vote affirmative.

Policy -

I would consider myself a traditional stock issues judge. I understand that debate is evolving and changing and I try to consider myself open to new ideas and approaches. Kritiques and new approaches to framework are not my favorite arguments, but I will listen to them and try to evaluate the round based on what I am hearing and not just my own preferences. I value that debaters are professional and courteous to each other. It is acceptable to have command of the CX period, but another to be rude. If you ask a question, allow it to be answered. I will listen to K and CP's but I prefer traditional arguments such as T's, D/A's, solvency, inherency, harms, etc. . I do not mind new arguments in the 2NC. (This is not required but it makes the round more interesting so speeches do not become repetitive.) I do not mind speed as long as I can flow it. Please provide a roadmap before speaking but be aware that I will time them. I will be the official timekeeper, but it is helpful, especially in the virtual platform where I am muted, that debaters also time themselves.

I consider speech and debate to be one of the hardest and most rewarding things that a student can challenge themselves to be part of. Congratulations on choosing it and good luck!

After a 20 year break from debate, I have been assigned to teach the class this year. I like logical arguments without spreading. I consider stock issues; I need you to tell me how they apply specifically to your round.

Howdy! I started competing in 2008 and graduated from Big Spring High School in 2012. I've been coaching since 2016 at different schools in West Texas, and I’m currently at Permian High School in Odessa, TX! General rule of thumb; don't be a jerk and things will be fine.

CX:

*Include me on the email chain, austin.trevino@ecisd.school

I am a policy maker that evaluates all arguments. I typically judge based on impacts/cost analysis/risk scenarios, but if you don't want me to evaluate that way then let me know why. Just to go in-depth on key arguments:

T- I will evaluate T's every round but in some (most as of late) instances the T is used as a time suck and a strategy of the Neg to win on a technicality. Please do not do this. Only run T if the Aff is definitely not topical. I defer to reasonability on T.

DA- Try to have your links as specific as you can. The more specific the link, the better. That being said, I will evaluate generic DA's if the speaker can analyze and make the link argument fit the Aff.

CP- I hated CP's for years, but they seem to be almost a necessity for this year's topic so I have learned to love them. Theory debates on the CP get very muddy very fast so try to avoid running those arguments if you cannot keep a bright line in there. I err Neg on CP theory, regardless. 50 States is viable, but the more specific your CP is to the Aff, the better off you will be. I do not enjoy rounds with multiple CP's, though.

K- I'll listen to just about any K, but you have to be able to explain it to a five year old. Don't assume I am familiar with your authors. I would like to consider myself relatively well-read on some of the literature with the topic, but be able to break down arguments to their most basic level in case I'm not. I prefer more pragmatic alts to the K rather than the philosophical. Also, don't run the "Postmodern Tap Dance Theory" K that your coach cut for you last night just because nobody has anything on it. Just because you can run an argument does not mean you should.

Theory- Open to theory debates if you can keep them clean. If you know you can't, you probably shouldn't run them.

Speed- We're online so take that into consideration. I can give a verbal clear if need be.

Any other specific questions? Ask me before we start. GO MOJO!

LD:

I'm less Tab here. I enjoy a value/criteria debate with lots of clash in that area as well as lots of good framing arguments, with impacts strewn in. Please do not run any policy arguments here. I do not enjoy those rounds and one theory shell could lose the round for you in the NC.

Email: Aryn.mf.walker@gmail.com

In a nutshell: Run whatever you want to, but tell me how to evaluate it and make sure I can understand it. Generally, I'm psyched to see a team run just about anything that they're particularly good at running (with the exception of overtly prejudiced arguments Please make your arguments clear. You’re supposed to do the heavy lifting here – I should not have to decode what you’re saying. I’ll ignore name dropping, philosopher drive-bys, and argumentation shorthand. If someone reading your speech had to read a sentence twice to understand it, then it won’t be convincing when I hear it. Rebuttals are key for me. Don’t just shuffle around and regurgitate what’s been said in the constructives – provide analysis, re-argumentation, and clarity. And remember, we're not weighing whose evidence is better, rather whose arguments are better.

T- I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise specified. The only real standard on T is limits and I, therefore, will filter much of the 2ac offense as well as 2nc explanations of the violation through that lens. When going for this argument it would help to treat T very much like a disad and having clear articulations of the distinctions you make between the definitions you have read and framing arguments to tell me how to evaluate them. I think that T is underutilized and if done well is cool. When debating T having reasons to justify modest forms of unpredictability, why extra T is good etc as ways generate offense on the limits debate. Similarly, specific examples of ground lost and smart distinctions between good and bad ground will help section of this debate for me. Nuance is key.

DA'S
Good Disad debates are good. I am of the opinion the politics disad are maybe suspect in the conjunction of link and internal link chains, that said framing arguements on this flow are important for me. Justifications for probability, magnitude, and time frame can really make or break alot of these close debates and I think spinning link and uniqueness questions is good.

CPs
I really like a good CP debate. These are fun arguments all counter-plans are theoretically suspect but that's on you to explain. Explain why the counterplan solves at least some or all of the aff, that is important. Slow down on the text of the counterplan so I can catch it. Have a clearly articulated net benefit. Theory alone is insufficient to beat the counterplan, I think it should be paired with some sort of solvency deficit.

The K—I have no problem with the K, if your framework is couched fairly. I do, however, think that they ought to be topic specific with a link explanation that assumes the action of the plan. Statism probably should not be a round winner for me, unless the other team screwed up fairly badly. On this topic, a sophisticated Marxism criticism would be a good choice. A good way to summarize my views of the kritik is that ideally it ought to function as an internal link turn to the affirmative. For example, an affirmative with 3 advantages which all terminalize in nuclear war would be easily susceptible to criticisms which indicate why the methodology deployed by the affirmative makes the international system more chaotic and unstable—because the implicit internal link turn is that the aff method makes nuclear war more likely. You should theoretically be able to beat the aff without cheap shot frameworks that prevent the aff from accessing the 1AC. This perspective should exclude most generic criticisms which don’t adequately deliberate the outcome of the affirmative, but encourages k’s to be as well researched as any other argument and to authentically respond to the aff. I feel the same way about critical affirmatives. Ideally, the aff would still defend the resolution, unless coupled with a good defense of why that perspective is bad. Good critical affirmatives defend the topic and use the veins of critical literature available to them from research on the topic to essentially control every internal link argument. Critical affirmatives should include at a bare minimum some sort of statement of advocacy coupled with a framework. Please don’t hold out on 100% of your framework evidence for the 2AC/1AR. Give me some concept of how your positions operate in terms of the role of the ballot early and often.

Theory
I really enjoy good theory debates. Bad theory debates are at the other end of the spectrum. I also really like non-conventional theory shells. Nuance, specificity, and clarity are key for any shell. When reading theory, make sure to slow down for your interp so I know exactly what the shell is. An RVI is fine if you justify it well.

Speed
Speed is fine.
- Try not to read at top speed if you're hitting a novice. You can still go fast, just make it bearable.
- I won’t vote off of things not on my flow. If I can’t flow you I will shout “clear” as many times as necessary for me to flow you. Be-aware though that if I'm calling clear, I am missing arguments that I won't vote on, no matter how clearly they are articulated in the next speech.
- Give me a sec when switching offs so i can find it on my computer.

Policy Debate - I'm open to both traditional and progressive styles, I enjoy all kinds of well-constructed, interesting, arguments that young students are learning and able to articulate well (including theory and kritikal arguments). Resist the temptation to run an argument that you don't understand or read an author whose work you are not familiar with. Hyperspreading (giant gulps followed by high-pitched, rapid, stutter-inducing speech) is heavily discouraged due to my hearing impairment - depending on whether or not i can understand you, it won't necessarily cost you speaker points - but I'm a flow judge, and if I don't flow it then it didn't happen. Roadmapping, sign-posting, and internal organizational labels are heavily encouraged - and will be reflected in increased speaker points - and ensure that what you say makes it onto my flow. I like a brief underview at the bottom of an argument but it's not required. If you have time it's a nice communication moment. Arguments should be fully articulated (in other words, include analysis on your T standards and voters, impact calculus, and solvency frontlines. The quality of your evidence and your demonstrated understanding of the evidence and how it impacts the arguments in the round are more important than the quantity of evidence that you read. Having said that, YES, you should have plenty of evidence supporting your case/positions, just remember, I am not judging your ability to read allowed, I'm judging your ability to understand and critically evaluate what is being read allowed. I've been judging CX Debate for 32 years, competed in CEDA and Parliamentary Debate in college, and have been a certified teacher/debate coach for 23 years. I enjoy Policy debate. Refutation should be well-organized and include sign-posting so that I know what arguments you are responding to.

LD Debate - I competed in LD Debate in High School in the early '90s. I have a Degree in Philosophy & Political Science from Texas Tech University (emphasis on political and social ethics). I have judged and/or coached LD Debate for 32 years. I enjoy a mix of philosophical and pragmatic argumentation in LD. Your framework (Value/Criteria) should include explanation of your Value and analysis of why I should prefer it as well as a clear, well-explained criteria for evaluating whether or not you have achieved/increased access to your value. In other words, don't just work on the contention-level debate, do the work on the value/criteria as well, if you want my ballot. Cross apply all organizational preferences from the CX debate paragraph here. (See what I did there?) :D

CONGRESS - Remember that you are operating as a member of the United States Congress and make arguments from that perspective. Arguments should be well-constructed and supported (like other debate formats) and should be responsive to the previous speeches on the item being debated (except for the author/sponsor, of course). There should be absolutely nothing even remotely resembling "spreading" in Congress. Speeches should be clear, passionate, and well-spoken. Your ethos in Congress includes your personality as a speaker, in addition to your preparation/research. I have been judging/coaching Congress for 23 years. Attach your refutation of previous arguments to the speaker who made the argument you are refuting, when possible. Show respect for your fellow congress persons when debating, avoid personal attacks.

Public Forum Debate - I prefer not to judge this event and I don't coach it. But if I am judging it, it shouldn't look like a policy debate round because then I will be annoyed at all of the tournaments struggling to make numbers in BOTH policy debate and public forum and the entire round I will be thinking about why we added another debate event that is just splitting the numbers and is looking more and more like the original debate event... So, no spreading, less evidence cards, more analysis and clash of arguments. Speak like an orator, not like an auctioneer. Thanks. And show some personality.

World Schools Debate - I enjoy this format, it's new (to me) and fun and emphasizes a holistic rhetorical strategy, including strong argumentation and persuasive speaking style. I also like that the topics change each round, it's a challenge event that really tests the students' ability to analyze a topic, work as a team, and effectively persuade an audience. I have coached NSDA teams at nationals, but I do NOT coach this event on my own team as a regular thing and I don't judge the event often. When I do, I like to see polite, organized, logical speaking and personality from the speakers. Humor is appreciated, where appropriate.

ALL DEBATES - ALWAYS BE HUMBLE AND KIND. Rolling the eyes, huffing, cutting people off rudely, yelling, etc., will not be tolerated and will be reflected in significantly lowered speaker points. Avoid villainizing, condescending to, or underestimating your opponent as a rule. Remember the rules of evidence governing this activity. Avoid asking "where did your evidence come from" when it's included in the speech or the case materials to which you have access. Flashing/file sharing should not take an inordinate amount of time and may be included in your prep time. If you can't get it shared by the time CX following your speech is over, it will cut into your prep. Stronger arguments look at the root of the opposing positions and attack there. Weaker arguments deal with dates of evidence. I have instructed in CX, LD, and Congress at camps in Texas over the past 18 years and have coached UIL State champions in Congress and LD and UIL quarterfinalists in CX; TFA finalists and NSDA semifinalists in Congress. If you have questions about my thoughts on anything and it's not covered here, just ask.