My judging philosophy is first built on the approach that debaters define the debate. This means I generally do not have any predisposition against anything within the context of the debate. Hence, I do NOT push an agenda. The arguments presented before me are to be engaged by both sides and analysis should be given whereby I should either reject or accept those arguments. This means arguments for or against should be well developed and structured logically. There needs to be a clear framework, but this is only the first level. Impacts and disadvantages need to fit within this framework. They need to be developed and consistent within the framework.

If there is one thing I do not like, blip arguments. These are essentially glorified tag lines that have no analysis behind them, where then a debater claims a drop of this 'argument' becomes a voter for them. For me: no analysis = no argument thus is not a voter. However, if within the context of the debate both debaters do this they lose the right to complain about me intervening. So, take heed, do this and I will allow myself to insert how these blips should be pieced together and the analysis behind them.

There needs to be clash. Far too often debaters do not really analyze. Generally, people view good debates where the flow shows responses to everything. I view this as a fallacy. There should be analysis as to how the arguments interact with each other in regards to the line by line debate and hopefully build a bigger view of the entire debate. Again, it is the debater's job to fine tune how everything pieces together. Specifically, I prefer hearing voters that are in some way intertwined versus a bunch of independent voters. Yet, though, I prefer intertwined voters it does not mean independent voters could not subvert or outweigh a good story.

Things I have voted for AND against

K - I actually like a good K debate. However, I do warn debaters that often I see people run K's they have no reason running because they themselves do not really understand them. Further, as a theme, debaters assume I am as familiar with the authors as they are. Not true. Rather, I feel it imperative that the position of K be well articulated and explained. Many debaters, read a stock shell that lacks analysis and explanation. NEW - Alts need to be clear as to what they will cause and what the world of the alt will look like. Nebulous Revolutions will not sway me, because you will need to have some solvency that the revolution will lead to the actual implementation of the new form of thought.

counter plans - I have no problem with these in the world of LD.

Topicality - I generally stand within the guidelines of reasonability. Muddy the waters and that’s what I will likely default to.

Role of the Ballot - At its heart I think the ROB is a paradigm argument or more simply a criterion argument so that even if one on face wins it does not guarantee a win because the opposite side can in the venue of the debate meet the criterion or ROB. However, the ROB I tend not to like are ones devolve the debate into pre fiat and post fiat debate. I tend towards post fiat worlds in close debates.

RVI - Again this less so, an RVI for seems to be justified within the context of some blatant abuse. As an analogy I have to see the smoking gun in the offenders hand. If it not clear I will side with a standard model. To date I have not voted on an RVI as of 1/05/2024

Understand, I honestly do approach all arguments as being justifiable within the confines of a debate. However, arguments I will on face reject are arguments whose sole objective (as a course or an objective for gain) is to oppress, murder, torture or destroy any class or classes of people. That is to say you know what you are doing and you are doing it on purpose.

I'd say that the realm of debate is for students to engage and craft. As I am no longer a competitor my bias, if it exist, should only intercede when debaters stop looking at human beings as genuine but rather as some abstract rhetoric.

Feel free to ask me some questions. but understand I'm not here to define what will win me. Good well structured argumentation that actually engages the other side are the types of debates I find most interesting. It's your world you push the paradigm you want. My voting for it or against it should not be interpreted as my support of the position beyond the confines of the debate.

Personal Narratives - I am not a fan of these arguments. The main reason, is that there is no way real way to test the validity of the personal narrative as evidence. Thus, if you introduce a personal narrative, I think it completely legit the personal narrative validity be questioned like any other piece of evidence. If you would be offended or bothered about questions about its truth, don't run them.

Communication - I believe in civility of debate. I am seeing an increasingly bad trend of students cursing in debates. I fundamentally, think High School debate is about learning to argue in an open forum with intellectual honesty and civility. The HS debate format is not one like private conversations between academics. I reject any belief that the competitive nature of the debate is like a professional sport. Cursing is lazy language and is a cheap attempt to be provocative or to fain emphasis. Thus, do not curse in front of me as your judge I will automatically drop you a point. Also, most people don’t know how to curse. It has its place just not in HS debate.

So what about cards that use curse words? Choose wisely, is the purpose because it is being descriptive of reporting actual words thrown at persons such as racial slurs. I will not necessarily be bothered by this, however, if it is the words of the actual author, I advise you to choose a different author as it is likely using it to be provocative versus pursing any intellectual honesty.

I do not have a have a problem with spreading. However, I do not prompt debaters for clarity as it is the debaters responsibility to communicate. Further, I think prompting is a form of coaching and gives an advantage that would not exist otherwise. If on the off chance I do prompt you (more likely in a virtual world) You will be deducted 1 speaker point for every time I do it. If the spread causes a technical issue with my speakers - I will prompt once to slow it down without penalty, only once.

NEW: 1/29/21

My email is erick.berdugo@gpisd.org and erickberdugo01@gmail.com for email chains. I am now putting myself part of the email chain due to virtual tournaments and to help overcome technical issues regarding sound. However, please understand I will NOT read along. I have it there for clarification if a audio issue arises during the speech. I still believe debaters should be clear when speaking and that speaking is still part of the debate.

I will automatically down a debater that runs an intentionally oppressive position. IE kill people because the world sucks and it’s bad to give people hope. However, if a person runs a position that MIGHT link to the death of thousands is not something I consider intentional.

NEW - 1/29 7:30PM Central Time

DISCLOSURE - Once parings come out. If you are going to make contact with your opponent requesting disclosure you need to CC me on the email chain: erick.berdugo@gpisd.org and erickberdugo01@gmail.com. Unless I am part of the request I will NOT evaluate the validity of the disclosure inside the round. If you do not read my paradigm and you run disclosure and your opponent does read this. They can use this as evidence to kick it directly and I will. This means they do not have to answer any of the shell.

I expect folks to be in the virtual debate room 15 minutes prior to the debate round. I especially expect this if a flip for sides has to be done. We as a community need to be more respectful of peoples time and of course from a practical matter allows an ability to solve technical issues which may arise.

NEW UPADATE 2/11/2022

Evidence - So, folks are inserting graphs and diagrams as part of their cases. I have no issue with this. However, unless there is analysis in the read card portion or analysis done by the debater regarding the information on the graph, diagram, figure, chart etc. I will not evaluate it as offense or defense for the debater introducing these documents. Next, if you do introduce it with analysis, it better match what you are saying. Next, as a scientist I am annoyed with graphs using solid lines - scientist use data points as the point actually represents collected data. A solid line suggest you have collected an infinite amount data points (ugh). The only solid line on graphs deemed acceptable are trend lines, usually accompanied with an equation, which serves as a model for an expected value for areas for which actual data does not exist.

Special Notes:

You are welcome to time yourself. However, I am the official time keeper and will not allow more than a 5 second disparity.

When you say you are done prepping I expect you are sending the document and will begin with a couple of seconds once your opponent has confirmed reception of the document. This means you have taken your sip of water and your timer is set.

COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE ROUND - I understand when debating virtually where one is set up is not always going to be an ideal situation. However, one should not be communicating within anyone other than ones own partner. There should be zero communication with someone not in the debate. This means those chat boxes need to be off. I understand there is no way to police this situation, however, please remember it looks poorly and you never want to have doubt cast upon your ethical behavior. Also, its just disrespectful.

Last updated 2/11/2022 6:23 PM - Most of the changes are due to poor grammar.

Berdugo

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

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

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

____________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

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

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

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

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

- tech>>>truth

- I default comparative worlds but love truth testing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- flex prep is cool

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

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

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

K- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

LARP- 1 to 3 (depending on density)

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

Theory/T/Tricks- 1

Phil/High Theory- 1

K- 2

LARP- 3

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

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy

Plans:

- Love these please know what your own plan says though

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

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

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

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

Cps:

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

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

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

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

Das:

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

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

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Phil/High Theory

General:

- Please do notttt confuse this with basic fw debate

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

- Kant is kool but I'm not a hack

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kritiks

General:

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

- KvK is cool

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

Fw:

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

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

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

Links:

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

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

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

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

Impacts:

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

Alt:

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

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

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

Overviews:

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

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

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

T/Theory/Tricks

General:

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

- friv is fantastic

Interps:

- please make them positively worded

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

Violations:

- have them and extend them in the next speech

- screenshots/photos are the best

Standards:

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

- the more the merrier

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

Voters/paradigm issues:

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

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

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

Tricks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speaks

General:

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

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

- if you're uncertain if tab

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

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

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

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

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

anthonyrbrown85@gmail.com for the chain

*Please show up to the round pre-flowed and ready to go. If you get to the room before me or are second flight, flip and get the email chain started so we don't delay the rounds.*

Background

Currently the head coach at Southlake Carroll. The majority of my experience is in Public Forum but I’ve spent time either competing or judging every event.

General

You would probably classify me as a flay judge. The easiest way to win my ballot is through comparative weighing. Explain why your links are clearer and stronger and how your impacts are more important than those of your opponents.

Speed is fine but if I miss something that is crucial to your case because you can’t speak fast and clearly at the same time then that’ll be your fault. If you really want to avoid this issue then I would send a speech doc if you plan on going more than 225 wpm.

I do not flow cross so if anything important was said mention it in a speech.

I would classify myself as tech over truth but let’s not get too crazy.

Speaking

Typical speaks are between 27-30. I don’t give many 30s but it’s not impossible to get a 30 from me.

I would much rather you sacrifice your speed for clarity. If you can’t get to everything that you need to say then it would probably be best to prioritize your impacts and do a great job weighing.

Any comments that are intended (or unintended in certain circumstances) to be discriminatory in any form will immediately result in the lowest possible speaker points.

PF Specific

I’m probably not evaluating your K or theory argument at a non-bid tournament. If you’re feeling brave then you can go for it but unless the literature is solid and it is very well run, I’m going to feel like you’re trying to strat out of the debate by utilizing a style that is not yet a norm and your opponents likely did not plan for. If we're at a bid tournament or state, go for it.

Don’t just extend card names and dates without at least briefly reminding me what that card said. Occasionally I write down the content of the card but not the author so if you just extend an author it won’t do you any good.

I have a super high threshold for IVIs. If there's some sort of debate based abuse run a proper shell.

LD Specific (This is not my primary event so I would make sure I check this)

Cheatsheet (1 is most comfortable, 5 is lowest)

Policy: 1

Theory: 2

Topical Ks: 2

Phil: 4

Non-Topical Ks: 4

Tricks: 5

I’ll understand your LARP arguments. I’ll be able to follow your spreading. I can evaluate most K’s but am most comfortable with topical K’s. I will understand your theory arguments but typically don't go for RVIs. I would over-explain if you don’t fall into those categories and adjust if possible.

I do not have a specific paradigm for any debate event, I do emphasize the items below however...

-Feel free to be unique and run anything you choose as long as it is factual, honest, and topical.

-Be respectful of your judges, audience, and probably most importantly your opponent
<do not make gestures via your vocalizations or physicality that could indicate a sense of disrespect towards he/she/them>

-Be culturally component and aware of your privileges when making general statements, truly try to understand someone else's experience before conducting a stereotype

-Speed is fine if you are CLEAR.

-Claims and Warrants are coactive.

-Road maps are ideal and a recap at the end makes me happy :)

***REMEMBER YOU ARE BOLD FOR COMPETING AND YOUR WORDS HOLD POWER***

I've judged at the invitational, district, and regional levels since 2007 in the Southeast Texas region and for the Dallas-Fort Worth circuits. I prefer LD, PF, and Congress, but don't mind judging novice CX.

I consider myself a relatively laid-back judge that is adaptable to style based on region/competition. I can buy most arguments, no matter how crazy!

Speed/Spreading- I believe that speech and debate competitions are designed to develop your communication, critical thinking, and argumentation skills; therefore, I don't believe speeding and spreading are appropriate. Your goal is to deliver clear and concise arguments with good documentation and well-thought-out points. If you do this, there is no need to speed.

How do you know if you are speeding? If you are gasping for air, you are going too fast! If I can't take notes, you are going too fast. I usually do not partake in email chains, so it is your job to make sure I am able to flow based on your speech.

Timing- You are more than welcome to time yourself. I actually prefer it.

Sit vs Stand- You are welcome to do whatever is comfortable for you based on the classroom setup.

Prep Time- Use it! That's what it is there for.

CX- Ask clarifying questions that could help set up your arguments. Don't debate during CX.

Email Chains- Please exchange information and get this process done quickly and efficiently. I have been in rounds where we spent 10+ minutes exchanging emails. Have a paper copy of your case and evidence in case technology fails or takes too long. I do not join email chains. I like to judge the round based on what is said rather than reading it.

For LD, I prefer a more traditional, value-based debate, but I am open to a more progressive debate if that is the approach you want to take.

Evidence- I like to see that your case is well-documented from timely sources. However, please don't spend your debate arguing that your evidence is "more recent" or "more legitimate". State why you think this is the case and move on. Try not to make it the main argument of the round.

Thanks!

Dr. Christi Grudier

Please add me to the email chain: gutierrv@southwestern.edu. I'd prefer an email chain over speech drop.

TLDR: Argue for what you’re most comfortable with (if you’re a theory/T debater see below), I’m good with speed, slow down on advocacy texts, implicate a framework. Compare frameworks. Do weighing. Implicate the link chain to solvency/ impacts. I time. Please don’t prep while the docs are being sent or before the time has started. Be kind and have fun.

I will evaluate any argument in the round- take the notes below as standards that I tend to learn towards in debate, and possible ways to heighten a strat, rather than this limiting what type of arguments you go for in a round. If you go for 14 off is good and win that debate, even if I don't think that's a good model of debate, I will still vote for that regardless of my personal beliefs.

About me:

Hey I’m Val (she/her). I’m in my last year at southwestern studying political science, latin american and border studies and spanish. Meaning, I love policy and philosophy.

As a debater, I went to a small school in Dallas and made it to outrounds at a couple TFA/NSDA tournaments. I initially started as a UDL policy debater and later as an LDer and was taught most of what I know by Kris Wright. While I acknowledge that debate is sometimes cutthroat, I know that it is one of the kindest communities out there, and I ask that you are kind and respectful.

General notes:

• Please don’t abbreviate topic-specific terms, I don't judge every topic and I probs won't know what you mean.

• I’m very persuaded by a quick overview or a story of the link chain, especially as someone who judges intermittently.

• Simply saying they dropped something without implicating the impact of the dropped arg won't get you far. Same as "extend __ arg." I grant you some leeway with the extensions but you still have to implicate the effects it has on the round and/or under a fw. Explain your warrants rather than simply extending tags and referencing authors.

• Congress- Recently judged congress for the first time - It'd be helpful if you add your initials to zoom or say name before each speech.

• World schools- I'm not as familiar with judging world schools, but I can definitely flow and understand framework, contentions and weighing. Before starting a speech, please state your name so it's easier for me to score.

• Big Questions Debate- I find that it is similar to LD but with different speech times. I'm new to the format but comfortable appropriately judging.

Not so short version

Framework - I have no predisposition about what the framework of a debate should be, however, aside from t/theory, or nontraditional K/performance debates, I weigh framework as the highest layer in a debate. I think that some variation of a complete fw debate articulates what the fw means, how the impacts in the round are weighed under the fw and why your fw comes first. If I'm unsure how to weigh these, I'll try to minimize intervention as much as possible. Winning the framework/role of the ballot is not a reason alone to win a round, it's a NIB- you should explain how your form of debate and/or impact scenario comes first in accordance with the winning framework.

LARP- f you’re doing traditional policy debate, I believe the aff has to defend the resolution/prove its desirability. As a neg I believe that you get to test the competitiveness of the aff and/or negate the resolution. Just be reasonable here. This allows you to run disasds and cps/pics, but please make it clear what the competition is and how it functions, whether that be the DA or independent offensive arguments.

Even if an impact outweighs there still has to be a clear link story as to how an advocacy causes/solves that impact. Don’t let that link story get lost, it can ultimately cost a round.

Please slow down on advocacy texts.

Criticisms - K debates are fun when articulated correctly. Like everything you run in debate, but especially important for Ks, know what the alt and story of the K is. Re-reading tags and simply extending cards will not work for me (If you run a k, know your authors.) Tell me what the alt means and how the criticism links. Most importantly, tell me how the alt solves your criticism.

Performance - I love when debaters do what they most enjoy, so a good performance can get you far. The performance needs to function as offense in the debate, so please explain how that functions under a rob/fw. Side note: if you perform in the 1AC or 1NC, and don't do it in the following speeches, I will likely not be as persuaded by any real offense coming from the performance of your speech.

Theory - ngl, if you read 20 disads to a counterinterp in 30 seconds, I'll probably suck at flowing it, because I find that it is usually really unclear. I'd prefer quality here, so if you tend to dump in theory debates, know it won't get you far. Bottom line, slow down a little here.

Topicality - I’m more comfortable with T than theory, but also slow down. If T is messy, I'll default to reasonability.

Spikes - Same feeling as theory debates apply here. Debates with spikes often get messy, and are slightly beyond what I'm comfortable judging.

*Disclaimer:* If you're religiously into theory/t/trix/spikes, strike me if you're able to. If you’re not, slow down and choose quality over quantity*

Logistics:

Speed - I don't have an issue with spreading, but be clear. (Read the T/Theory above for specifics here). I'll say clear once to let you know I can’t understand. Ultimately, not being clear results in me having to stop flowing because I can't understand.

Timing

• Speech time - I'll time, please stop as soon as the timer goes off. To preserve fairness, please do not finish your sentence or continue after your given time.

• Flex prep - It's okay with me if your opponent wants to answer your questions. They don't have to, and I won't make them.

• Prep time/marked cards - I'll time prep. Also, the most it should take to hit send on the email chain is 10 seconds. If there's a problem with you sending the doc, I'll start your prep.

If you prep while they're sending docs (during non-prep time), I will ask you to stop. If I have to repeat, I'll dock speaks for the sake of fairness.

I have been a parent judge for two years and am familiar with LD to an extent. I view debate as the ultimate game of strategy and persuasion. Creativity is encouraged. Regardless of whatever argument you're going to run, it ought to be run clearly. Ks and Theory need to be explained thoroughly. If I can’t follow you, I won’t vote on them.

Speed is okay, but if you’re spreading, I would like to be on the email chain. However, If you do spread, it will impact your speaker points. Debate is about communication. The more effectively you communicate, the higher your speaks will be.

I am tech over truth. I evaluate strictly on what is presented in the round. I will inevitably have to choose one argument over the other but I will base those interpretations on warrants and analysis presented in the round—not outside information.

If you want me to vote on a certain argument, it should be explained in a clear manner and your impacts should be extended. Weighing your argument and impacts against your opponent's argument and impacts will make your path to the ballot easier. I will try not to intervene, but please weigh arguments comparatively to make my job easier as a judge. If not, I will have to decide which arguments are more important.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me.

Andrew James Harding

Add me on the email chain: andrewjharding1@gmail.com

TL/DR Debate: Second-year college student/debater with nine years of debate experience. Tech>Truth. I'm okay with speed, but I need pen time for tags. Plans and K Affs are cool. Ks, CPs, DAs, T, and legitimate theory are cool. Tricks and non-basic phil are not cool. Performance args can be cool, but you'll have to make sure I fully understand the arg. AFF must have offense on case in the 2AR. I'll vote neg on presumption. I default to competing interps. I'll drop the debater. Fairness is an IL to education. CX is binding. CP texts are binding. I'll vote on condo if abuse is clearly shown.

TL/DR Speech: Second-year college student/debater with nine years of debate experience. I will judge at an NSDA/TOC standard.

Speaker Points (25-30 Scale):

30-29.5 - Excellent, late elims

29.4-29 - Great, mid elims

28.9-28.5 - Good, early elims

28.4-28 - Okay, might break

27.9-27.5 - Decent, won't break

27.4-27 - Bad, won't break

26.9-26 - Very bad, won't break

<25.9 - Disgraceful, you've engaged in inappropriate behavior, won't break

Background: I graduated from The Woodlands HS in Houston, TX. I'm currently an undergraduate student at the George Washington University double majoring in Asian Studies and International Affairs, as well as double minor in Political Science and History. I'm also a member of GW's Parliamentary Debate Society, ranking 18th in Novice of the Year Standings for the American Parliamentary Debate Association. I debated all four years in HS, competing in CX for 2.5 years as a 2A/1N and LD for 1.5 years. For other events, I competed in DX for 4 years and occasionally other IE events. I've qualified to TFA State for 3 years in CX, LD, and DX. I've qualified in DX to the TOC and NSDA Nationals twice. In CX and LD, I'm familiar with and have ran both policy and critical arguments, mainly based off of Antonio Gramsci's theory of hegemony during senior year.

General: I view debate as the ultimate game of strategy. That being said, debate is also a game of persuasion. It is your job to persuade me that I should prefer your arguments over your opponent. I expect ethical discourse and effective argumentation. An argument consists of a claim, warrant, and impact, so PLEASE include all three when extending and weighing arguments. Regardless of whatever argument you're going to run, it ought to be ran properly. I don't care about how you sit or dress, but make sure you're respectful of your opponent and listen to any request they may have to make the round better for everyone. I would prefer to see a good technical and strategic strategy that has been well prepared. I don't want you to just read the case and prep your teammate gave you. Don't assume I know what you're saying. My main focus has been on policy-type arguments, but I'm always open to new experiences and learning. I like to give long RFDs and many comments as I want people to be the best debaters they can be. Don't feel bad if you need to ask me to shut up so you can leave the round.

*** CX ***

General AFF: I shouldn't have to guess what the 1AC is about. I don't want to hear many new case cards, for I believe the 2AC should incorporate as much of the 1AC offense as possible. T can be a voter and should always be covered well. The 2AC should be: case, T, then the 1NC order. There should be something on the flow against every off case position. I want to see ADVs kicked as the debate moves along. The 1AR is tough, but coverage of all remaining off case is expected or there should be some arguments made that can address multiple off at once. 2AR MUST include heavy case analysis. If the case debate is lost or not warranted well, I'll presume neg.

Policy AFFs: Love them. I expect to hear inherency either on top of the 1AC or within each ADV. There needs to be an IL to every IPX. Solvency must explain what your specific plan solves your ADVs. If the USFG is your actor, then you must defend that USFG action is key and/or good. That doesn't mean you must justify EVERYTHING the government does, but you must defend the position that the government is the best actor to solve problems. Big stick impacts should probably o/w deontologist impacts if you want access to impact calc.

Middle of the road AFFs: I'm okay with them, but I'm not too familiar with them. For the most part, everything said about "Policy AFFs" above apply here. Frame impact calc however you desire, but I'm to suspect SV is the way to go here.

Critical AFFs: Love them. The AFF must be in direction of the resolution with evidence that links the two together. I must hear an advocacy statement, for I need to know what your AC calls for what I would be voting for. While I enjoy fancy taglines, I must be able to identify the purpose of each card. Impact framing and/or ROJ ought to be included. Don't assume I know your literature. There's a good chance I won't, but if you articulate well enough, there shouldn't be an issue. On T debates, you must give me reason why I should weigh case against T or I don't think you'll get my ballot.

General NEGs: The negative shouldn't walk into round without a skeleton of a strategy ready to go. I enjoy a good 1-off K debate as well as a 6-off policy debate. While I understand the strategical value of reading as many offs as possible (I've done the same), it's nice to read 3-4 off that allow for in-depth analysis in the negative block. The 1NC MUST address case. Not doing so will make me believe you're attempting to skirt away from actual clash and just hope to win on overloading on off case. Case turns are wonderful. However, a win is a win and while I won't like you, I'll listen to you. I should hear case in the block. Kicking arguments that don't advocate for a world outside the AC are totally fine and I expect it. The 2NR should only go for one off (or two if it's a CP with a DA for the NB) AS WELL as at least one case argument. Again, you do you at your own risk.

T: Love it. If you have a shell that the AC links well into, I want to hear this debate. I will listen to squirrelly shells, but I highly doubt I'll vote on them. There must be an interp, violation, standards and voters. Including "Drop the debater" is optional as you obviously want me to even if you don't read it. The block should answer the line-by-line effectively and show why the AC is skewing the debate. Don't read T with 8 other off and argue "wE hAve nO gRounD" as I'll probably buy 2AC defense easily, so pick your standards carefully. I need a TVA and caselist in the 2NC, even if they ask for one in cross as I won't flow cross. I default depth>breadth if there is no debate over the matter.

DA: Love them. I absolutely love politics DAs (base, political capital, midterms, elections, down-ballot, congress, courts, international affairs) as I know this area the best, but DAs in general are nice. A DA should include at least 4 cards (U, L, IL, IPX), but 3 is doable. I'm not a fan of 2 carded DAs. More than 4 are cool. Inherency/Uniqueness should be as recent as possible. If your U ev is from 2016 and the 2AC spreads through a N/U card from 2019, you're not winning the DA. The link should be as specific as possible as I'll believe the plan would trigger it, but I understand the use of generic links. However, there's a good chance I'll buy "AFF not k2" arguments if the link is generic. IL must connect to the IPX.

CP: I'm okay with them. I didn't run them often, but I understand how they function and will happily listen to them. 3 parts: text, solvency, NB. There must be a clearly defined CP text THAT IS BINDING. Meaning, if your text refers to granting parole to Syrian refugees, but the AC is about climate refugees, you better hope the AC let's you getting away with it as it's up to the AFF to call you out on it. If the 2AC doesn't test it, then they missed their chance and I suppose it's up to you to do as you please. It'll reflect in your speaks though. If you attempt to change the text after being called out on it, I will not only dock speaks as you're creating an unfair burden on the 2AC, but I will only consider the CP as what the text says it's doing. After the text, I need to hear a solvency advocate through a from of evidence. This evidence should explain why the CP will solve the issues of the AFF. A net benefit MUST be attached to the CP. While I'll expect a DA, you do you if you have another idea, but know it's a risk. Losing the NB means I no longer consider the CP. If you're going for the CP in the 2NR, you must also go for your NB.

K: Love them. I'm most familiar with critical literature addressing capitalism, hegemony, and biopower. With that being said, I understand the basic concepts on most kritiks. I'm not well-versed in postmodernist thought, but I will listen to the best of my ability. You'll have to do a lot of work in the overview to make sure I know what's going on. Kritiks needs a link, impact and alternative. I REALLY want framing (ROJ/IPX), but it isn't required to win. The more specific the link the better. However, there must be SOME relation to the AC. Meaning, I'll listen to state-bad links, but that would mean the AC defends the state. The block must include heavy link analysis. There must be a clearly defined alt. I'm not a fan of vague alts or reject alts. I want to be introduced to a new way of thinking or acting. If you're going for the K, I need very, very strong alt work. HOWEVER, I will buy the K as a linear DA with the link and impact if I'm told to. I want to know my role in the debate in order to influence how I weigh impacts.

Theory: I'm usually not a fan. The only theories I've ran as a 2A are: disclosure, 50 states fiat, condo bad and "generic links." I don't really enjoy theory debates as I believe they distract from debating the content of the debate at hand. However, I do believe theory can be necessary when there is legitimate concern over actions that have occurred during a round. This may be my LD experiences creeping in, but I believe the negative should only advocate for one conditional world. However, I doubt I will buy condo if there are two condo args. Three is pushing it, and four makes me heavily favor voting on condo bad. I don't like tricks debate as it completely distracts from debating the issues at hand. If you run theory, I need an interp, violation, standards and voters. Run theory at your own risk and only if there are legitimate concerns.

Performance: I'm okay with it, but I may not be the best to judge for these arguments. As a white, cis, heterosexual male, I will not able to fully understand performance if it is based off of personal experience due to the privilege society has presented to me. While this doesn't mean I won't fairly weigh the arguments, I can't promise that I'll either understand or analyze the argument as someone else could, but I will do the best I can. I would want an explanation for the performance so I can have a general idea of what to expect and to look for. Make sure I know how you want me to evaluate the argument, mainly through framing.

*** LD ***

General AFF: Same as CX. I think AC under-views/spikes are a waste of time. Can they strategically preempt NC offense? Sure. However, I'd like to imagine a good debater to just read arguments that don't violate any spikes. If that happens, you've wasted valuable time that could've generated additional arguments. Rather than reading an under-view, I would much rather hear an additional contention/advantage. This doesn't mean you can't read under-views/spikes, but I won't be too pleased. If you think you can get me to change my mind on this, go for it, for I love learning new arguments and strategy.

Traditional AFFs: You should use the entire 6 minutes. There must be a FW that includes, at least, a Value (V) and Value Criterion/Standard (VC) with evidence. Feel free to include other evidence or additional framing mechanisms. I'd like to hear, at least, two contentions with three being preferable. There should be, at least, three cards per contention with four being preferable. I would prefer depth over breadth.

Policy AFFs: Same as CX.

Middle of the road AFFs: Same as CX.

Critical AFFs: Same as CX.

General NEG: Same as CX. NR should collapse the flow. If you're running multiple off in the NC, I expect you to go for 1 in the NR (or CP+DA/NB). In the NR, I will only accept new arguments IN RESPONSE to any 1AR offense (ex: Perm ATs). There also shouldn't be many new cards read in the NR, if any at all.

Traditional NEGs: The NC case should take around 4-5 minutes to get through with 2-3 minutes left to do the line-by-line on the AC. There must be a FW that includes, at least, a V and VC with evidence. Feel free to include other evidence or additional framing mechanisms. If your FW is the same as the AC's or you want to weigh the debate under AC FW, make that clear so I know that not including your own FW is a strategical move. You should have at least 1 contention, preferably 2, with at least 2 cards per contention. While that isn't required (you could shotgun 7 contentions if you really want to), I would prefer more depth over breadth. When on the AC, there should be significant engagement with FW. I expect you to cover the flow. That doesn't mean have an answer for every card (Would be nice though), but there should be arguments made on every AC contention.

PHIL: I like phil, I just haven't been exposed to it well enough to fully comprehend and judge rounds focused on phil arguments. That being said, an argument is an argument and I'll flow it. If you're going for phil arguments in the NR, you REALLY need to explain and warrant the arguments. Assume I know nothing you're talking about, no matter how "basic" it could be. Same regards to weighing, extensions, and warrants apply here too.

T: Same as CX. TVA of the AFF should be in NC. I'm more likely to buy 1AR basic defense due to the timing allocation for the 1AR. However, if you go for T in the NR, I'll have a higher threshold for 2AR analysis. No need to make the "Drop the Debater" argument; I know you want me to.

DA: Same as CX.

CP: Same as CX.

K: Same as CX.

Theory: Same as CX. Please don't waste my time with frivolous theory. Sure, I'll flow it and you can win with it, but I will set a high threshold for you to win the shell and your speaks will reflect my displeasure. Any "tricks" fall under this category. While I don't like disclosure theory, I think the debate could be fair.

Performance: Same as CX.

*** PF ***

General: I did not compete in PF during my time in HS, but I've judged local PF tournaments at the MS and HS level. Just like in policy, weighing, clash, warranted extensions, line-by-line, and strategical arguments are expected and will be rewarded. If there is a specific framework you want me to value, make the argument. I'll default to util if no FW arguments are made. I don't care about speaking style, speed, or general presentation; I vote off arguments that you win on the flow. That doesn't mean you ought to be rude or ignore the value of persuasion, rather I'm making clear that arguments o/w presentation. I'd prefer for you to NOT read policy-type arguments, but do as you please. Cross-Fire periods should be respectful and fairly balanced; If, for whatever reason, I must intervene during Cross Fire to maintain order and/or the integrity of the event, both/all debaters will be given 25 speaks. I will presume CON if there is no extended and warranted PRO offense coming out of the Final Focus. Any framing arguments shape the round and I value them over contention level analysis. However, you WILL (probably) NOT win my ballot if you just win FW. You must apply the FW to the contention level debate so there can be 1) weighing and 2) world comparison. If no framing is given, the debate comes down to contention level. Arguments must be extended and warranted out for them to have a chance of appearing on my ballot. I expect weighing - please don't make me intervene on which impacts I prefer. Arguments should be reasonable, meaning there ought to either be an established and/or implied link to the resolution that makes logical sense. Don't assume I have background information about your arguments; it's your job to inform and persuade me. New arguments made in the rebuttals and/or final focus won't be flowed.

First Constructive: Establish the case. Include any framing arguments.

Second Constructive: I expect offense to be extended, warranted, and weighed. There should be good coverage of the flow with line-by-line coverage. While new offense is technically allowed, I'd prefer you to use evidence from the first constructive speeches to generate offense and/or defense.

Summary: Start collapsing the flow and focus heavily on weighing and world comparison. While line-by-line is always important, you should start crystallizing the main arguments in the world. Meaning, you don't need to win every single argument on the flow, but with whatever arguments you'e going for, you should always cover the line-by-line.

Final Focus: Voters. Weigh the arguments you're going for with what your opponents are going for. World comparison is expected. Line-by-line still matters; don't forget to balance time between offense AND defense with the arguments you're going for.

Speed: I can handle it, but I would prefer not to see it. I think that skills students learn in debate should be transferable to other activities outside of debate.

Arguments: I have experience both participating in and judging PF and LD. If framework is introduced to the round, I prefer to see arguments link to the framework. I also tend to vote for competitors who weigh impacts. In LD, I tend to prefer traditional LD arguments, but I am able to flow other arguments and will vote off what is said in the round.

Email for email chains: vhuggler@trinity.edu

Topicality/FW vs. Non-T Affs

- Affs probably should be topical, I’m just as willing to vote for impact turns against framework.
- I view most of these debates like a checklist. Affs probably need some answer to the following (and negs should be making these args): limits turns the aff, switch side solves, topical version of the aff. I have trouble voting aff if these are not answered. Similarly, I have trouble voting neg if these arguments are not made.
- The best affs generate their impact turns to framework from the aff itself. A bunch of random external criticisms of framework like just reading Antonio 95 or Delgado and calling it a day is not persuasive to me
- The debater that best defends their model of debate is the one that tends to win. Aff debaters who win their model of engagement/debate/education is better than the neg's will win more often than random impact turns to framework
- Should you read a non-topical aff in front of me? You can check my judging record, I think I have voted for and against these non-t affs about equal amounts.
- If you're going for FW: answer k tricks, don't drop thesis level criticisms of T, reading extensions for more than 3 min of the 2nr is an easy way to lose in front of me
- If you're answering FW: you need answers to the args I listed above, I think defense on the neg's args are just as important as development your offense against T, less is more when it comes to developing offense against T

Topicality/Theory/Tricks

- Defaults: Competing interpretations, drop the arguments, RVIs justifiable, not voting on risk of offense to theory
- Weighing standards is the most important to me
- I will miss something if you blaze through your theory dumps
- I’m probably a better judge for tricks than you might think. I’m just as willing to say “these theory arguments are silly” as I am to say “you conceded that skep takes out fairness.” If you go for tricks, go for tricks hard.
- I will vote on 1 condo bad in LD

Phil

- I think frameworks are usually artificially impact exclusive where they preclude all other arguments for virtually no reason. I'm inclined to believe in epistemic modesty but you can win confidence in front of me.
- I default comparative worlds, but it's not hard to convince me to become a truth-tester. What truth-testing means, you will have to explain it to me.

Ks

- I’m slightly more convinced by the state being good than bad, but don’t mind on voting on state bad
- I’m a little better read on identity type arguments as opposed to high theory arguments
- I’m not afraid to say I didn’t understand your K if you can’t explain it to me
- I don’t know why negs don’t have a prewritten perm block given that I vote on the perm a lot
- Specific link analysis is better than generics
- There has to be a lot of weighing done in the 2nr
- Case defense is underrated in these debates
- Case K overviews that aren't entirely pre-scripted are undervalued
- Performance is fine
- There should be more debate about the alternative
- The aff gets to weigh their aff, what that means is up for debate

I debated PF for Centerville High School in Ohio for four years and coached the middle school team for three years. I am a senior at Vanderbilt University coaching the University School of Nashville's debate team.

I competed at a few national circuit tournaments, but most of my debating was done on the local circuit. I have judged all debate formats but have not competed in all of them. Most of this paradigm relates to PF but in terms of Policy, I am open to hearing every argument and will evaluate based on the flow.

Add me to the email chain at sung.jun.jeon@vanderbilt.edu. If you spread, send a speech doc.

In terms of a PF round, here are a few things that I want to see:

1) You don't have to read direct quotes. I am fine with paraphrasing. However, if I find that you are misconstruing your evidence to make your claim, then I won't vote for that specific argument. Your speaks probably will go down as well if your opponents call you out for misconstruing evidence.

2) If you are speaking second, make sure to frontline any offense. I think it is strategic to frontline everything but at the minimum frontline turns.

3) I won't flow cross-fire, but if something major happens, make sure to address it in the next speech.

4) When extending cards and offense in the latter half of the round, make sure that you explain the warranting behind it.

5) If evidence is called, make sure to produce it in a timely manner. Also, I will call for evidence if you tell me to call for evidence.

6) Don't just dump responses. Explain what your evidence indicates and how this piece of evidence is significant in responding to your opponent's case.

7) I like to see you start weighing in rebuttal. I think it is strategic to set up the weighing earlier in the round and then carry that through summary and final focus.

How I vote:

If you want me to vote on a certain argument, it should be in both summary and final focus. Your argument should be explained in a clear manner and your impacts should be extended. Weighing your argument and impacts against your opponent's argument and impacts will make your path to the ballot easier. I will try not to intervene, but please weigh arguments comparatively to make my job easier as a judge. If not, I will have to decide which arguments are more important.

If there is no offense generated from each side (highly unlikely), then I will default to the first speaking team. If you say things that are sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, or are extremely rude in any way, I will drop you and give you low speaks. The debate should be civil and debaters should be respectful.

Please do not postround me. I do encourage you to ask questions about the round and why I voted the way I did. I am always looking for feedback to improve my judging.

If you have any additional questions, let me know.

School Affiliation: Coach at The Episcopal School of Dallas

Coaching & Judging Experience: I have been coaching teams and judging tournaments since 2006. This includes LD, PF, Congress, CX and IEs at different schools in Virginia and Texas. I have had debaters qualify for NCFL and NSDA on multiple occasions which are both considered traditional tournaments.

Speed: Although I am personally not a fan of it, please make sure your spreading is clear and coherent. If I can't understand you, I probably will not flow it. If you see me stop flowing for an extended period of time then it would be in your best interest to slow down. I also heavily prefer if you go slow on your taglines, analytics and any theory arguments, especially during your rebuttals.

Types of Arguments: Although I prefer framework heavy debates, a lot of clash in the round, and good crystallization and overviews in your final rebuttal, I will still vote on topicality, counterplans, some theory arguments at times and kritiks if they are explained well by the debater. I am not a fan of non-topical Affs as I tend to favor whole resolution ACs. Make sure when you run T, that you are linking your violation to your standards/voting issues and that when you run a CP, you explain your net benefits and how it's competitive.

Theory Argument: If you run any disclosure theory or new affs bad arguments, make sure you thoroughly break down the reasons to prefer. Although I have never really been a fan of these types of arguments, I am willing to consider them if you can show the impacts of the abuse committed by your opponent and how this outweighs. Please make sure that whatever theory shells you plan on running are presented at a slower rate of speed.

Kritiks: Run at your own risk because I'm not really a fan of complicated philosophical arguments that have nothing to do with the actual resolution that should be debated upon. I'm not saying you can't win if you run them, but I might look at you funny and simply not flow the argument depending on the complexity of the K.

Speaks: Clarity over speed is prefered. If your spreading is incomprehensible, this will reflect on your speaker points. Any acts of rudeness or displays of an unprofessional demeanor towards your opponent will also be taken into account. If you go against an inexperienced debater or a traditional style opponent, it would be in your best interest to accommodate their format and invest some time clashing with or turning their value, criterion and contentions. Also, please do not ask me if I disclose speaker points. It's not going to happen. In addition, please do not use profanity at all during the round. It will impact your speaks and could also impact my decision so don't do it. Lastly, please refrain from attacking the character of any political figures or political parties as a whole. It's okay to discuss policies of the USFG but please avoid bashing politicians or parties that you may dislike as I consider that type of tactic in a debate to be very unprofessional and offensive. Debaters have lost my ballot over this in the past.

Tricks: Please don't.

Overview: Debate the resolution, clash with your opponent's arguments, provide framework, slow down during tags and analytics, throw in some voters at the end.

Email Chain: If and only if both debaters are sharing files, please include my email as well: kesslert@esdallas.org

Update for the TOC 2023: I am not well versed with kritik literature, so if you primarily run kritiks or k affs then I may not be the best judge for you. The same can be said about theory, I mostly judge small town tournaments in Texas, so I am not at all familiar with advanced theory that you may run at your national circuit/bid tournaments. I am a tab judge, so I will still try to evaluate theory/k's as fairly as possible, but if your case relies on my knowledge of these things you are likely putting yourself at a disadvantage. Aside from that, read whatever DA's, CP's, K's, or Theory you want as fast as you want. Will not vote off of racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, or any other ignorant arguments you make just to win the round. Please signpost and slow down for taglines and analytics

Add me to the email chain: cmm2001@gmail.com (pronouns He/Him)

Background: I did LD and a little bit of policy at Princeton High School. I qualified to UIL and TFA state as well NSDA a few times. I know a decent amount about policy, but I am more comfortable with LD. I do not mind a traditional round with no spreading, but I will also listen to very progressive rounds. It is up to the debaters to set the pace and to tell me why and who I am voting for. For some more about me, I am an Astronomer studying low-mass galaxies using the Hubble Space Telescope and received my B.S. in Astronomy at UT Austin.

K: I never ran K's in high school, but I have had a few ran against me, so I know some basic one's (Nietzsche, Set Col, Cap) but if you are running anything more progressive or any lesser known K's I only ask that you make sure you know what you are running and that you are not running it just to confuse me and your opponents. If I cannot understand the reasoning behind what you are saying I will have a hard time voting on it. This also goes for K affs, run them and if they are well constructed and you defend it well I will vote off anything

CP: Read away! If you say the CP is either conditional or non conditional in CX I will hold you to it.

DA: Run whatever, I will buy any link chain that makes sense in both LD and CX.

Theory: I have a high threshold for how well you prove abuse. There has to be some sort of in round and potential abuse. I will not vote for theory just because you ran it (of course, if it goes clean dropped by your opponent I will vote for it, but that should be assumed about any argument).

FW: Util unless otherwise told

Speaker Points:

30: reserved for exceptional speakers. I am not afraid to give 30 speaks if you do just an all around breathtaking job.

28-29: Amazing speaker with great organization and structure. Seamless transitions, signposting, and slowed down for taglines. An almost theatrical feeling where I want to stop flowing and just listen to the speech (I won't do this, it is just an example)

27-28: good speaker with organization and structure. Did not have to stumble or spend much time flipping or scrolling between pages in your speech. Slowed down for taglines, and analytics. I had to say clear once at the most

26-27: some organization and structure, but still hard to follow speeches, I had to say clear once or twice to get you to slow down

25-26:arguments/speaking lacked structure and organization. Little to no roadmap, or inability to follow speaker because no signposting or slowing down for taglines. I may have had to say clear multiple times to get you to slow down. This also includes poor evidence ethics, but not something for which you can be disqualified for. If you are maliciously or intentionally misrepresenting your evidence (as opposed to just being unfamiliar with the norms of debate) I have no problem reporting you to the tournament director (although I would rather not have to do this).

20:Racist/sexist/other biggoted statements

All that being said, please be kind and respectful of both your opponent and myself/your other judges. Debate is an educational activity, nobody needs to feel excluded of this community.

PF:

Go as fast as you want IF your opponents are ok with speed. I will have no issue about clearing you if it is unclear/too fast and I will not vote on arguments that I didn't get on my flow.

Please have cut cards ready. Two minutes to find evidence, then it's dropped.

The quality of your debate will be judged on presenting the topic as the topic (Topicality). Throwing in racism as an argument for something that doesn't even relate just because you like to argue about that thing, doesn't bode well for your technique.

Weighing tells me what the most important argument is. I will look first to whichever argument is weighed the best. At that point, I look to who links into it. Terminal defense takes out the link - even if you win weighing, you still need to win your link. Weighing is not the end all be all of debate. If one team wins weighing but concedes defense, and the other team loses weighing but actually wins their link, I will vote for the second team, as that's the only team with offense on the flow. Have Fun :)

yes I wanna be on the email chain: ciacarmcc@gmail.com

I did LD in hs and I currently do policy at Baylor

Please be as organized as possible in your speeches and signpost 

clarity>>speed 

Tell me what you're winning and why that means you win the debate. The 2NR/2AR should write my ballot.

framing and impact weighing !!!!

Don't forget about your aff

you can pretty much read whatever you want but don't assume I know anything about your authors- if I have no idea what the aff is I'm not voting for you lol

don't pref me if your go-to is skep or tricks

if your go-to is 7 poorly written condo offs don't pref me

I probably don't know the topic

Be nice and have fun

Specifics:

CPs- sure. make sure it's competitive- what's the net benefit?

DAs- sure

T/Framework- debate is a game but it has real life implications. fairness isn't a terminal impact. I'll vote on it but shouldn't just be read as a refusal to engage with the aff.

Theory- not my favorite. fine when there is clear abuse, otherwise maybe not the best strat in front of me

K- sure. I like specific links to the aff, I like when you explain the alt, I like when you understand your arguments. I don't know what your high-theory authors are talking about, so actually explain your arguments. the burden is on you to do this if not you will be very disappointed in my decision.

K affs- sure

Email chains are good. Include me ericmelin76@gmail.com

Debate Coach @ Coppell (9th Grade Center and Coppell High School)

Greenhill 2022

Top Level

I will work hard to be the best judge possible for your debate. I will flow your speeches and cross-ex and base my decisions as much as possible on your words. I love debate and know how much work you put into it and the least I can do is be the best judge I can be for you. Tech over truth. I’m doubling down here this year because so few judges do this in practice. I would rather vote for high quality execution of untruthful argument that is won than interject myself into the debate.

Some thoughts you may care about when doing your pref sheet in no particular order:

1. I don't have any massive preferences in terms of argument content. Please forward a well-developed ballot story. Compare methods and offense. I don't care what you do as long as you do what you do best. Tell me what you want me to vote on. Judge instructions are good. I prefer lbl to long overviews.

2. Evidence quality matters a great deal to me. I enjoy debates where cross-ex is spent digging in on your opponents claims and referencing their ev. Re-highlighted evidence should be read.

3. T - I rarely see 2nr’s that go for T unless a massive mistake has been made by the aff.

4. KAff/TFW - Appeals to Fairness and clash are both persuasive. I find it extremely difficult to overcome the notion that an unlimited prep burden for the neg is undesirable. To me that means the aff should probably be related to the topic in some way. That said, I often vote aff in these debates. The neg either isn't prepared to deal with case cross-applications and impact analysis of the team they are debating, don't do sufficient work establishing the impact to limits , and sufficiently leverage TVA's and Switch Side arguments to mitigate aff offense. Aff teams often lose when they are too defensive, insufficiently develop their counter model of debate, or make mistakes on the technical portions of this debate.

5. K - Like most judges, case-specific links pulled from ev, tags/rhetoric, established in cx, etc. are what I'm looking for. I find that too much of the debate often devolves into reading framing blocks which means argunents aren't ansered in a satisfactory way by both teams. This means that framing is rarely decisive. Moreover, I am not usually persuaded by arguments that say that aff offense just poof goes away unless the neg is substantially ahead on framing. The sooner you realize that framework may not be decisive, begin to engage what often become comparisons of apples and oranges (in round scholarship vs the results of hypothetical policy scenarios), and give me a way to wade through that muck, the better. Please do us a favor and stay organized - clearly label different portions of the debate on the k. Signpost! Please stick to the line-by-line. Short overviews are ok but long are not.

6. CP - Case-specific is best here again. There's almost nothing better than specific cp with high quality evidence. 2ac permutation explanations are your friend. Later in the debate, I tend to think your explanations are just flat out new and not spin. Just invest a bit more time to unpack your initial permutations and I will hold them to answering the nuance.

7. DA - Not a lot to say here. Good evidence matters. Creative spin is welcome. Zero risk is possible and extremely small risk of an extinction scenario can matter a great deal or not much at all depending on the evidence and analysis accompanying these arguments.

8. Theory - Defaults: Condo -> drop team. Everything else = drop argument.

email: vandanpatel202@gmail.com

tldr: I will evaluate every argument and attempt to be as impartial as possible. I am fine with speed, theory, Kritiks(although I haven't read much lit other than antiblackness/afropess), and virtually any other argument. I am a firm believer that debate is a game so if an argument brought by your opponent is morally repugnant you will have to prove why this is the case as I will not intervene.

T: I love good T debates, don't go for blip T args please. If your gonna read T explain why the definitions are important to the context of the round and give me reasons to prefer. I also evaluate T before K but can change if you tell me why.

Util: read a lot of this in high school. am cool with util and LARP args, will default to extinction outweighs unless told otherwise.

Theory: went for this a lot in high school. I will vote on pretty much any theory arg as long as it is well warranted. I am a firm believer in disclosure, but will vote against disclosure theory if provided with reason to do so.

RVIs - default to RVIs

Default to CIs, can do reasonability if convinced otherwise.

Ks - am fine with them, although the only Ks I'm really familiar with are cap and antiblackness/afropess. Please explain what the alt means and how it solves the aff if it does, often times debaters through buzzwords and hope that I know what the alt means. I am fine with alts that require a rejection of the aff as long as there is a pedagogical reason to do so.

LD BACKGROUND

Background: I did national and local circuit LD for 2 years before I graduated in 2019. I was a progressive debater but primarily focused on stock and policy arguments. I understand fem arguments and focused on plans and counter-plans.

I have judged many tournaments for Worlds School Debate and LD. A couple of notes on my judging preferences:

1. Be kind during round.

2. Do not make blippy arguments.

3. Extend arguments. I will not extend arguments that you drop and there needs to be weighing between arguments on both sides.

4. Give voters and tell me why you win the round.

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: marlygrogers@gmail.com

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. Make sure to explain your arguments well, especially if they are more nuanced. DO NOT READ A FLOATING PIC/PIK. I don't like abuse. I think abuse is unhelpful to the debate space. Do it, I probably will not vote for you.

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments.

Speed: I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll put my pen down if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. You can consider me a 8 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I think permissibility and skep. arguments are defense and don't prefer to see them in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. Don't try to win on tricks...I will severely dock speaker points and just be generally sad and probably won't vote how you want when making a decision (aka don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc). I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence "argument" that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun, this a great learning experience!

WS DEBATE PARADIGM-----

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

World School debate is a team debate that talks about relevant topics. It is done through conversational speed and is highly integrated into the practicality of life.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?

I use Excel to take notes.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other?

I do not have a preference. I like to see comparative worlds arguments, so if you win on the principle/practical tell me why and how your world is net better.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

I evaluate a speaker’s strategy based on fluency, articulation of arguments, and relevance. If it hits both the principle and practical levels, I evaluate it higher.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

If I have to say “slow” you will have points deducted.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

I look to see what how the evidence is relevant and if it is engaged with and articulated well in a round.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

I look to see how the practical influences the principle to resolve quibbles.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I accept them. I want to hear why your model/countermodel works better than the status quo and the impact analysis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

Date Last Reviewed: 3/25/22
Name: Breann Smith [she/they]
Schools: LCS ’16, Austin College ‘21
Conflicts: None

Email: c.bre.smith@gmail.com

*Scroll to bottom for my WSD Preferences*

Lincoln Douglas:
Debate Background: I did 4 years of LD at LCS in Argyle, TX. I competed on the local, state, and national circuits, and was competitive at each level. Notable achievements include qualifying to the TOC my senior year by reaching semis at Isidore Newman and winning Holy Cross, qualifying to NSDA Nationals in LD both junior and senior years, and accumulating 85 career TFA state points. In college I competed in mock trial at the national level and won several individual awards both as a witness and as an attorney.

Disclaimer: You can change any of the following preferences in round. You just have to tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, and give me a warrant as to why it should be that way.

Paradigm Proper:
At the end of the round, this is my thought process:

First I evaluate who won the framework debate. I don’t vote here, but it does determine what offense I can look to in the round. I don’t care if you win Turn #5 to their contention level if it doesn’t have an impact back to the winning framework. From there I look at voters/crystallization to see who is winning the “best” issues in the round, i.e. who links to the winning framework and why the way they link matters more. (“Best”=however you decide to weigh. In the absence of weighing I default util in the sense that I vote for the biggest impact under the winning framework.)

Specific Issues

Important Misc. Stuff

• Please provide a trigger warning if you plan on dealing with sensitive topics. I do have two triggers that I would rather not have to deal with in round unprepared.
• Speed is fine (plz be clear)
• I will say "clear" and "loud" as many times as it takes, although I will get irritated after two times
• Flex prep is okay if both parties are cool with it
• I don’t count compiling docs or flashing/emailing as prep until it gets ridiculous (honestly it shouldn’t take over :20)
• Your opponent needs to have access to anything you read if they ask
• Please don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. That's the kind of stuff that will get you dropped.
• Just something I've noticed, you should ALWAYS ask the status of the offs if you're affirming and the neg runs multiple offs. I don't know why people don't seem to do that anymore.

Flowing/Extensions/Signposting
Flowing: I flow on paper (most of the time), and can catch quite a lot, but here are some preferences that would make everyone’s life easier:

• Slow down a bit for tags and especially author names (I suck at getting author names)
• Slow down for or repeat plan/counterplan texts and theory/T interpretations
• If you plan on reading T or theory, please tell me so I can flow that part on my computer. It’s easier for me to get theory down typing for some reason.

Extensions: I have a pretty low threshold on what counts as an extension, especially for the 1 and 2ARs. For me to consider something “Extended” at the end of the round, it needs to:
1) Be extended in every rebuttal with the word “extend” in there somewhere
2) Have a claim and a warrant

Signposting: Keep in mind that I suck at getting author names unless you slow down for them, so if you say “off Smith 3” I’ll probably be confused until you explain what the arg is. It is significantly easier for me if you say “off contention one”/ “Off turn #2”

Speaker Points
30 – I expect you to win the tournament or be in finals
29.5 – You should be in late out rounds
29 – You should break
28.5 – You could be on the bubble
28 – You could have a winning record
27.5 – You’ll probably break even
27 – You’ll probably have a losing record
26 – It was a rough time

Framework
I really don’t care what you do in terms of framework; you just have to have one that you can weigh back to. I am familiar with meta-ethics, dense philosophy, kritikal framing, and util. I know how burden structures work, but I never ran any myself.

Different Styles/ Types of Debate
I’m indifferent to whatever style of case you want to run, whether it’s traditional, kritikal, performance, policy style, or tricky. You do you. I’d rather see you excel in a great tricks debate than see you have a bad kritik debate because that’s what you think I like more.

However, there is a catch: I really don’t like affs that aren’t topical. Nine times out of ten there will be a topical version of your aff, you’re just deliberately choosing to avoid it. That being said, I won't vote you down if you run an untopical case, but I certainly won’t be very happy.

Perms
So I initially didn't think I was going to add a section on perms, but I think it could prove helpful

• If you just say "Perm: Do both," then explain why the CP/Alt isn't mutually exclusive, then that is a test of competition. If you win the perm, the CP/Alt isn't competitive and I have to look elsewhere on the flow.
• If you say "Perm: Do both" then explain why it isn't mutually exclusive and then have net benefits to that perm, it becomes an advocacy I can vote on because then I have reasons why actively doing the perm would be a good thing.

Theory/T
The only theory shell I will never vote on is disclosure theory. I do think that you should disclose, and I did my entire senior year even though I was functionally a lone wolf, however I don’t think people should be voted down for not doing it if it’s not explicitly required by the tournament. I don’t care if you’re winning your shell and they completely drop it, I won’t vote on it. This doesn’t mean I’ll down you for running it; I’ll just grumpily look elsewhere on the flow.

There are two other theory shells that I have a very high violation threshold for to consider:

• Brackets Theory: For me to vote on brackets theory, you have to show that they have significantly altered the meaning or intention of the card. I won’t vote on brackets theory if all they do is change for grammar or offensive language.
• Wifi Theory: For me to vote on wifi theory, you have to prove that the opponent was actively using the Internet to communicate with outside persons or to cut evidence/look something up during round. I will not vote on wifi theory if they weren’t using it for anything, but they just forgot to turn it off.

Other Theory notes:

• I'm actually a fan of well-executed meta theory. I think it's very strategic.
• A shell needs to have a violation for me to evaluate it.
• I REALLY hate the arguments surrounding small school prep skew, especially when those arguments come from individuals in established programs.

World Schools Debate:

I don't judge WSD often, however I will on occasion. Here is a list of my general preferences:

- I'm not a big fan of speed in WSD

- I strongly prefer verbal POIs, and like debaters to state their name before the POI proper

- I like roadmaps/outlines before speeches a lot

- For scoring, I use the "standards for judging" from the NSDA sample ballot

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

About

• Director @ Coppell
• Assistant Director @ Mean Green Comet
• Debated NDT/CEDA at North Texas
• Please add me to the email chain and/or doc: sykes.tx @ gmail.com

Basics

• This document offers insight to the process I use to make decisions unless directed to do otherwise.
• Clarity is important. I'm also working to adjust my speaker points to keep up with inflation.
• I won't claim to be perfect in this area, but I believe debate has strong potential to build community. Please play nicely with others.
• I view all debate as comparison of competing frameworks. I considered myself a flex debater, and I’m willing to evaluate all arguments.
• I will attempt to minimize intervention in the evaluation of a) the selection of framework and b) the fulfillment of the framework's demands.

Theory/Topicality

• I believe the topic can provide debatable ground, but I don't think that should necessarily be exclusive of other arguments and approaches.
• On questions of framework, USFG, etc. I strongly recommend grounding arguments in academic literature whenever possible. I am particularly interested in how debate shapes agents of change.
• Consistent with my view of competing frameworks, for example, there is no difference in my mind between "competing interpretations" and "abuse." Abuse is a standard for evaluating competing interpretations.

Defaults/Disads

• If the framework for evaluating the debate involves a disad, be aware that I generally determine the direction of uniqueness before the link, and these arguments together speak to the propensity for risk.
• If forced by lack of comparison to default on framework, I will consider time frame, probability, and magnitude of your impacts as part of cost benefit analysis of endorsing the affirmative advocacy.

Counterplans/Counter-advocacy

• I don't believe I have strong predispositions related to counterplan types or theory.

Kritiking

• The division in the community between "kritik people" and "policy people" frustrates me. We should constantly seek more effective arguments. Questions of an academic nature vary from method to application.
• A working definition of "fiat" is "the ability to imagine, for the purposes of debate, the closest possible world to that of the advocacy."

Rebuttals/How to win

• You should either win in your framework and show how it's preferable, or simply win in theirs. This applies to theory debates and impact comparison as much as anything else.
• I find that many debates I judge are heavily influenced by the quality, persuasiveness, and effectiveness of warranted explanation and comparison.

Lincoln Douglas, specifically

• While my background in policy debate leads me to a more progressive perspective toward LD, I have evaluated many traditional debates as well. You do you.
• I am open to theoretical standards in LD that are different than those in CX, but understand that my experience here affects my perception of some issues. For example, I may have a predisposition against RVIs because there are vastly different standards for these arguments across events. I'll do my best to adapt with an open mind.

Public Forum, specifically

• PF should transition to reasonable & common expectations for disclosure, evidence use, and speech doc exchange.
• Email chains and/or speech docs should be used to share evidence before speeches.
• Evidence should be presented in the form of direct quotes and accompanied by a complete citation. If you must paraphrase, direct quotations (fully cited with formatting that reflects paraphrased portions) should be included in the speech doc. If I feel you've abused this expectation (e.g., pasting and underlining an entire article/book/study), I won't be pleased.
• Time spent re-cutting evidence, tracking down URLs, or otherwise conforming to these conventions should be considered prep time.
• Regardless of the way the resolution is written, I think teams should make arguments based on how the status quo affects probability. Uniqueness and inevitability claims, therefore, would greatly benefit the analysis of risk in most of the PF rounds I evaluate.

Congress, specifically

• I have a surprising amount of congress experience, including placing at nats in HS and coaching a TOC champion. That said, I'm not sure I can say a lot here that doesn't likely seem intuitive to most.
• Remain active in the chamber. Move things along. Stay engaged.
• All speech & debate should be rigorous. I'm interested in quality of research and depth of content. If you're one of those kids who makes fun of prep that happened before the round, I'm curious why you're here.
• PO - be efficient, kind, firm, and cover any unfortunate mistakes well. Be aware, though, that mistakes with respect to precedence or procedure can be devastating. Also, speak. I loved to PO, but it's hard for me to imagine winning a big tournament without ever giving a speech.