Our activity should first and foremost be an educational experience for everyone involved. Because we are practicing an academic exercise in a competitive space, sportsmanship is imperative. I tell my students to model the type of debate they would like to compete against; if the way they engage in the activity makes their opponents want to quit our activity...they are doing it wrong. Debate should be for everyone - a healthy debate circuit, like a healthy democracy, thrives off high engagement/participation. I invite you to engage with this narrative; if you love this activity, you should want to share it with as many as possible.

Debaters are sometimes shocked when they come into a round asking me for my paradigm; I will often defer my paradigm to be determined first by the preferences of their opponents. I bring this up because I would rather all participants be comfortable setting norms with one another prior to engaging with what my preferences are as an adjudicator--it makes for a more balanced debate rather than one team having an advantage because they are better at adapting to a specific paradigm of any specific judge. A fast way to lose my ballot is to treat people (judges, opponents, and spectators) within the debate space with disregard because your goals of winning don't require their preferences to be met. I'm not a lay judge, but the debate should primarily be accessible by everyone in the space in order for it to be maximally educational. If I'm on a panel, I pay attention to the paradigms of my fellow judges (and the experience level of your opponents)...so it's always safe to assume I'll vote you down for debate for exploitive, patronizing, and exclusionary behaviors and language. *Extend this line of thought to the literature you're reading and the narratives you're sharing; the people in your impact scenarios matter, they are not a chess piece in your "game of words".

Rather than seeing the debate space as "competitive" (yes, I acknowledge a judge determines a winning side--or best reasoned/articulated/defended side), I choose to see the debate space as "collaborative". Debate asks us to engage in perspective taking; the purpose of switch-side debate is so students gain perspective based on research and critical thought. Ideally, we (judges, spectators, coaches, and participants) should enter into the debate space with good faith; with the goal of everyone ending the round having learned something new, considered a different point of view, and enjoyed the experience (and with the sentiment that it was worth it/we'd do it again if we could).

I reward teams who bring topical research into the space. Fewer substantive arguments with thorough analysis of the literature will always be preferred over trying to win because your opponent doesn't have time to respond to an argument (because you chose to run many under-developed arguments). I understand and enjoy theory, kritik, performance, and fw/value debate when they are done well. I don't think it is productive or required to advocate a position you don't believe in; you may not get to choose your side, but you do get to choose your arguments. 99% of the time I'm going to vote for legitimate advocacy over an overly technocratic strategy developed specifically for the round. Internal consistency is important to me - especially when there are in-round impacts being weighed.

I generally view the debate space as both a lab/playground for testing ideas and *also* as a space for engaging in deliberative democracy - because of this, I discourage deterministically framed arguments that disempower or remove agency from others sharing the space. There's a difference between framing an argument as non-unique and framing it as *inevitable*; if your opponents do this, you'll probably be able to win the impact by making space for an alternate narrative in the round (and I may likely be willing to vote on the in-round impact of preferring your alternate narrative). For example, the inability to eliminate corruption or suffering isn't a reason to reject a plan or framework that minimizes it (this is also true for narratives of peace as the absence of violence, narratives of environmental stewardship, and so on). You'll do well to not dismiss your opponent's impacts in a way that perpetuates a narrative that excludes an alternate narrative that might be better for us to engage with. I enjoy when debaters challenge narratives that often go unquestioned as a means to empower.

I'm going to flow, you should too--it's annoying when you argue against evidence your opponent doesn't read - don't think of reading/skimming through your opponent's files as a substitute for listening/flowing (conversely, don't give your opponents large quantities of evidence you don't plan on reading).

Aside from the rules of the activity, I ask that you're open to earnestly engaging with arguments as your opponents present them; not everyone is taught how to debate the same way, and part of what makes our activity beautiful is the potential it has to evolve and change to become *more* inclusive. I generally believe all constructive speeches are fair game for new lines of argumentation (though topicality probably needs to be run directly subsequent to the interp violation), and rebuttals require debaters to both consolidate and prioritize - I believe *how* we choose to consolidate and *what* we prioritize in rebuttals to be revelatory and this will be where you may get yourself into trouble with internal consistency.

Treat the activity and everyone in the round with respect--that'll get you far.

Updated 4/11/24 for Post-NDT

Hi everyone, I'm Holden (They/He)!

University of North Texas '23, and '25 (Go Mean Green!)

If you are a senior graduating this year, UNT has debate scholarships and a program with resources! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via my email listed below and we can talk about the program and what it can offer you! If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!

I would appreciate it if you put me on the email chain: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

For high school LD rounds, please also add jhsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Most of this can be applied to any debate event, but if there are event specific things then I will flag them, but they are mostly at the bottom.

The TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. I think intervention is bad (until a certain point, those exceptions will be made obvious), and that letting the debaters handle my adjudication of the round as much as possible is best. I've been described as "grumpy," and described as an individual "that would vote on anything," I think both of these things are true in a vacuum and often translate in the way that I perceive arguments. However, my adherence to the flow often overrides my desire to frown and drop my head whilst hearing a terrible argument. In that train of thought, I try to be as close to a "no feelings flow bot" when adjudicating debates, which means go for whatever you want as long as it has a warrant and isn't something I flat out refuse to vote on (see rest of paradigm). I enjoy debates over substance surrounding the topic, it's simulated effects, it's adherence to philosophical principles, and it's critical assumptions, much more than hypertechnical theory debates that aren't based on things that the plan does. Bad arguments most certainly exist, and I greatly dislike them, but the onus is on debaters for disproving those bad arguments. I have voted for every type of argument under the sun at this point, and nothing you do will likely surprise me, but let me be clear when I encourage you to do what you interpret as necessary to win you the debate in terms of argumentive strategy.

I take the safety of the debaters in round very seriously. If there is ever an issue, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know in some manner (whether that be through a private email, a sign of some kind, etc.). I try to be as cognizant as possible of the things happening in round, but I am a human being and a terrible reader of facial expressions at that so there might be moments where I am not picking up on something. Misgendering is included in this, I take misgendering very seriously and have developed the following procedure for adjudicating cases where this does happen: you get one chance with your speaks being docked that one time, more than once and you have lost my ballot even if an argument has not been made related to this. I am extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells. Respect people's pronouns and personhood.

Tech > Truth

Yes speed, yes clarity, yes spreading, will likely keep up but will clear you twice and then give up after that.

Debate influences/important coaches who I value immensely: Louie Petit and Colin Quinn.

Trigger warnings - they're good broadly, you should probably give individuals time to prepare themselves if you delve into discussions of graphic violence. For me, that includes in depth discussion of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide.

I flow on my laptop, and consider myself a pretty good flow when people are clear, probably a 8.5-9/10. Just be clear, number your arguments, and slow down on analytics please.

Cheating, including evidence ethics and clipping, is bad. I have seen clipping become much more common and I will vote you down if I feel you have done so even without "recorded" evidence or a challenge from another debater.

For your pref sheets (policy):

Clash debates - 1

K v K debates - 1

Policy throwdowns - 1/2 (I can judge and am fairly confident in these debates but have less experience in this compared to others)

For your pref sheets (LD):

Clash debates of any kind (Policy v K, K aff v framework, phil v k, etc.) - 1

K - 1

Policy - 1

Phil - 1

T/Theoy - 1/2

Tricks - 4

Trad - 5/Strike

I'm serious about these rankings, I value execution over content and am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.

The Long Version:

Who the hell is this person, why did my coach/I pref them?

Hello! My name is Holden, I've been involved with debate for 8 years now. I am currently a communication studies graduate student at the University of North Texas, where I also got my bachelors in psychology and philosophy. During my time as a competitor, I did policy, LD, and NFA-LD. My exposure to the circuit really began my sophomore year of high school, but nothing of true note really occurred during my high school career. College had me qualify for the NFA-LD national tournament twice, I got to octas twice, broke at majors, got gavels, round robin invites. I now coach and judge exclusively, where I have coached teams that have qualified to the NDT, qualified to outrounds of just about every bid tournament, gotten several speaker awards, have accrued 30+ bids, and made it to elimination rounds and have been the top speaker of the TOC.

I judge a lot, and by that I mean a lot. Currently at 600+ debates judged since I graduated high school in 2020. I think this is because judging is a skill, and one that gets better the more you do it, and you get worse when you haven't done it in a while. I genuinely enjoy judging debates because of several reasons, whether that be my enjoyment of debate, the money, or because I enjoy the opportunity to help aid in the growth of debaters through feedback.

I do a lot of research, academically, debate wise, and for fun. Most of my research is in the kritikal side of things, mostly because I coach a bunch of K debaters. However, I often engage in policy research, and enjoy cutting those cards immensely. In addition, I have coached students who have gone for every argument type under the sun.

Please call me Holden, or judge (Holden is preferable, but if you vibe with judge then go for it). I hate anything more formal than that because it makes me uncomfortable (Mr. Bukowsky, sir, etc.)

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays High School (my alma mater), and the University of North Texas. I currently consult for Westlake (TX), and Jordan (TX). Independently, I coach American Heritage Palm Beach CW, and Barrington AC.

Previously, I have been affiliated with Cypress Woods MM, and Eat Chapel Hill AX.

What does Holden think of debate?

It's a competitive game with pedagogical implications. I love debate immensely, and I take my role in it seriously. It is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I'm not ideological on how I evaluate debates because I don't think it's my place to determine the validity of including arguments in debate (barring some exceptions). I think the previous sentence means that you should please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability. There are only two concrete rules in debate - 1. there must be a winner and a loser, and those are deicded by me, and 2. speecj times are set in stone. Any preference that I have should not matter if you are doing your job, if I have to default to something then you did something incorrect.

To summarize the way that I think about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does it best, "I believe judgign debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, faor, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."

I’ve been told I take a while to come to a decision. This is true, but not for the reason you might think. Normally, I know how I’m voting approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute after the debate. However, I like to be thorough and make sure that I give the debate the time and effort that it deserves, and as such try to have all of my thoughts together. Believe me, I consider myself somewhat comprehensible most times, I find it reassuring to myself to make sure that all my thoughts about the arguments in debate are in order. This is also why I tend to give longer decisions, because I think there are often questions about argument X on Y sheet which are easily resolved by having those addressed in the rfd. As such, I try to approach each decision from a technical standpoint and how each argument a. interacts with the rest of the debate, b. how large of an impact that argument has, c. think through any defense to that argument, and d. if that argument is the round winner or outweighs the offense of the opposing side.

What does Holden like?

I like good debates. If you execute your arguments in a technically impressive manner, I will be impressed.

I like debates that require little intervention, please make my job easier for me via judge instruction, I hate thinking.

I like well researched arguments with clear connections to the topic/the affirmative.

I like when email chains are sent out before the start time so that 1AC's can begin at start time, don't delay the round any more than it has to be please.

I like good case debating, this includes a deep love for impact turns.

I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this includes labeling your arguments (whether giving your arguments names, or doing organizational strategies like "1, 2, 3" or "a point, b point, c point, etc."), I find it harder to vote for teams that make it difficult for me to know who is responding to what and what those responses are so making sure I can flow you is key.

I like debaters that collapse in final speeches, it gives room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.

I like it when I am given a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can take place via a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can takes place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, framework, fairness v education, a meta-ethic, or anything, I don't care. I just need an evaluative lens to determine how to parse through impact calculus.

What does Holden dislike?

I dislike everything that is the opposite of the above.

I dislike when people make problematic arguments.

I dislike when debaters engage in exclusionary practices.

I dislike unclear spreading.

I dislike messy debates with no work done to resolve them.

I dislike when people say "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."

I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, it's your prep time, I don't care just tell me you're taking it.

I dislike when debaters are exclusionary to novice debaters. I define this as running completely overcomplicated strategies that are then deployed with little to no explanation. I am fine with "trial by fire" but think that you shouldn't throw them in the volcano. You know what this means. Not abiding by this will get your speaks tanked.

I dislike when evidence exchange takes too long, this includes when it takes forever for someone to press send on an email, when someone forgets to hit reply all (it's 2024 and y'all have been using technology for how long????). If you think email chains aren't vibe then please use a speechdrop to save all of us the headache.

I dislike topicality where the interpretation card is written by someone in debate, and not about the specific term of art in the topic.

I dislike 1AR restarts.

How has Holden voted?

Since I started judging in 2020, I have judged exactly 602 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff approximately 52.23% of the time.

My speaks for the 2023-2024 season have averaged to be around 28.588, and across all of the seasons I have judged they are at 28.525.

I have been a part of 188 panels, where I have sat approximately 12.77% of the time.

What will Holden never vote on?

Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.).

Arguments that say that oppression (in any form) is good.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.

Claims without warrants, these are not arguments.

Specific Arguments:

Policy Arguments

"Well, for starters, they kick ass." - Louie Petit

Contrary to my reputation, I love CP/DA debates and have an immense amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do good amounts of research on the policy side of topics often, and coach teams that go for these arguments predominantly. I love a good DA + case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. One of my favorite 2NR's to give while I was debating was DA + circumvention, and I think that these debates are great and really reward good research quality.

Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive with germane net benefits, I think that most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments about these issues and I greatly enjoy competition debates. Limited intrinsic permutations are probably justified against counterplans that don't say a word about the topic.

I am amenable to all counterplans, and think they're theoretically legitimate (for the most part). I think that half the counterplans people read are not competitive though.

Impact turn debates are amazing, give me more of them please and thank you.

I reward well cut evidence, if you cite a card as part of your warrant for your argument and it's not very good/unwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link/size of impact to that argument. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that often acts as a tie breaker between the spin of two debaters.

Judge instruction is essential to my ballot. Explain how I should frame a piece of evidence, what comes first and why, I think that telling me what to do and how to decipher the dozens of arguments in rounds makes your life and my job much easier and positively correlates to how much you will like my decision.

I enjoy well researched and topic specific process counterplans. They're great, especially when the evidence for them is topic specific and has a good solvency advocate.

I default no judge kick unless you make an argument for it.

Explain what the permutation looks like in the first responsive speech, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you.

For affs, I think that I prefer well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts much more than the shot gun 7 impact strategy.

Explanation of how the DA turns case matters a lot to me, adjust your block/2NR accordingly.

K's

Say it with me everyone, Holden does not hack for the kritik. In fact, I've become much more grouchy about K debate lately. Aff's aren't defending anything, neg teams are shotgunning 2NR's without developing offense in comparison to the 1AR and the 2AR, and everyone is making me feel more and more tired. Call me old, but I think that K teams get too lost in the sauce, don't do enough argumentative interaction, and lose debates because they can't keep up technically. I think this is all magnified when the 2NR does not say a word about the aff at all.

This is where most of my research and judging is nowadays. I will be probably know what you're reading, have cut cards for whatever literature you are reading, and have a good amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I've been in debate for 8 years now, and have coached teams with a litany of literature interests, so feel free to read anything you want, just eb able to explain it.

Aff teams against the K should go for framework, extinction outweighs, and the alt fails more.

My ideal K 1NC will have 2-3 links to the aff (one of which is a link to the action of the aff), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.

I have found that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how it interacts with the alts and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alternative does, your chance of getting my ballot goes down. Example from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense y'all are going for in relation to the alternative, the links, and the permutation. Please explain the permutation in the first responsive speech.

I've found that most K teams are bad at debating the impact turn (heg/cap good), this is to say that I think that if you are against the K, I am very much willing to vote on the impact turn given that it is not morally repugnant (see above).

I appreciate innovation of K debate, if you introduce an interesting new argument instead of recyclying the same 1NC you've been running for several seasons. At least update your cards every one in a while.

Please do not run a K just because you think I'll like it, bad K debates have seen some of the worst speaks I've ever given (for example, if you're reading an argument related to Settler Colonialism yet can't answer the 6 moves to innocence).

K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC so they can be floating.

For the nerds that wanna know, the literature bases that I know pretty well are: Marxism, Security, Reps K's, Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Weheliye, Grove, Psychoanalysis, Scranton/Eco-Pessimism, and Settler Colonialism.

The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Accelerationism (Fisher, CCRU people, etc.), Agamben, Abolition, Bataille, Cybernetics, Queer pessimism, Disability Literature, Moten and Harney, and Puar.

A note on non-black engagement with afro-pessimism: I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. Particular authors make particular claims about the adoption of afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you can do whatever. If you are reading this K as a non-black person, this becomes the round. If you are disingenious to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I am. This is your first and last warning.

K-Aff's

These are fine, cool even. They should defend something, and that something should provide a solvency mechanism for their impact claims. Having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers become much more persuasive, and makes me happier to vote for you, especially since I am becoming increasingly convinced that there should be some stasis for debate.

For those negating these affs, the case debate is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the negative develops a really good piece of offense by the end of the debate then everything else just becomes so much easier for you to win. I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, and other impact turns, and quite enjoy judging these debates.

Presumption is underrated if people understand how to go for it, unfortunately most people just don't know how. Most aff's don't do anything or have a cogent explanation of what their aff does to solve things and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should probably utilize that.

Marxism will be forever underrated versus K affs, aff's whose only responses are "doesn't explain the aff" and "X explains capitalism" will almost always lose to a decent 2NR on the cap k. This is your suggestion to update your answers to challenge the alternative on some level.

Innovation is immensely appreciated by both sides of this debate. I swear I've judged the exact same 2-4 affs about twenty times each and the 1NC's just never change. If your take on a literature base or negative strategy is interesting, innovative, and is something I haven't heard this year you will most definitely get higher speaks.

Performance based arguments are good/acceptable, I have experience coaching and running these arguments myself. However, I find that most times when ran that the performance is not really extended into the speeches after this, obviously there are some limitations but I think that it does give me leeway for leveraging your inevitable application of the performance to other areas of the debate.

T-Framework/T-USFG

It may be my old age getting to me, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that fairness is a viable impact option for the 2NR to go for. I think it probably has important implications for the ballot in terms of framing the resolution of affirmative and negative impact arguments, and those framing questions are often mishandled by the affirmative. However, I think that to make me deploy this in debates negative teams need to avoid vacuous and cyclical lines of argumentation that often plague fairness 2NR's.

In my heart of hearts, I probably am aff leaning on this question, but my voting record has increasingly become negative leaning. I think this is because affirmatives have become quite bad at answering the negative arguments in a convincing, warranted, and strategic manner.

Framework isn't capital T true, but also isn't an automatic act of violence. I think I'm somewhat neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I am of the belief that the resolution should at least center the debate in some way. What that means to you, though, is up to you.

Often, framework debates take place mostly at the impact level, with the internal link level to those impacts never being questioned. This is where I think both teams should take advantage of, and produces better debates about what debate should look like.

I have voted on straight up impact turns before, I've voted on counter-interps, and I've also voted on fairness as an impact. The onus is on the debaters to explain and flesh out their arguments in a manner that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging specific warrants of DA's to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is no engagement in either side in the debate.

Counter-interpretations seem to be more persuasive to me, and are often underutilized. Counter-interpretations that have a decent explanation of what their model of debate looks like, and what debates under that model feature. Doing all of the above does wonder.

In terms of my thoughts about impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills.

"Fairness is good because debate is a game and and we all have intrinsic motivation to compete" >>>> "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate your arguments so hack against them," if the latter is more in line with what your expalantion of fairness is then 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose.

Topicality (Theory is it's Own Monster)

I love T debates, they're absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. They've certainly gotten stales and have devolved to some model of T subsets one way or another. However, I will still evaluate and vote on any topicality violation. Interps based on words/phrases of the resolution make me much happier than a lot of the LD "let's read this one card from a debate coach over and over and see where it gets us" approach.

Semantics and precision matter, this is not in a "bare plurals/grammar means it is read this" way but a "this is what this word means in the context of the topic" way.

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, nad you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

Theory

I have judged numerous theory debates, more than the average judge for sure, and certainly more than I would care to admit. You'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I ask that you don't blitz through analytics and would prefer you make good in-depth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to your offense. I find that a well-explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me conceptually more persuaded by your impact arguments.

Conditionality is good if you win that it is. i think conditionality is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it should be robust if you plan on abusing the usage of conditionality vehemently. I've noticed a trend among judges recently just blatantly refusing to vote on conditionality through some arbitrary threshold that they think is egrigious, or because they think conditionality is universally good. I am not one of those judges.If you wanna read 6 different counterplans, go ahead, but just dismissing theoretical arguments about conditionality like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. I evaluate conditionality the same no matter the type of event, but my threshold of annoyance for it being introduced varies by number of off and the event you are in. For example, I will be much less annoyed if condo is read in an LD round with 3+ conditional advocacies than I will be if condo is read in a college policy round with 1 conditional advocacy.

Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:

- Shells abiut the appearance and clothing of anoher debater.

- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this

- Reading "no i meets"

- Arguments that a debater may not be able to answer a new argument in the next speech (for example, if the 1AR concedes no new 2AR arguments, and the 2NR reads a new shell, I will always give the 2AR the ability to answer that new shell)

Independent Voters

These seem to be transforming into tricks honestly. I am unconvinced why these are reasons to reject the team most of the time. Words like "accessibility," "safety," and "violence" all have very precise definitions of what they mean in an academic and legal context and I think that they should not be thrown around with little to no care. Make them arguments/offense for you on the flow that they were on, not reasons to reject the team.

I will, however, abandon the flow and vote down that do engage in actively violent practices. I explained this above, but just be a decent human being. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Evidence Ethics

I would much prefer these debates not occur. Nor would I really prefer to adjudicate a evidence rules issue as a theory shell. If you stake the round I will use the rules of the tournament or whatever organization it associates itself with. Debater that loses the challenge gets a 25, winner gets a 28.5.

For HS-LD:

Tricks

I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments based on getting into the weeds of logic (think the philosophy logic, IE if p, then q). I took logic but did not pay near enough attention nor care enough to have a deep understanding or desire to understand what you're talking about. This means slow down just a tiny bit and tone down the jargon so my head doesn't hurt as much.

My thoughts about tricks can be summarized as "God please do not if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate it you can go ham."

I can judge these debates, have judged numerous amounts of them in the past, and have coached/do coach debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not deal with them. There's little to no innovation, and I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1N do not expect me to be very happy about the debate or your strategy. if I had to choose, carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am."

Slow down on the underviews, overviews, and impact calc sections of your framework (you know what I'm talking about), Yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory argumetns like they're card text. Going at like 70% of your normal speed in these situation is greatly appreciated.

Be straight up about the implication and warrant for tricks, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether I feel like evaluating them or whether I'm tanking your speaks. This extends to disclosure practices, you know what this means.

Tricks versus identity-based kritikal affirmatives are bad and violent. Stop it.

Phil

I love phil debates. I coach plenty of debaters who go for phil arguments, and find that their interactions are really great. However, I find that debate has trended towards a shotgun approach to justifying X argument about how our mind works in favor of analytical syllogisms that are often spammy, underwarranted, and make little to no sense. I prefer carded syllogisms that identify a problem with ethics/metaphysics and explain how their framework resolves that via pieces of evidence.

The implication/impact of the parts of your syllogism should be clear from the speech they are introduced in, I dislike late breaking debates because you decided to hide what X argument meant in relation to the debate.

In phil v phil debates, there needs to be a larger emphasis on explanation between competing ethics. These debates are often extremely dense and messy, or extremely informational and engaging, and I would prefer that they be the latter rather than the formr. Explanation, clear engagement, and delineated weighing is how to get my ballot in these debates.

Hijacks are cool, but once again please explain because they're often just 10 seconds long with no actual warrants.

Slow down a bit as well, especially in rebuttals, these debates are often fast and blippy and I can only flow so fast

For those that are wondering, I'm pretty well read in most continental philosophy, social contract theorists, and most of the common names in debate. This includes the usual Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Spinoza, and Deleuze as well as some pretty out of left field characters like Leibniz and Berkeley.

I have read some of the work regarding Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Particularism, and Constitutitionality as well.

I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with people reading Deleuze as an ethical framework, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe moral claims but is a question of metaphysics/politics, proceed with caution.

Defaults:

- Comparative worlds > truth testing

- Permissibility negates > affirms

- Presumption negates > affirms

- Epistemic confidence > modesty

Trad/Lay Debate

I mean, sure, why not. I can judge this, and debated on a rather traditional LD circuit in high school. However, I often find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. If you think that you can change my mind, please go ahead, but I think that given the people that pref me most of the time I think it's in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, for your sake and mine.

NFA-LD:

Everything above applies.

Don't think I'm a K hack. I know my background may suggest otherwise but ideologically I have a high threshold for execution and will punish you for it if you fail to meet it. Seriously, I've voted against kritikal arguments more than I've voted for them. If you are not comfortable going for the K then please do not unless you absolutely want to, please do not adapt to me. I promise I'll be so down for a good disad and case 2NR or something similar.

"It's against NFA-LD rules" is not an argument or impact claim and if it is then it's an internal link to fairness. Only rules violation I will not roll my eyes at are ethics challenges.

Yes non-T affs, yes t - framework, yes cap good.heg good, no to terrible theory arguments like "must delineate stock issues."

Speaks:

An addendum to how I dish out speaks , any additional speaker points you get via challenges cannot get you above a 29.7, the other .3 is something you have to work for.

For speaker points challenges, those that know them can utilize them, this will be edited after TFA.

I don't consider myself super stingey or a speaks fairy, though I think I've gotten stingier compared to the rest of the pool.

I don't evaluate "give me X amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad then perform well or use the methods I have outlined to boost your speaks.

Here's a general scale I use, it's adjusted to the tournament as best as possible -

29.5+ - Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament

29.1-29.4 - Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 - Good round, you should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 - About the middle of the pool

27.6-28 - You got some stuff to work on

27-27.5 - You got a lot of stuff to work on

Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it

PHILOSOPHY: Debate is a valuable educational exercise and should be conducted with mutual respect and regard for the shared goal of learning.

I don't like unnecessarily aggressive or combative arguments. Communicate clearly, stay calm and present with respect.

I am a flow judge, hence I will not consider my personal opinions in the outcome. It is up to you to create a stronger argument than the opposition. The breadth, depth and clarity of your position, along with your logical application of relevant evidence, will tip the balance in your favor.

I value argument over speaking ability, however, if I can't understand you, I can't award points to you. So speak clearly, please. No spreading.

Good logic wins over circuitous, tangential evidence. Make sure your arguments are meaningful.

If you're having tech issues, let me know ASAP. Grace will be given.

POLICY:

I am not opposed to kritiks or theory, however, my preference is for arguments that have practical relevance to the world of policy making.

Don't bring up new arguments in your rebuttals. New evidence is fine, but if you open a brand new point in your rebuttal, it will be ignored.

I prefer direct impacts over terminal impacts.

Try to stay away from nitpicky topicality claims. If you can demonstrate that the opposing team is not following the resolution, okay. But avoid extraneous minutia, and try not to go off the rails.

PUBLIC FORUM:

Since PuF is more of a straightforward pro-con debate style, maybe stay away from counterplans and circuitous arguments.

The goal of PuF is toward an easily comprehensible pro-con argument that is accessible to the general public, hence, speaks are more crucial here. Absolutely no spreading.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS:

I love LD, it's my favorite. Be respectful, be direct, be logic-driven to fortify your claims.

No abusive arguments. No spreading.

Be clear about your values and criteria, apply meaningful evidence, and have fun.

One may call me a traditionalist, but I am not a fan, at all, of speed or anything policy related drifting into LD or PF debate.

The reason PF was created was to eliminate all of the lexicon/jargon and to make it easier for a judge off of the street to follow. The reason LD was created was to examine the values within our society that can be held dear to how we function as human beings. When debaters ignore those foundational components, they may as well go into policy debate. If you feel the need to run theory, topicality, kritiks, and do everything else but debate the actual topics, policy is always looking for more teams. I would encourage you to join it to try and save it.

I don't think that judges that put paradigms as "...I will give you one half of a point if you make a Pokémon reference..." are doing any good to PF or LD. Keep that stuff/junk in policy. There's a reason policy is dying around the country, and that is a part of it. It's juvenile, it's nonsensical, and it is non-educational. Judges should be here to help you learn how to improve your communication skills, critical analysis, writing, and research skills...not point bait you.

Hi,

I'm Daniel, here's a few things about how I judge rounds:

1) Don't make bigoted arguments or do bigoted things. Even if the other team doesn't respond effectively, I'll discount those arguments to improve educational outcomes.

2) I can flow pretty well at most speeds but typically spreading isn't as effective as most people think.

3) I like theory, and I'm willing to entertain pretty much any internally consistent argument. I have an economics, history, and political science background, along with doctoral work in Black liberation education and social justice.

4) I get salty if "flash time" becomes egregiously lengthy. I like debate but I'd also like the round to get over with and keep the tournament moving.

5) I have no preferences about your language choices; however, if your discourse discomforts other judges or competitors then it's a problem.

Best of luck,

Daniel

I have been a coach for several years and during this time, I judge often. One of the most important things I look for when judging is that your arguments make sense and are supported with reasoning and evidence. The most unique and crazy argument will not necessarily win over a stock argument if you can't argue it well. But, if it is well supported and explained with solid links, then go for it! If you have a partner, you need to share the work load and have an actual partnership. Always maintain decorum! Do NOT speak so quickly that I cannot follow what you are speaking. I like to flow the round and if I can't write down what you are saying, then something important will be missed. There must be clash but don't get hung up on one point.

I am a lay judge and will not listen to spreading in debate events.

During IEs such as Prose/Poetry drama and entertainment is important. Speak with personality and gusto. Make me believe in what you are saying.

In extemp be clear and show me that you understand the topic

For OO teach me something new or show me a new side of something familiar.

For all events be respectful to your competitors and have fun!

Preferred pronouns are he/him

Email address: dustinharris1357@gmail.com

I'm the most familiar with LD but I have a decent understanding of all forms of debate. I prefer traditional style debate (no spreading, kritiks, etc.), but if you run it well enough and keep it within reason I don't mind.

LD Specific Stuff-

-While it's technically not required for you to have a value in LD, it will be very hard to convince me you've won the round without one.

-I flow during the round so I am a big fan of signposting so I can keep track of which arguments/contentions you are currently addressing.

-I don't mind speaking fast but spreading is generally not something I enjoy.

-I strongly dislike counterplans so running one will probably get you the loss from me unless your opponent doesn't call you out or something.

I am a head coach for Speech & Debate.

I prefer traditional-style Lincoln-Douglas Debate, with a focus on Value Clash.

Evidence should be read throughout the debate.

I keep a good FLOW during the round.

I prefer debaters speak at a conversational rate.

I encourage you to give VOTERS. Tell me why you have won the round.

I really do not tolerate disrespect in the round. Being rude will lose you the ballot.

I like intelligible speech and stock issues. I'll vote for anything that's persuasive and supported with evidence, though.

Background

I am a speech and debate coach at Kickapoo High School. I have been doing speech and debate in some capacity for 11 years. I am versed in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum mostly, but can keep up in a policy round.

Lincoln-Douglas

You must win the value-value criterion debate in order to win the round. I am a stickler for time management, so make sure you divide your time wisely in each speech to attack each argument with an emphasis on weighing values and value-criterion. I would like Key Voter Issues from both Aff and Neg in their last speeches. I will vote against spreading in an LD round due to auditory processing issues.

Public Forum

I prefer the 1st rebuttal to be fully spent attacking your opponents' case instead of using it to circle back around and re-build. It makes it less confusing. I like clear, offensive voting issues in the final focus.

Policy

I can follow a quick policy round, but warn me beforehand. I prefer analytics over cards and/or explaining why one card is better than another with logic or analytics. No "Refer to author B to cross apply to author C and D." I won't follow that because I don't have a photographic memory for evidence. If you're spreading, make sure to say your taglines very clearly or slow down so I can catch them. Provide a clear roadmap before and during each speech. If you do not tell me where to flow something, I will absolutely NOT flow it or vote on it. I prefer a full document for each speech with each argument typed out. I know that's annoying, but it ensures that I can follow your arguments even if they're fast or confusing because I have trouble with auditory processing. I like out of the box arguments if you have constructed them fully. I'd rather listen to something crazy and mentally engaging than the same old thing. I understand 90% of policy terms, but it is more convincing to me if you can explain them in your own words and explain how they play into the debate. It helps your ethos if I know you know what you're talking about.

Hello! My name is Evan Kirksey and I have been actively involved in forensics for 9 years now, with high school, collegiate, and now coaching experience. I am also a recent Speech Communication and Theatre Education graduate, and am now a coach at The University of Central Missouri, so I am well versed in debate jargon. I can keep up with most arguments easily. However, I appreciate rounds that aren't entirely focused on jargon and tech. I like well developed arguments, clash, and rationale. If you just speed and spread through the round without actually explaining your arguments, you likely won't win my ballot. Be clear and concise about where you are on the flow, your responses, etc. Persuasion needs to play a role in your performance as a debater, or I will not be compelled to vote for you.

David Le (Springfield, MO)

Mainly a Policy Debater, but I know my way around other debates.

More of a traditional debater/judge, but I don’t mind if you go circuit (flashing evidence/arguments is a must if your feeling like Busta Ryhmes).

On LD,

I do prefer if you have value and criterion. I know that some circuit LD doesn’t, but again I am more traditional.

On PF,

Let the chaos in crossfire be minimal. Also, don’t repeat all your arguments in the final focus. The FF is your last chance to grab my attention and state why you win.

Also, if someone is asking for it, just send your evidence. I will never understand PF evidence norms and paraphrasing grosses me out.

For general info,

K arguments are fine ig. Just make sure to know the links

Prefer if you didn’t run a K Aff, but I will vote on anything.

I will vote on T if used well, even if it’s a filler argument. And even you don’t feel like your winning on T, please don’t drop it. (Harper lol)

Extend your impact and framework, that is what I will mainly look for.

Case Turns are underrated and absolute fire!

If a team is actually abusive, then theory is ok.

And lastly, know your stuff. Even if your shouting a bunch of random, at least be confident (Shoutout Andre Swai).

Put me on the email chain (243239@sps.org)

POLICY:

Experience/Background

Former high school policy debater at Central High School in Springfield, Missouri (graduated in May 2019). Attended camp at MSDI (Missouri State Debate Institute) in 2016.

Topics I've debated: domestic surveillance, China, education, immigration.

Achievements: Second in State (2019), top 40 in Nation at NSDA Nationals (2019)

Preferences

Overview: Think of me as a flay (flow-lay) judge. I'll vote on DAs, CPs, Ks if explained well, solvency deficits, T, and even inherency if it's made big enough of an issue.

DAs/Case: This is where I'd prefer most of the debate takes place. I like link stories that make sense and can be clearly explained. I think a lot of value can come from the more traditional style of policy (case attacks and stock issues), but I'd like it if most of the clash was centered on impact calc and world comparisons: tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponents.

CPs: Totally willing to vote on it if you can prove there's a net benefit.

T: Very much willing to vote on it. Neg needs to do a good job of explaining what the interpretation, violation, standards, and voters are if they want to win on this (not voting on throwaway T in the 2NR), but generally I slightly learn toward reasonability. Neg needs to prove they lost something or something is wrong with the aff interpretation

Ks: I have the least experience here. I've cut a Freire K that I used a few times, but VERY RARELY encountered them. Don't assume I have prior knowledge about any specific K, but I will vote on the K, a perm, a solvency deficit on the alt, significant offense on the K, a de-link, etc. I'd definitely prefer it if you didn't run one unless you can do it EXTREMELY well.

Speed: Around 240wpm is where I'd like a max to be, and even a bit lower if I'm judging online.

Miscellaneous: Structure and order in speeches are greatly appreciated: I'll ask for an order before your speech and all I want to hear is "Solvency, Advantage 1, the DA, then the CP." Don't make arguments at this time. Also, I won't do any work for you, if, for example, one team contradicts themselves, it's the other team's burden to point it out and explain why it's bad/an issue. This applies to drops: if both teams drop something, I'm not going to vote on it with no further explanation.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: Don't be mean, hateful, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, etc. I will end the round immediately if I think this is an issue. Otherwise, try to learn something from the debate and enjoy yourself.

If you have any more questions, ask me before the round begins.

Chris Rothgeb

Parkview High School, Springfield, MO

Head Coach

I currently coach the following events: Policy, LD, Public Forum, Congress, Interp (HI, DI, Duo, POI, Storytelling, Prose, Poetry, Duet Acting), USX, IX, OO, Info, Radio Speaking.

Former Assistant and Head Coach at Jefferson City High School, Jefferson City, MO

I debated Policy, LD, and PF in High School. I debated Policy for 2 semesters in college at Missouri State University. I have also judged NFA LD and College Policy/CEDA/NDT.

Policy Debate (below)

In high school and in college, I almost always gave the 1AR.

Role as the judge - I tend to not define what judge I am in a single term. Basically, whatever you present, I will listen to and evaluate that.

Flash Time - When someone is flashing evidence, NO ONE IS PREPPING!! I will count off your own prep time if you are prepping while someone is flashing.

Please provide me with the documents that you flash/email over. This makes my life a little easier and I can be a better judge for you.

If you are unclear, I will yell for you to be clearer. If you continue to be unclear, I will dock speaker points.

I will read evidence if I believe that it is important. Sometimes I do, and sometimes I do not. I will only read the un-underlined portion of evidence if it is brought up in the round and I believe it to be important to decide the outcome of the round. I don't usually do this though.

Topicality - I have voted on T in the past, but that does not mean I like it. If the aff is being blatantly untopical, then T is clearly going to matter. If there is no offense from either side, I will discard T. Make it count.

Theory - Theory debates are so tricky. I was never really exposed to theory until college and it still confuses me today. If you decide to go this route, make it count and explain it well. You do not have to dumb it down, but you need to explain it.

Kritiks - Again, I never debated K in high school. It just wasn't a thing in my circuit. I only did K debates in college because my partners wanted to. I never understood them which made it difficult to convey to the judge. This is important to know. If you do not fully understand your K position, then you cannot explain it that well to me. This presents a problem when it comes down to me making an evaluation of the round. The other thing I find with most K debates is that no one ever tells me the "why" component - or the Impacts. The theory behind the K may be super interesting, but what is the actual application to the round? If you cannot explain this, odds are I will have a hard time making the K matter in my decision.

AFF duties - You must read a plan in the 1AC. This is non-negotiable to me. Waiting until after the 1AC to read a plan is abusive and we just wasted 16 minutes of good speaking time.

Performance debates - I have only ever seen 1 performance debate in my entire career. I didn't vote for it. Not because it wasn't effective, but because they couldn't defend it. Keep that in mind.

Speed - I am "okay" with speed. Most people seem to think that if they read it fast enough, that counts. This is incorrect. If I cannot perceive your words, then I cannot digest the information that you are presenting. BE CLEAR!! Just because you can speak fast, does not mean that I can digest it that fast. I need to be able to understand what is going on in the round in order to make the most accurate decision after the round. On the standard 1-to-9 scale from the NSDA (with 1 being slow and conversational and 9 being rapid and fast), I would go with a 5. If you are speaking and I am not flowing, you are going too fast. I will tell you to be clear, but I will NOT tell you to slow down.

In-round K - I put Language K and Speed K here. Unless the other team is ACTUALLY being abusive, then this should NOT happen. Again, I need impacts.

Abuse - Potential abuse is not a reason to vote someone down. If you feel you were actually at a disadvantage in the round caused by the other team cheating, or what-not, then show that to me.

TL;DR - Impact your arguments.

Have fun with the debate! This is supposed to be fun! So enjoy it! A bad attitude is so easy to see for a judge and it makes me not have fun either. Then we are all sitting there with bad attitudes for an hour and a half. No one wants that.

I really enjoy case and DA debates the best. Impact analysis is always fun to judge. I will listen to all of your arguments - that I can promise you. But you need to make it count.

World Schools (below)

Summer 2022 is my first time judging WSD. All I ask is to be respectful towards each other with POI. Turning down too many points will lose some speaker points. Be sure to carry your arguments from the first speech all the way through (unless you are strategically kicking out of arguments). Make sure you are keeping the big picture in mind. This is a holistic debate -be holistic. 

I have been a coach for fourteen years. I like debaters to talk slow enough so that I can understand what they are saying and for them to articulate clearly. I also like debates about the topic and not about the rules of debate. I would prefer debaters to "suggest" what I should do if something happens in a round instead of telling me what I now "have" to do. Finally, I want debaters to use excellent public speaking skills such as good eye contact, few vocalized pauses, and no distracting movements.

I have judged debate a few times and have children who do debate, but have not done debate myself. I am a college professor.

If speed reading please make sure you are understandable while doing so.

Twilliams@cassville.k12.mo.us

Going fast in a debate doesn't make you a better debater, and yelling doesn't make you more powerful. In a debate you should speak clearly and articulate what you are trying to persuade me, as your audience, to vote on.

Off the clock roadmaps should be used for Policy debate and Policy debate only. I understand what you do in each speech.

I follow the rules and appreciate the students who do as well. Stand for speeches, have an appropriate attitude, and play fair.