Clarity vs. Speed

Understanding of the arguments

Organized

Engaging and persuasive communication

Refutation that is relative to the topic 

Teamwork

Tabula Rasa - within reasonable limits (emphasis on reason and logic)

I approach the debate as a clean slate and expect speakers to persuade me on why their position should be voted on while using the files as support. I am comfortable with fast or slow speakers, along with counterplans and disadvantages. This does not mean I appreciate spreading!

Since I tend to focus on speakers arguing their positions, I place a lot of weight on the cross examination, impacts, dropped arguments, and rebuttals. If you get asked a question, do your best to answer it. I live for a good clash! So take your time to flow each others’ ideas in order to effectively prioritize which topics you will address.

FAQ:

Open or closed CX, it’s your choice.

No, I will not disclose speaker points.

I prefer clarity over speed.

Email: Tienloe@dallasisd.org

Feel free to ask questions before the debate!

Most importantly: have fun and be kind!

*If you are reading this before a debate. Stop. Set up your email chain, include me - mgregg@dallasisd.org. I would also like to sit far away, near an outlet. Thank you for respecting me and my space <3

I am currently the Analytics Coordinator and Director of Debate at the Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet High School in Dallas. I am also a teacher - AP Statistics, AP Seminar, Government, and Debate. Short version: I was deeply involved in high school and college debate (as a competitor and coach) a decade ago. I am now a teacher/administrator and work closely with the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance to create curriculum, files, coach support, and more.

This is too lengthy, but better to overdo I suppose...

Background:

-High School: 3 years at Oak Park River Forest HS (IL) - 2005-2007 (TOC)

-College: 4 years at Northwestern University 2007-2011 (top-ten first round, 2 time NDT elims)

-High School coaching during college: Oak Park River Forest HS (2007-2011)

-High School coaching after college: Glenbrook North HS (IL), Niles North High School (IL) (2012-2013), Stephen F. Austin High School (2013-2014)

-High School coaching as a teacher: The Science and Engineering Magnet High School, 2014-2019, The Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet High School, 2019-present (Dallas Urban Debate Alliance)

-I've taught at the Northwestern Debate Institute, the Jayhawk Debate Institute, and the University of Texas National Institute of Forensics. Too old for that now.

Two general things:

1. I will not read along with you. I would like to be on the email chain for after the debate. Keep this in mind as you make decisions about clarity/speed.

2. I value evidence quality very very much. I will vote on no link.

(3.) If this is UIL state, I do abide by UIL rules regarding speed that interferes with communication. If I think that you're doing that, I'll say slow or something once.

While I have been actively coaching and researching the past eight years, I have not participated much in "national circuit" debate. I attend UIL state and NAUDL nationals with my students, but aside from those debates, I do not typically judge high-speed or high-tech debate. I still think that I can flow and understand advanced debates, but if I'm honest with myself I know if I were your age I would be skeptical of that claim. I will say that I try my best, really enjoy judging debates, and get it right more often than I'm wrong.

My experience has mostly been with traditional policy-making debate, but I also debated critical arguments. I tend to default to deciding whether the status quo is better than the aff or a competitive alternative presented by the negative. Pretty open to what the aff, competition, and alternative mean.

I think most people are looking for insight in how a judge resolves debates, so here's some information on that:

-Topicality: T isn't big in DUDA because we have a disclosure system that basically makes it unnecessary. I don't see many T debates, but I tend to default to competing interpretations and think that the neg needs to have pretty good interpretation evidence. Not really willing to vote for a topic that while limited, is not predictable for the aff. I recommend reading fewer interpretation cards - just read your best ones, quality not quantitiy. In the 2NR, it's really helpful if you stick to the 1AR structure/line by line, I know that can't always be done but ideal.

-Ks: I like them. I find them interesting. Much more interesting if you slow down a little, and definitely interested in how you apply your philosophy/thesis to the affirmative, resolution, and policy-making. I'd advise having an alternative (see above). Winning root cause does not mean you win. Tell me the role of the judge/ballot. I also really like arguments about how the K turns/interacts with the case. Evidence - it's fine to have really long cards, but I appreciate tags that preview what's going on, much more so than rhetorically powerful statements or analogies.

-Plans: I prefer them, but I have voted for affs with no plans many times. If you go for framework, I'd advise reading evidence on how the education offered through policy simulation on this particular topic is useful, and comparatively apply that to the education debate.

Speaker points - I really value partner communication and kindness towards your opponents (like a lot a lot). I don't like to read along with you, and I tend to get grouchy when you don't attempt to flow (if your order is "overview, link debate, impact debate, new sheet, underview", rethink that). Please keep the round moving in terms of tech, use people's names/pronouns, and just generally be an enjoyable person to hang out with for two hours. Always time yourself and each other. Not into hand shakes (pre-COVID) but now I'm just not into being near anyone, but do appreciate using your legal-sized copy paper :)

Misc - Ethics challenges means we stop the debate, so make sure you can support your claim/if I were to investigate it that you would be correct. Card clipping, cross-reading, evidence fabrication/misrepresentation are all reasons you lose (the round, speaker points, my respect). Clearly mark your evidence by saying "Mark the card at" or something like that and physically mark your speech doc. Provide a marked copy to me and the competitors immediately after your speech.

Email chain: mgregg@dallasisd.org

Questions? Ask before the debate. Have fun!

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

UDNC elims: I am most comfortable judging beginner to intermediate policy rounds. Please slow down, and explain more than you would normally for my ballot.

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'm a stock issues judge, unless you give me a reason to switch paradigms. I like to think I'm a blank slate, but then I have to have some basis for making a decision, so I default to the stock issues.

Updated for 2024

Name: Storm Lasseter

Affiliation: University of Texas at Dallas

Email: stormlasseter@gmail.com

*Disclaimer: I am going to try and make this as comprehensive as possible so your team can determine if they want to pref me or not. If you get me in the back of the room and are short on time, refer to the TLDR section in this paradigm.

*If you have any questions about this paradigm do not hesitate to contact me through the email provided above.

TLDR:

I do not care what you decide to run in front of me. Debate is many things to many people and I am not here to dictate the best way to approach this activity. All I ask is that you run what you like and run it well. Teams try to over adapt to judges perspectives when, as a judge, I am suppose to be a neutral actor that evaluates the debate the best I am able too. If you want to run afro-pessimism in front of me or heg good I am here to listen to whatever the teams present in front of me.

Introduction:

My name is Storm Lasseter and I debate for UTD. I am trying to judge more this year. I have been in this activity for 10+ years now and every year my opinion on debate changes in a way that makes my understandings better. I usually flow on paper because I am a slow typer. I am not a stickler about speed, I do not care how fast you go as long as I understand what you are saying, I am not prone to saying "clear" because it usually never gets super egregious, so if I do say it, you should not take that comment as a suggestion. Please be prepared to debate, I try to make this a fun environment, I am not there to tell you what to do. I do not keep track of time, its not my job. I actually like judging, so the easier you make it for me the best I can judge the round. The last thing I want to say is I believe truth over tech. This is antithetical to most of the debate community, but my understanding is the more truth and persuasiveness to your argument, the less tech you have to do to convince me to vote on it.

Argument Thoughts:

General: You can insert re-highlighting. It must be from the specific cutting of the card your opponent read. If it is from a different part of the article that you had to go and cut, then you have to read it.

Aff: I do not care if you read a straight up policy aff, a left leaning policy aff, a k aff, or even read a poem. Affirmatives should be able to defend their aff no matter what they choose to read. I think debate has fallen into an impact run whole where we find the quickest way to read 10 impacts in the 1AC without specific internal links and solvency cards to supplement the impacts read. K affs should be ready to defend their method, answer T, etc. I think good 2As are able to diagnose the real negative threats, and identify the big picture arguments that the 2AR needs to go for to win the debate. Inversely, good 2NRs are able to recognize the affirmatives win condition and are able to make sure giving a winning 2AR is virtual impossible.

Case: Good case debating is a lost art. I think that negatives need to be more specific when they utilize their evidence. 1ACs are written poorly these days, but 2Ns would be better served using the case debate by applying their defense to the aff scenarios and pointing out logical flaws in the 1AC then mindlessly reading your generic impact defense block. The problem I have with case debating is that negatives do not answer aff warrants. What I get from the neg is merely extensions of impact D and then they call it a day. The aff made arguments to your cards, ANSWER THEM! I am a firm believer that negatives should have offense on the case. When affs don't have to worry about case turns, you are making their job incredibly easy.

DA: I think no matter what type of debater you are, rather that be more policy leaning or critical leaning, I think the DA is the fundamental foundation for every argument in debate and learning how to effectively go for a DA makes debaters extremely deadly. Negatives should be reading quality evidence on a DA, and reading more does not hurt. I understand links don't grow on trees, but I think the negative should be contextualizing the link debate to the 1AC as best as they can. Internal link chains should be tight and backed up by lots of evidence. Good efficient line by line will earn negative teams good speaks in these debates. Now, affirmatives are too inclined to go for too many things in the 1AR and 2AR. You need to narrow down the debate. I think about it like this. A DA is like a chair, it has UQ, Link, Internal Link, and Impact. The affirmative does not have to win every part of the DA to win the debate, just like I do not have to remove every leg of the chair to make it fall down. Usually negative teams win these rounds by proving the DA outweighs and turns the case.

CP: I do not have any preconceived notions about CP debating. I think conditionality is good. CP theory is really determined by the debaters. I will say I have a high threshold pulling the trigger on Condo, PICs, Agents, Consult, Conditions, and more inclined on Process CPs and Word PICS. While affs may want to go for theory, a lot of these CPs get slaughtered by PDCP because they are just not competitive with the aff. The only theory that comes close to reject the team is condo. Having a solvency advocate for the CP would help but isn't necessary. I do not think negs are abusing fiat enough. I default to judge kick.

K: For some reason, HS debaters are getting into the habit of reading Ks that have some sort of identity crisis. I am seeing afropess mixed with cybernetics mixed with set col, its getting bad. I am a firm believer that one should master one kritik and understand the lit base before moving on to another. 2NRs should pick and choose if they want Framework or the alternative to be in the 2NR, going for both waste precious time that can be spent impacting out crucial arguments. 2ACs should have a multitude of arguments against the K, but should start narrowing the debate down in the 1AR. I am familiar with most lit bases and if I am not I can catch on to whats going on quickly. This isnt an excuse to lack explanation. You should be clear about what the Framework for the debate is, what are the links to the aff, and what does the alternative do. I think negatives that take time to pluck quotes and phrases that prove negative link stories results in a level of ethos that I love. Further more, I am not really fond of using lit bases for easy wins. These can include PICS out of words you do not like, PICS out of CX, or procedurals that rely on stand point epistomology. I think discussions about the world are productive, but these debates just seem to demonize debaters for maybe just making a genuine mistake.

T v. Plan affs: I think competing interpretations is best. The negative needs to win that their interpretation is better for debate then the affirmatives. I think teams are afraid to go for T, but I think that getting good at debating T is scary to any affirmative team. I think affirmatives wanting to go for reasonability should tell me what they mean by that instead of just saying buzzwords.

T v. Planless affs: I am down with the framework debate. I think both fairness and education are great impacts to go for, pick the one you like and can explain the best. TVAs are busted. I think a good carded TVA is hard to answer and is able to soak up a lot of aff offense. This might be the minority here, but I think for most K affs it is more persuasive to me to go for the impact turn to framework, then to go for the counter interpretation. T in these debates can sometimes have a lot of moving parts that interact with each other. The team that usually has a coherent model of debate we can envision will win the debate.

Hi! I'm Derek Liles, the Executive Director of Dallas Urban Debate. I look forward to judging you.

Things I used to be: Debate Coach at Law Magnet (2016-19), Director of Programs at Dallas Urban Debate (2012-2016), Debater at UTSA (2007-2012), Debater at Dallas Jesuit (2003-2007).

Please add me to the email chain: dzliles@gmail.com.

<.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.>

Reactive, mostly grouchy updates for Spring 2018:

1) Clash: Paperless prep is great, but...I feel like in-round clash and judge adaptation is subpar these days. Learn. To. Flow. On that note, you are under no obligation to send analytic arguments when I am judging.

2) Prep time: I think that any time that is not speech time is prep time (barring things like the time it takes your speech to travel through magic tubes and arrive in the other teams' computer). However, I can't be bothered to enforce a prep policy except in the worst cases, so I'll stick to using speaker points to incentivize best practice. Bonus points to people who run a tight ship when it comes to prep time use. Minus points for those who dilly dally. Generally speaking, prep stealing occurs when you use time from some cosmic bank of prep time beyond your allotted 8 minutes. Specific scenarios that irk me: (a) "pre cx" where you ask what evidence was read - that's CX time (b) adding ev mid speech and sending it without taking prep (c) organizing flows/blocks after prep has ceased...more may be added later.

3) Stop asking me if I disclose speaker points. More than half of you don't even disclose your 1NCs. I will subtract speaker points if you ask me and my ballot hasn't already been submitted.

4) Stop throwing all of your arguments at the wall and hoping I work it out for you. Thoughtfully select a strategic end game and present me with a definitive victory path - don't leave it up to me to find it amongst the weeds. Scott Deatherage, late director of Northwestern Debate, says it best:

"CHOOSE. Choose...The first most essential lesson of effective rebutting is choice making. No matter the speech; be it the 1NR or the 2AR or any point in between...Young debaters, so anxious, every argument they think to be important, especially in rebuttals...instead it is the best arguments and the strongest points that make the effective rebutalist the winning champion in the debate...You...must in the end decide on an effective strategy for the judge. Choose for them what is the best avenue to prove conclusively that the coherent set or complete package of arguments you present as a totality in the last speech constitutes a way, a road, an avenue by which they achieve the effective end of concluding for the [aff/neg]."

<.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.>

General info about me and my feelings about debate:

Some overarching ideas will shape my answer to just about any question you could have about my predispositions: I've been around debate a long time and have judged/coached/debated from just about every angle. I debated at the national level in college (elims at CEDA/NDT). I have a background in policy argument from high school, but shifted very aggressively towards kritikal literature in college...that is to say, I'm receptive and fairly knowledgeable about most approaches to the topic at hand.

I think debate is best when teams effectively clash with each other, so I like when teams prioritize depth over breadth in their strategies and take time to flow/directly engage each others' ideas. I think preparation makes for good debate, so I default to the belief that teams should engage in some form of disclosure (it helped me prep at my small college team, I'm biased). I believe the value of debate comes mostly from the form of analysis it teaches you to make - less so the content of what you are advocating (barring some extreme circumstances). Make your argument as best you can and I will be happy to judge you. I'm not here to tell you what arguments to read.

I tend to be unmotivated to vote on theory - debate should be hard and focused on substantive issues. It's easy to convince me to reject the argument, not the team - so in front of me, you will be better off using theory to close doors on key components of your opponents' strategies. If you plan to go for theory, develop your objection early, rather than starting with a 10 second blip. Theory seems like even more of a cheap shot when it becomes a serious issue only in the last speech.

Bad arguments: Some arguments - impact turns that have "jumped the shark," ASPEC, contrived scenarios, etc. - are just bad (at least I think so). I feel like we all know when it's a bad argument, and if you don't, my reactions will probably make it clear how I feel. I'm likely to intervene or allow a lot of flexibility for your opponents to add arguments in rebuttals against them. "It's not new if it's true!"

Speaker points: I generally range between 28-29.5. Some things (not described in update section) that affect my calculus:

• Act like you want to be here - after judging several rounds, nothing is more refreshing than watching someone who is passionate, engaged, friendly, etc. I also appreciate humor, and unlike some people, respect the beauty of punny wordplay.
• I think debate is a communication activity - lack of clarity in terms of speaking style or strategic endpoint will impact your speaker points and my ability to give your argument the consideration it's due. Concerning speed, start at 80% so I can warm up to your voice and ease into full tilt over 30 seconds.
• I prefer strategic depth over breadth. See rant at top - but in more detail: if starting with several sheets of paper, I'd prefer you resolutely condense the debate to a handful of core issues by the end. Less moving parts = less for me to resolve after the round = less likely I'll have to resolve it for you = more likely you control my perception of what happened in the debate. This also means you need to actively close doors in the last speeches, and I reward debaters who find unique ways to cross-apply concessions to their advantage.
• AFF side bias/musings of a slighted 2N - I think 2ARs get away with murder when it comes to resuscitating advantages that were completely absent or barely in the 2AC & 1AR. I will have no hesitation to entirely dismiss or assign overwhelmingly low risk to advantages that re-appear/weren't fully developed until the 2AR.
• I am very open to the idea that there is zero risk of an argument/averse to the ".01% risk of extinction = extinction" form of impact calculus - sometimes, it only takes a smart analytic/CX question about an internal link to get me to reject a preposterous terminal impact. If I'm smirking while flowing, it means you're doing well and can probably expect me to back you up in the post-round.
• Bad evidence - old man moment: there are so many terrible cards in debate. Speaker points to anyone who publicly shames bad ev & the people that read it.

Small soapbox moment: I try to be attentive to the ways in which normative structures of gender, sexuality, race (and so on) affect student participation in this activity. Debate should be fun, respectful and accessible. Our activity shouldn't lose voices out of a stubborn commitment to remaining aloof of these dynamics, so don't participate in those systems in round and we're good.

I look forward to judging you!
Questions? Email me: dzliles@gmail.com

1 year policy debate experience

2 years LD experience

I was a local debater. I coach middle school policy debate. I like framework and ks and policy arguments. I'm not good at evaluating theory arguments. YES. I will listen to and evaluate them but maybe thats risky of you. So just make argument interactions clear and we'll have a good time! :)

I am currently a Law teacher and debate coach at the Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet in Dallas, Texas. I am a former attorney - I even have experience in the fossil fuel industry! I did not compete in debate in high school or college, but I did compete in Mock Trial and Moot Court in college.

I have judged about 10 rounds on the water topic, and am familiar with most of the big cases like fracking, lead, and agricultural runoff. I have attended coach training and have worked with our head coach to learn debate. I lead our novice and JV program.

In debates, I prefer that you speak at a conversational speed, perhaps a little quicker. I value evidence quality over quantity, so please do not just keep reading evidence without contextualizing it to the arguments in the debate.

I am most familiar with policy-style debate, but I am open to learning new things. I would like to be on the speech doc chain - dopitz@dallasisd.org. If you have any questions before the debate, I am happy to answer them. I value partnership communication and general kindness towards others very highly, please make it a pleasant experience for all :)

Debate Experience
Law Magnet High School 2012-2016
The University of Texas at Dallas 2016-now

Email: gtwin98@gmail.com

General:
Don't assume I know all the nuances of your arguments. Needless to say, you should probably explain your argument anyways. I evaluate all arguments.

Specifics:
Case: You should read it. Lots of it. It's good, makes for good debates and is generally underutilized. Impact turns are fun.

Topicality: I enjoy good T debates. Unfortunately, T debates are normally really messy, so the team to really put the debate into perspective and be very clear on how the two worlds interact first generally wins.

DAs: DAs are also a core debate argument. Specific DAs are always a plus. I default to an offense/defense paradigm but I think an aff can win on defense alone if they making arguments about why having to have offense is bad.

Counterplans: Well thought out specific counterplan are one of the strongest debate tools that you can use. I will vote on almost any cp if you can win that it is theoretically legitimate and that it has a net benefit.

Kritiks/ K AFFs: Over the past couple years I have opened up towards the K a lot. I have a pretty good grasp of a lot of the popular Kritiks, but that isn't an excuse for a lack of explanation when reading your argument. I have no problem with teams running untopical affs as long as they can win that it’s good to do so.

Theory: I have no problem voting on theory if it is well warranted. I honestly believe affirmative teams let the negative get away with a ton of stuff, and shouldn't be afraid to not only run theory but to go for it and go for it hard.

Hello, I've been judging policy debate since the Fall of 2020 to the present (Spring of 2024). This is my second year serving as head debate coach, and I also have experience in LD and World Schools Debate.

Previously to being a High School AP World History teacher at the School of the Talented and Gifted at Townview in Dallas, I served as an instructor in both the English and the Latin American Latino Studies Departments at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where I incorporated debate into my courses.

As such, my approach to judging could be described as a synthesis between a policy making judge and a tabula rasa judge. When deciding a round I try to put myself into the shoes of a national legislator who must vote for the best policy offered in the debate, focusing on the AFFs plan and the NEGs ability to clash on the feasibility implementing the AFF or the NEGs ability to present a more preferable counter plan. And I like to adopt the posture of a tabula rasa judge because it is unfair for judge's to vote based on their own knowledge of the issues and/or their own politics.

So, I leave it to the debaters to demonstrate gaps in the opponent's plans, contradictions of values, or to extend each others timelines, minimize each others magnitudes, break link chains, impact calculus etc. As such, your rebuttals are key for giving me a path to voting for your plan, so be sure to flow the debate, and give your most strategic clashes for the most important grounds.

And, for me anyway, whatever you say under your timed speech always already enters the record as grounds for the debate, I do not strike out previously made claims if you happen to lose on those grounds later on in the match.

Also, I really appreciate it when students argue in good faith about the resolution as opposed to when students choose to argue about the rules of policy debate instead. I mean, in a way, it makes sense. Students should not introduce new evidence in rebuttals and if something like that occurs, then I am flexible to hearing your claims. But if the entire hour-and-a-half round is about the technicalities of CX policy debate then I feel like we are wasting our time / avoiding the actual topic.

Final note: debaters must use evidence ethically, quoting with integrity to the source. If your evidence gets called into question and it is clear that the evidence says the opposite of what you claim, or does not exist, then this may impact the way that particular argument is evaluated. Please CC me into the round's email chain entitled" Tournament name, Round #, school-1 vs school-2" at: nesandoval@dallasisd.org

I am a debate coach.

I flow each round and vote based on my notes.

Teams that do not drop arguments tend to do well.

I do not entertain new arguments in the Negative block (2NR/1NR) unless rebutting new arguments from the 2 AC.

I pay close attention to stock issues.

All types of arguments can be presented, including Ks.

I am open to giving feedback after a round if the tournament allows it.

I debated at Colleyville Heritage from 1997-2001, and at Dartmouth from 2001-2005.

A few rules:

1. Be Clear - I can't evaluate your positions if I can't understand you. At this stage, clarity is more important than speed.

2. Be Nice - Do not engage in anything approaching overly aggressive or disrespectful behavior. A failure to do will lose you the round.

3. Be Good - I am generally very open minded about most arguments, just explain them and why the arguments you're winning means you win the round.

Kiran

Table of contents:

1. My Background

2. Paradigm Overview

3. LD specifics

4. Policy specifics

5. World School specifics

6. Public Forum specifics

- My Background -

I have been coaching for 20+ years. Currently, I am the head debate coach at Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School in Dallas ISD, where my students primarily compete in World School, though they have also competed in LD and Policy. Before that, I was the head debate coach at the JBS Law Magnet in Dallas ISD, where I coached both LD and Policy on the Texas and national circuits. Over the years, I've also coached national circuit LD for University School (Florida) and, in Texas, at Westlake, Southlake, Marcus, and Anderson High Schools, as well as individual LDers attending high schools across the country. I have coached TFA champions in LD and Policy, as well as to elimination rounds at the TOC and NSDA Nationals.

Most of my coaching and judging experience is in LD, Policy, and World School; however, I've also coached and judged Public Forum, though to a much lesser extent.

I have a BA in Philosophy and Government from UT Austin, where I also earned a MA in Gender Studies.

I am a co-founder and Board Member of the Texas Debate Collective (TDC) and have taught at every TDC summer camp to debate. I also previously taught LD debate at NSD, VBI, NDF, and UTNIF camps. I have taught Policy and World School debate at camps hosted by the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.

- Paradigm overview -

Below I'll attempt to speak to some event-specific paradigms, but I'll start with an overview of how I tend to judge any debate event:

1. In my view, a judge should aspire to resolve issues/clash in the round based on what the debaters themselves have argued, as opposed to holding either side to the burden of debating the judge. In practice, this means that I am quite fine voting against my own beliefs and/or for arguments that I have good reasons (that were not raised in the round) for rejecting in real life. This also means that I tend to be pretty open to hearing a variety of arguments, strategies, and styles. MJPs frequently result in my judging so-called "clash of civilization" debates. Finally, this means that I think the debaters have the explanatory burden; just because you read something that I might be very familiar with, do not assume that I will fill in the gaps in your warrant and/or explanation of that philosophical theory because I will actively try my best to not give you credit for more than what you actually say.
2. I default to the view that the resolution (or, in WS, the "motion") is the stasis point for the debate. Meaning, the official topic divides ground, establishes burdens, and will basically serve as the thing being debated/clashed over by the opposing debaters/teams. (LD and Policy debaters: please note that I said, "default." I am fine with debaters shifting what that stasis point is. See the LD and Policy specific notes below).
3. I think all debaters have the burden of clear communication. For me, this doesn't dictate a particular speed or style of presentation---I'm open to many. However, it does mean that I expect to be able to flow the speeches and to use that flow to decide the round. I reject (or, at least, resist) using speech docs to fill in the gaps created by debaters' ineffective oral communication.
4. I aspire---as a judge, as a coach, as a person---to being humble, kind, respectful, open to the possibility that I am wrong, interested in learning, and more committed to becoming right, rather than being right. I expect debaters---and all people---to aspire to cultivate and exhibit those virtues as well. If you fail to do so---particularly in terms of how you relate to me, your opponent, and other people in the room---l will choose to address it in the ways that seem most appropriate and consistent with those virtues, including (but not limited to) reducing speaker points, talking to you at length after the round, and discussing it with your coach.

- LD -

Most of my experience judging and coaching has been in LD, across a wide-range of competitive styles and circuits. Below is a list of my defaults; however, please note that debater can (and often do) push me off of my defaults. Doing so requires that you make comparatively better arguments than your opponent---not that you have to defeat whatever arguments I personally have for those defaults. All that to say, feel free to argue that I should think about these issues in different---or even radically different---ways.

1. The Aff has the burden of proving the resolution true and the Neg has the burden of proving the resolution false. What that actually means, though, is determined by the winning interpretation of the resolution's meaning and other framework arguments (including the standard/criterion/role of the ballot) that establish the epistemic standards for what will qualify as having proved the resolution true or false. Again, if you want to run a non-topical (or creatively topical Aff), you are welcome and encouraged to argue that this would be the better stasis point for the debate and, if your opponent challenges this, then do a comparatively better job of arguing that your alternative stasis point will make for a better debate. I have voted for (and coached) a lot of non-topical Affs over the years.
2. On my own, I do not default/presume neg...unless the neg has made a default/presumption neg argument and the conditions for it applying have been met. In the absence of the neg making and winning such an argument, if I am in a round where neither debater has actually met their burdens, then I will vote for the debater that is closest to meeting that burden. In other words, I'll vote for the side that requires the least intervention in creating a coherent RFD.
3. On theory and topicality, I default to the paradigm of competing interpretations. I also default to the view that there is no RVI on either of these debates---unless a debater has made the argument that there is an RVI. I think there are very good reasons for an RVI, so feel free/encouraged to argue for one
4. If the Aff does not read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does not get ground to defend topical advocacies, including topical PICs or PIKs. However, if the Aff does read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does get topical PIC/PIK ground, so long as it is competitive with the Aff's plan.

- Policy -

When judging Policy debate, here are my defaults:

1. (Only in policy debate) I will default to the view that I am using a broad consequentialist decision calculus to filter and weigh impacts. I do this because that is already such a strong assumption/norm in the policy debate community; however, I think this practice is intellectually and strategically deficient. All that to say, I am always open to debaters arguing for narrower consequentialist or non-consequentialist decision calcs/roles of the ballot. If that occurs, I expect the AFF team to actually be able to defend the validity of consequentialism if they want that to remain the decision calc. Indeed, my background in LD and coaching K teams in policy makes me very open and eager to see teams contest the assumption of consequentialism.
2. I default to the view that the resolution is the stasis point for the debate. This means I default to the AFF having the burden of defending a topical advocacy; I default to the view that this requires defending the United States federal government should implement a public policy (i.e., the plan) and that the public policy is an example of the action described in the resolution. However, these are only defaults; I am completely open to AFF's making arguments to change either of these parameters. (Perhaps it's worth noting here that I have coached policy debaters across a fairly wide range of styles, including big-stick policy AFFs, topical AFF that are critical, and AFFs that are explicitly non-topical. Most of the AFFs I have helped my students create and run have leaned critical, ranging from so-called "soft-left" plans to K Affs that defend creatively-topical advocacies to K AFFs that are explicitly non-topical.) All that to say, if the AFF wants to affirm a strange/creative interpretation of the resolution or if the AFF wants to completely replace the resolution with some other stasis point for the round, the debaters will not be asked to meet some threshold I have; they need only do a comparatively better job than the negative in justifying that stasis point.
3. Relatedly, I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the explanatory burden you have to develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous arguments when you debate over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.
4. I am not going to flow/back-flow your speech based on a speech doc because I think the normalization of judges not actually listening to speeches and just flowing off of speech docs has resulted in worse debates and engagements with issues, and judges who simply miss thoughtful and intelligent analytics. If your articulation, volume, and/or signposting are not clear---especially after I verbally indicate that you need to be clearer, louder, etc---that's on you.
5. Arguments need warrants. Warrants could be, but do not have to be, cards. The belief that an analytic is categorically weaker/insufficient as a warrant is an intellectually dishonest and, quite simply, ridiculous view of knowledge that some corners of policy debate have proliferated to the detriment of our intellects. Whether a claim needs to be warranted by empirical evidence, let alone carded evidence, is mostly a feature of the specific claim being advanced. Of course, in some cases, the claim is about the empirical world and only empirical evidence will suffice, but this is not true of every claim debaters might make.
6. Theory and topicality: I default to theory and topicality both being issues of competing interpretations; though, I'm entirely open to a debater making arguments to shift that to reasonability (or some other paradigm). I also default to the view that there are no RVIS; I am open to that being contested in the round too, particularly if the 2NR goes for theory or topicality. As a generalization, I have found the theory and topicality debates in policy rounds to be abysmal --- both shells and line-by-line arguments that suffer from impoverished warranting and implicating. In my estimation, there is far too much implicit (and sometimes explicit) appeal to some supposedly settled norm, when the debaters themselves do not appear capable of critically analyzing, let alone sufficiently, defending that norm. I will always prefer to see fleshed out warrants. In the end, I'll resolve any theory and topicality debates via the clash produced by the arguments made by the debaters. I resist the idea that my role is to enforce a norm of policy simply because it has inertia.

- World School -

When judging world school, I try to adapt to the event by doing my best to follow the international norms for world school debate. With that in mind, I'll speak to a few issues that I've noticed WS students may need to be reminded of, as well as some issues that involve the biggest shift from how I evaluate other debate events:

1. Don't go fast. Even though I'll be able to flow it, you should aspire to keep your speed close to conversational because that's part of the conventions that make WS unique. If your rate of delivery is quicker than that, I'll likely not score you as high on "style."
2. Unless the topic is explicitly about one nation, you should provide examples and analysis of the motion that applies beyond the US as the context.
3. You should aim to take 1-2 POIs each speech, excluding (of course) the reply speech. Taking more signals to me that you can't fill up your time; taking fewer signals that you're afraid to be taken off your script. Either of those will result in fewer "strategy" and/or "content" points.
4. Countermodels cannot be topical; Opp's burden is to reject the motion, even if Prop has provided a model. Opp teams need to make sure that their countermodels are not simply a different way of doing the motion, which is Prop's ground in the debate.
5. Make sure you are carrying down the bench any arguments you want to keep alive in the debate. If Prop 2 doesn't extend/carry an argument down that Prop 3/Reply ends up using in their own speech, I'll be less persuaded. In the least, Prop 2 won't have earned as many "strategy" points as they could have.

- Public Forum -

I view the resolution as the stasis point for the debate. I'm fine with Pro defending the resolution as a general principle or further specifying an advocacy that is an instance of the resolution. (My default is that the Pro has the burden of defending a topical advocacy; however, I'm also equally open to the Pro defending arguments that justify they are not bound by the resolution.) If the Pro side further specifies an advocacy (for example, by defending a specific plan), then the stasis point for the debate shifts to being that advocacy statement. In the context of the arguments made in the debate, I vote Pro if I'm convinced that the arguments being won in the debate justify the truth of the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement). I vote Con if I'm convinced that the arguments being won justify that the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement) are false. The specific burdens (including the truth conditions of the resolution or advocacy statement) that must be met to vote Pro or Con are determined by the debaters: I am open to those burdens being established through an analysis of the truth conditions of the stasis point (i.e., what is logically required to prove that statement true or false) OR by appeal to debate theoretical arguments (i.e., arguments concerning what burdens structures would produce a fair and/or educational debate).

I tend to think that Public Forum debate times are not conducive to full-blown theory debates and, consequently, PF debaters would be wise to avoid initiating them because, for structural reasons, they are likely to be rather superficial and difficult to resolve entirely on the flow; however, I do not paradigmatically exclude theory arguments in PF. I'm just skeptical that it can be done well, which is why I suspect that in nearly any PF round the more decisive refutational strategy will involve "substantive" responses to supposedly "unfair" arguments from the opponent.

I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the limitations and constraints that PF time-limits create for develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous debates over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.

The debaters who presented their ideas in a more logical and convincing way play a critical role in determining which team is going to win.