TFA STATE TOURNAMENT REQUIRED UNIFORMED PARADIGM FORMAT:

School affiliation/s - please indicate all (required): none

Hired (yes/no) (required): yes

If HIRED - what schools/programs in Texas do you work with if any: none directly

High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years (required): /

Please list ANY schools that you would need to be coded/conflicted against: no conflict

Currently enrolled in college? (required): no

Years Judging/Coaching (required): 15

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event: 15

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required): more than 150

I judge WS regularly on the local level

I judge WS regularly at national level tournaments

I judge WS regularly at the international level

Rounds judged in other events this year (required): 10 (PF)

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required): yes

What does chairing a round involve? (required): moderating the debate, moderating the panel (if panel judging), explaining the decision

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?: conversational, flexible, based on clash and big ideas

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?: linear transcript of the speech with my comments for each speaker

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? As per the rules, I do not prioritise any of the two. I prioritise arguments that debaters make important with their macro and meta debate analysis

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? I consider the following points: 1) following the rules, 2) reasonable interpretation of the motion and framework for the round, 3) team argument development during the round, 4) choice of arguments (their relevance for the topic), 5) prioritisation of the points addressed in speeches

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

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

How do you resolve model quibbles? I evaluate only what I hear from debaters (so I evaluate the responses)

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? I evaluate only what I hear from debaters (so I evaluate the responses)

My Email: isaacappelbaum404@gmail.com

Origin Story:

Hi! I'm Isaac. I am a rising junior at George Washington University in D.C. and I competed in Congressional Debate for four years as a student at Pennsbury High School in Pennsylvania. I competed extensively on the national circuit, obtaining 11 bids to the TOC and I was lucky enough to place/final at tournaments like Harvard, Princeton, Sunvite, Blue Key, Barkley Forum (Emory), Durham, UPenn, and Villiger.

Now that I've given some of my background as a competitor I can discuss what that means in terms of what I like to see as a judge. In my opinion, this can best be summarized like this;

Congress:

stick to 2 points

don't speak too fast

try to get to 2:50-3 minutes

arguments flow in linear way and flow broad to narrow with a terminalized impact (human beings should be your impact)

use refutation after 1st cycle

I like well 2 well developed arguments over 3 poorly constructed ones

Stick to legislation what does the legislation do

LD:

Don't spread

cite good sources

present links clearly

PF:

Don’t spread (speak so quickly I can’t understand you)

use good sources (try not to use news articles, stick to research)

arguments flow in linear fashion (I should be able to see where you go from point A to point B to point C)

give me a human reason to vote for your side (this means establish the human impact why the issue directly impacts a human person)

no theory please (stick to arguing the facts, data, and information of the issues at hand in the motion)

Please sign post arguments (tell me that you are about to make a big point before you do)! I need this for flowing purposes

Congress-

style- I won't judge too harshly on delivery, I believe in the substance of your argument and not how you deliver it, however, if the delivery (as well as the argumentation and everything else) just stands out in the room, I am more likely to give you the one. Stylistically I don't want to hear 3 minutes of random rhetoric, I like to hear things that just flow with the speech, if its forced it just feels weird to hear.

Argumentation- This is where I pay the most attention, students with the best arguments usually place the highest in my rankings. I want to see a good basis for the side to go from if its an author or sponsor, I wan't to see adequate and effective refutation for all other speeches. I like to see how mindful people are of the round as well, meaning if it is a late round speech, summarize the round, if its middle/early round, add to the debate, etc.

Round Participation- This is simple, I want to see questions being asked with substance, don't get up and leave the round for long periods of time (unless you absolutely have to). Be nice, don't bully people and just do your best!

For WSD I like clear argument engagement that includes thoughtful weighing and impact analysis. I prefer debates that have colonial and imperial powers reckon with their history (if its germane to the topic). When it comes down to relevancy and impacts/harms, I prefer debates that show how their resolution (whether we're going for opp or prop) will benefit or improve black and brown communities, or the global south.

Interp overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices)

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I'm not a good HI judge, please do not let me judge you in HI. I don't like the event and I do my best to avoid judging it. If that fails, I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. Please don't be racist/homophobic in your humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well research speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking, with obvious exceptions being that we might literally not know something, because its still being researched (but that is a different we don't know than say, "and we don't know why people act this way :( ")

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote up in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

My pronouns are she/her.

Email: olivia.hardage3@gmail.com

I did PF at Westlake and I currently coach there.

You only need to extend defense in first summary if it has been frontlined otherwise, it sticks.

I think 2nd rebuttal needs to at least frontline offense and preferably defense as well. I won't automatically down you if you don't do this but I prefer it and I think it's more strategic.

If you want to concede a de-link to kick out of a turn you can't just say that phrase, you need to explain why the particular arguments allow you to do that. If you only say "we concede the de-link so we kick out of the turn" and move on and your opponent extends the turn, I will grant them the turn.

I will vote on the least mitigated link chain leading to the most weighed impact. I will vote for a team with a fleshed-out link chain and a poorly extended impact over a team that does the opposite.

I give speaks mainly based on presentation or if I think a team should be in out rounds. However, if you want a 30 from me focus on speaking clearly and having good round etiquette.

I'll evaluate any arguments like theory/Ks but I don't have pervasive knowledge of how they traditionally function in rounds so make sure everything is explained thoroughly.

I'm good with speed to an extent, anything getting close to spreading I probably can't follow.

The most important thing in debate is weighing! If you don't weigh, I am forced to decide what I think is the most important argument.

If you want more specifics, feel free to ask me questions!

Speech, Drama Tournament Coach/Instructor- 42 years

Hastings Speech and Debate Coach- 6 years

Total years as a speech and debate coach-10 years

20 years Speech and Debate total experience as a competitor, judge, consultant, and coach.

Specializing in IE's and Speaking events, with experience in congressional and other debates.

I did PF at Bellaire High School and parliamentary debate at Rice University on the NPDA circuit.

Background

I am a debate coach and familiar with all formats of debate. Primary focus is now World Schools Debate. I have coached teams and competed on the international level with those teams so I am well versed in WSD. Embrace the format of this special debate. I don't enjoy seeing a PF attempt in this format-make the adjustment and be true to the form as intended for it to be.

Judging Paradigm

I'm a policy-maker at heart. Decisions will be flow-based focusing on impact calculus stemming from the question of the resolution.

If I'm not flowing, I'm either not buying your current argument or not appreciating your speaking style.

Play offense and defense; I should have a reason to vote FOR you, not just a reason to vote AGAINST your opponents.

WSD-Show me what the world looks like on your side of the motion-stay true to the heart of the motion

Style:

Manners

Yes, manners. Good debate is not rude or snarky. Do not let your primal need to savagely destroy your opponent cost you the round. Win with style and grace or find yourself on the wrong side of the ballot. You've been warned.

WSD- I love the passion and big picture

Speed

Speed is not a problem with me, it's probably more of a problem with you. Public Forum is not "Policy-lite" and should not be treated as such as far as speaking style goes. The beauty of PF should not get lost in trying to cram in arguments. Many times spreading in PF just tells me you need work in word economy and style. Feel free to speak at an elevated conversational rate displaying a rapid clarity that enhances the argument.

WSD-Don't even think about speed!

Organization

Speeches should follow the predetermined road map and should be signposted along the way. If you want an argument on the flow, you should tell me exactly where to flow it. If I have to make that decision for you, I may not flow it at all. I prefer your arguments and your refutation clearly enumerated; "We have 3 answers to this..."

Framework and Definitions

The framework (and definitions debate) should be an umbrella of fairness to both sides. The framework debate is important but should not be over-limiting to your opponents. I will not say "impossible" here, but winning the round without winning your framework is highly improbable. I am open to interpretation of the resolution, but if that interpretation is overtly abusive by design, I will not vote for your framework. That said, I caution your use of abuse stories. Most abuse arguments come off like whining, and nobody likes that. If a framework and accompanying definition is harmful to the debate, clearly spell out the impacts in those terms. Otherwise, provide the necessary (and much welcomed) clash. Most definition debates are extremely boring and a waste of time.

Final Focus

Your FF should effectively write the RFD for me. Anything less is leaving it up to my interpretation.

Good luck, and thank you for being a debater.

email chains are good in the absence of paper copies - jimi.morales@successacademies.org

if you only read one part of my paradigm, this should be it -i have tinnitus and in spite of this condition will not use the speech doc to flow because you can still be intelligible without me needing to actively read over evidence . good (sp)/(eed)/(reading) with vocal variation and pacing exists and is easy to follow - (poor/unpracticed) spreading will tank your speaks and likely result in the L!!! please strike me if you cannot meet this condition-the conversations are becoming more and more uncomfortable after neither debater reads the paradigm and then both expect me to given an intelligent RFD to resolve an unintelligible debate. quality over quantity typically wins my ballots. id rather you articulate multiple solid links for one argument than run 7 off case positions with vague/weak links.

i often use the speech doc as a reference point if evidence in the debate is disputed or referenced in a rebuttal speeches as something i should look at post round as a key warrant for the decision.

framework is often useful. so is the keeping up the with "the news"

that being said, my job is to be a neutral arbiter for a single debate of which the only usual rules are the speech times. just when i think i've seen it all in the activity, debate has a way of pleasantly surprising me.

i am listening to cross-x and you can/should reference it.

i like well researched positions that don't contradict themselves unless explained in advance or immediately after why those contradictions are ok. if you run ironic performance positions without explaining or looking up from your laptop, i will take your words literally. this will likely make you upset at my decision.

if your coach or another competitor wrote anything you are reading and you haven't re-written it, unless you really understand the argument, you probably don't want me judging.

ask me specific questions about subjects not listed above and i will happily answer them to the best of my ability.

Neither speed nor file justifies lack of clarity. Slow for tags and, especially, authors if you're going fast.

I can understand and vote for anything with warrants & clear explanation

Do not clash and refute from after constructives until the absolute end of the debate. I need voters and/or weighing to vote for you

LD/CX:

Varying degrees of knowledge on diff philosophy/high theory, up to you to risk finding out whether our knowledge intersects,

but anything w/ warrant/explanation

PF:
Line-by-line, weigh

Ask in round for more specifics

I am looking for the students to show honesty in the piece but also what it mean to them. No matter what it is being perform there is a story and a message or a point of view that is being made. I am also looking for detail in a character because no two people look alike so what does this person look like to the competitor and how are they different from other characters they are performing. Finally I look at blocking and how sharp , clean , and creative your mind can go with it.

I debated PF for 3 years at Westlake High School.

Constructives:

I'll flow any argument, but keep in mind that I am a PFer and have comparatively less knowledge regarding plans, CPs, Ks, etc so if you are running one, make sure it is well explained. Moreover, feel free to run theory but check your privilege (see speaks section).

Rebuttal:

Second rebuttal has to frontline turns (sorry if this isn't the case where you're from, Texas has ingrained it in me). However, second rebuttal does not have to extend case offense. Weighing as early as possible gives you an edge on my ballot, so I would recommend doing it in this speech.

Summary:

Anything not in summary is gone at this point. The exception is defense from rebuttal (sticky only for first summary). That can be brought up in final focus if your opponents try to extend through ink in second summary.

Final Focus

Kind of goes without saying, but anything in ff had to have been in summary. Exception is evidence abuse (you call for a card before ff and think it's misconstrued).

Things that will dock your speaks:

-reading policy-style arguments against an obviously much less experienced team

-speaking super fast against an obviously much less experienced team (otherwise I don't care, go as fast as you want)

-reading disclosure theory against an obviously small/not nat-circuit school

-being rude in cross (especially if a guy is talking down/being a rude to a girl)

-reading straight off your computer

-reading in a monotone voice

-taking too long to pull up evidence when you're asked for it

-card dumping in rebuttal without any analysis (you're welcome, Jason)

Things that will increase your speaks

-including the warrant and impact in each extension

-signposting

-weighinggggg

-having cohesive narratives across speeches

-tasteful topic-related jokes/puns

-my subjective belief that you should be in outrounds

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

I did Congress/Extemp/PF at Kerr from 2011-2015, and taught Congress and public speaking at Harvard Debate Council's Summer Workshops in 2015 and 2016.

Feel free to ask me questions you may have before the round, and remember: the real ballots are the friends we've made along the way.

I have been involved with debate as a participant, judge, school coach, national team coach, and UDL Executive Director. I have coached multiple state and national championships in the following events: Congress, LD, Policy, and World Schools Debate; Extemporaneous and Impromptu Speaking; and Prose/Poetry/Program of Oral Interpretation. I coached the 2023 WSDC World Champions as well.

I believe that speech and debate provides transformative life skills and that my role in the round is adjudicator/educator.

All speeches should be communicative in delivery, persuasive in style, and adhere to ethical standards in every aspect. Respect should be displayed to all involved, at all times.

In a competitive space, your role as a speaker/performer is to persuade me that your arguments/reasoning/evidence/performance is more compelling than the other competitors in the round. I will endeavor to base my decision on what happens IN the round and what I write on my flow, but I don't leave my brain at the door. Act accordingly.

I currently judge more WS rounds than anything else. WSDC/NSDA/TSDA norms should be adhered to. Speaking should be conversational as regards speed/style. Refutation may be line-by-line or utilize grouping, but you need to be clear where you are on the flow. Weighing is key. Stick to the heart of the motion and avoid the extremes. Unless the motion is US-specific you should provide international examples. Make it clear what your side of the debate looks like: what does the world of the Prop look like? the Opp? Framing/definitions/models should be fair and in the middle of the motion. Stakeholders should be clear; put a face on the motion.

A good debate round is a thing of beauty; respect your craft, the event, and your fellow competitors.

In general: be respectful to your opponent, judge, and others in the round. I do not tolerate any discriminatory, harmful, or profane language. This is a space to show what you have prepared and showcase your talent. You wouldn't want any other factors overshadowing your performance.

Arguments: I am open to any arguments as long as they are well thought out, and have sufficient EVIDENCE to support them. I value quality over quantity. Do not try to overwhelm your opponent with tons of arguments that lack depth and support.

Speed: I can understand spreading; however, when not done well will only hurt your case. Therefore, I prefer clarity over speed.

Please ask for any clarifications as needed.

I am a pretty relaxed judge, and have been involved with forensics for over 4 years. For acting/interp events I look for great technique and characterization. In regards to debate, clarity is important. Looking for an educational civilized round. I consider myself a TAB judge.

I am a pretty relaxed judge, and have been involved with forensics for over 4 years. For acting/interp events I look for great technique and characterization. In regards to debate, clarity is important. Looking for an educational civilized round. I consider myself a TAB judge.

In LD I am a tabula rossa traditional judge that decides on values, criterion, solid contentions, and warranting. Spreading and aggressiveness will lose speaker points.

In WSD, I am a tabula rossa judge in terms of reasoning. Spreading and aggressiveness will lose style points. RFDs are based on principle and practical substantives, reasoning, examples, evidence (where appropriate), models (where appropriate), burdens, weighing and clash.

In PF, I am a tabula rossa judge that decides on contentions that are brought through the round and contentions that are dropped (You have to argue whether they are critical or not). Rounds are based on reasoning and relevance of the evidence presented.

Hello, I'm Trevor and I am a College Freshmen. In High School Debate I competed in PF, World Schools, and Domestic Extemp.

I'll just list some points of interest to me.

1) Theory isn't really appealing to me, nor do I think it gels well with the structure/intention of PF, but if there is an instance of actual substantial abuse and the theory is not an excuse for not debating and I'm explicitly told how to evaluate it, I'll evaluate it.

2) I can flow any level of speed, but spreading will reflect poorly in speaks.

3) Please signpost. You really don't need give me off time road maps like "I'm going to respond to my opponents' arguments and return to my own," I can follow you if you tell me in the speech where you're going.

4) If you are a Worlds Debater, make sure you actually take Points of Information.

5) Do your best to write my ballot for me in your last couple of speeches. If you do not tell me how I should evaluate the round; you do not tell me how to weigh (please do this) your arguments; and you do not tell me how you win the round; I won't have a ton of sympathy if you disagree with my decision.

6) I'll only call for cards if both sides are saying opposite things about the same piece of evidence and/or I'm explicitly told to call for the card.

7) Make sure you explain your arguments rather than just dumping cards

8) If you are debating PF, be sure to have a framework.

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.