Congress: When preparing a speech, make sure to follow standard speech outline and cite your sources. Approach legislation creatively. If you speak later in the session, do not rehash old arguments already brought up by previous representatives. Bring in new arguments to advance the debate. Also, you must clash with opponents. Don't just give your speech. It's a debate after all. Bring up points mentioned by opposing side, show your view point and not just say they are wrong or you don't agree. Give specific reasons why you don't agree and provide the evidence to prove your point. Have your speech so well prepared that you will be able to defend it during cross and not stumble during questioning. As Parliamentarian, I will make sure correct parliamentary procedure is followed.

WSD: Since arguments should be based in reality and each team is fighting on behalf of their respective worlds, the debate should show which world is more likely and/or better and how it will be actualized in the big picture rather than the individual arguments being made. Provide specific world (not just U.S.) examples to your claims. Burdens and mechanism/model should be clear. On the reply speeches, crystallize the round highlighting the main points of contention (2 or 3 key points) and tell me why your team won those points therefore winning the debate. Make sure there is clash on both sides and watch rate of delivery.

PF: Pro should advocate for the resolution’s worthiness while the Con should show the disadvantages of the resolution and why it should not be adopted. In the 1st speech, both teams should have an introduction to frame the team’s case. The summary needs to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the differences exist and are clear and the issues need to be prioritized. Final focus needs to be a big picture concept. I will evaluate your evidence and expect you to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. PLEASE weigh your arguments and make it clear how I should evaluate this round and what really matters. Explain why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. I do not form part of the email chain.

IEs: I've judged all IEs for over 30 years for different circuits and at different levels (including state and nationals). On EXTEMPT/INF/OO, make sure to speak clearly avoiding excessive word crutches and cite your sources. Follow the standard speech outline for each event and approach topic creatively. Make sure to actually answer the question (topic chosen) clearly and that the points discussed in the body of the speech support the answer. Use time wisely/effectively to fully develop the speech. If you are using props (for speech events), make sure they go with the topic and are easily handled. They don't need to be complicated. The simpler the better. On INTERP, I look at who transported me into the story and kept me there. Make sure all movements (gestures, head, and other body movements) are done with purpose and should not distract from the selection being presented. Characterization is also very important to keep me in the story. Use the whole "stage" for your presentation if the event allows it. It's your performance. Entertain me! POI: You can incorporate the binder as a prop if you want making sure it isn't so distracting that it takes away from your program.

LD: I am a traditional LD judge. This means the debate should be a value debate. Framework of the debate is of the utmost importance because it will force me to evaluate your impacts before the other team’s impacts and nullifies most, if not all, of the other team’s offense. The contentions should be used to demonstrate a real-world example of the framework in action. For any claim made during the entire debate (constructive and rebuttal speeches), you should have evidential support. PLEASE weigh your arguments, make it clear how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and show me what really matters in the round. Explain clearly why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. There is no need for spreading. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. I do not form part of the email chain. If it's important, make sure to explain it clearly during your speeches.

CX: As a stock issues judge, I expect the affirmative team’s plan to retain all stock issues and should label them clearly during the debate. The negative needs to prove that the affirmative fails to meet at least one issue in order to win. I require both sides to provide offense. Sufficient evidence is needed for any claim made during the entire debate. All debaters must speak clearly in order for me to hear all of their points and must watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important, how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and why I should vote for them. I do not form part of an email chain since I don't want to read speeches. I want to hear them. If it's important, make sure to express it clearly.

James Allen
Hallsville '9-'13
University of Texas - Arlington '13-'17

I competed extensively on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits in North, East and South Texas as well as the TOC. Given the meta of that judging pool and its exceptionally diverse preferences on various aspects of debate, I highly value debaters' versatility and adaptability in meeting judges where they are most comfortable adjudicating rounds. Despite this, I believe my paradigm is more adaptable to debaters than is typical because I adjudicate based on what participants have to say, not on whether their content more closely aligns with my assumptions on a given topic. I frequently endorse debaters whose argumentation exhibits effectiveness and efficiency even though I might disagree with the logic of a particular argument.

Thusly, I am not predisposed to reject any particular stylistic elements of argumentation.

On that note, I do have certain predispositions given my experiences:

I consider myself tabula rasa. Lacking discussion on framework/paradigmatic theory, I will default policymaker/comparative worlds. Clarify before the round if necessary.

Topicality- Please shell and make flowing easy. High standard for T but will vote for the argument.

Disadvantages- My standard for DAs is very high. You will need to do a lot of work in establishing the argument for me to be able to feel comfortable voting for it. To help achieve that end, please give me the coherent thesis of the DA along with clear impact analysis.

Counterplans- I love counterplans. I especially love well-run, non-generic counterplans. I will vote for a utopian/dystopian CP.

Kritiks- I was a K debater in high school. I consider myself well-read on most K literature and many critical subjects. If you are skeptical of whether I am (un)particularly receptive, ask and I will clarify. I will vote for Ks introduced in a rebuttal if the argument is legitimate and strategic.

Theory- must be shelled. I will vote for RVIs. I won't vote for unwarranted arguments. Not a fan of frivolous theory, but what frivolous means is up to interpretation.

Narratives- I love hearing narratives, but you must warrant why they're offense within a framework, which for my taste, will revolve around argumentative agency.

Projects- You will need to do a lot of work to convince me to vote for your project, especially if I believe you are insincere or disingenuous.

Speed- I can handle a 10 of 10 but prefer a rate of 6-8 of 10. Clarity is most important.

Extensions- I will account for the time skew in the 1AR if I feel that it is necessary. You must extend the warrants and implications of arguments in the rebuttals for me to consider it as offense. If I end up having to intervene, I will be considerably displeased and will be lazy.

Flex prep- I am not opposed as long as a consensus is reached among the debaters.

To get 30 speaker points: Don't be excessively catty. Employ a smart strategy in the round. Write my ballot for me. Depict a cohesive story that explains how and why I should vote. Analyze offense, offense, offense. Technical speaking skills are of equal importance to the quality of argumentation.

Notes regarding the virtual nature of online tournaments:

I would advise disclosing advocacies in constructive and rebuttal speeches through file sharing to avoid the tragic scenario in which connectivity issues degrade clarity. I suggest utilizing OBS to record speeches so that they may be made available in the event of technical difficulties. I most strongly advise that you disclose all of your evidence and strategies on the open evidence wiki.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask them before we begin the round.

Most of all, I must express how grateful I am for the opportunity to listen to what you each have to say. Thank you for challenging yourselves, facing your fears, and letting your voices be heard. Cherish this opportunity and wield it on your journeys to becoming the best version of yourselves.

CX

• I am ok with New in the 2 as long as it isn't abusive (example: pulling excessive attacks in the 1NC and then even more in the 2NC)

• I want good speaking/explaining. Don't just read to me for 8 minutes with no explanation of what you read or how it links to the case

• I want to hear clash.

• organization, speaking quality, and quality of attacks are more important to me than the number of attacks. Continue to flow it across the board and extend/elaborate on it.

• (CX) I do lean more toward stock issues - I will flow a DA & a CP. I am not opposed to K or Theory; however, my ballot will not normally come down to just the K or Theory

• (LD) In the UIL world, I want to hear the clash down the flow - Hitting as much of the case as possible (value, criterion, contentions)

• (LD) in the TFA world, I am open to any arguments as long as they are organized, there is clash and they are pulled across the flow

• I want you to outline it for me in the end. Give me good voters going down the flow along with impacts and net benefit. Don't assume I know.

GENERAL:

• I do not time roadmaps as long as they are brief
• I am ok with speed but I need to be able to flow it
• signpost

CX Debate: I am fundamentally a stock issues judge. I am open to any well-reasoned and thoroughly explained argument. If a team can successfully prove all stock issues and demonstrate how they outweigh their opponent's arguments, they will win the round. I also value clarity and structure—if you present a compelling argument outside of the stock issues framework, explain why I should adopt your perspective.

POLICY

I will listen to any argument presented, but I think it is up to the debaters to explain why I should vote on it. As long as you are winning that it is an argument that I should be listening to, then I will evaluate it. This also means that the debaters are responsible for articulating how I evaluate each position. I need to know how my ballot functions.
Topicality - My default position is that there needs to be an abuse story. I am open to arguments otherwise, but be aware if you expect to win on potential abuse you need to spend a lot of time arguing why I should vote on potential abuse.

Disads - Whatever is probably fine. I think your internal link story should make sense.
Counterplans - Whatever is probably fine without any theoretical objections won by the aff.
Theory - Make sure you tell me how my ballot functions. I tend to think I should reject the argument, not the team. If you think I should reject the team you are going to have to do a lot of work to convince me that that is the best remedy.
Kritiks - I'm not as well versed in the literature as I would like to be. I do not have a problem with Ks (aff or neg), but don't expect me to know what <insert your author> says about the topic. As such, without reading me the evidence, just telling me what the author says does not resonate with me. I want to know how my ballot functions in the world of the alternative and on what scale (am I taking a stance in the debate community, is it just an affirmation of the discussion we had, etc).

WHEN JUDGING AT UIL TOURNAMENTS...

I think you should adhere to the norms for the organization in which you are competing. I intend to respect UIL rules by reducing your speaker points if you choose to spread. I am able to flow your arguments and will make a decision based on the arguments in the round.

Congress

I appreciate competitors who are knowledgeable enough to speak extemporaneously while addressing information and speakers who have already participated. Students should participate actively in the chamber's motions and show leadership even when not presiding. I also appreciate students who understand the role of various speeches in the course of the debate. Questions should lead to potential arguments.

LD

I tend to be fairly progressive and will listen to any arguments you run. I am fine with condo and collapsing. Identifying the winning framing is important and should be used to justify winning your offense on the flow. I don't mind LARPING or any other strategy you may make use of, provided you do it well and understand the arguments you are running. I am fine with speed and will want to be on the email chain. I prefer philosophical debates but don't mind whatever you want to throw at me.

Policy - see above

I am a tab judge and am open to hearing your positions. I will not advocate on the flow. I am open to collapse strats and prefer non-generic arguments that have a real link. I wish we would stop arguing end of world impacts but will vote on them

Communication is key to the performance of all events. Analysis, and reasoning are essential to debate. Persuasion is also a key to the Communication. In debate I want to see clashes supported with evidence. In Oral Interp, play with my emotions. In public speaking, educate me and persuade me.

I judge speech and interp based on the rules and based on the round--comparing the performances in the round. I think author's intent is important for interp. I think communication skills, organization, rhetoric and evidence is important in speech events.

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

I am a coach of all forms of speech and debate events. I competed at the high school and collegiate level in interp, speech and debate.

Debate:

I would consider myself tab with a default to policymaker. I would prefer debaters establish what I should vote on and how to weigh the round. I believe it is important for the debaters to tell me why arguments are important and why they are winning it. I will vote on anything and I will not vote on anything all at the same time. It's important for you to tell me where to vote. I do not like hearing arguments that are completely squirrel of the topic at hand (ie: scream K). Feel me to ask questions if you have concerns or questions. I would prefer speakers be slow down and be very clear on the tag lines, dates and theory arguments. Speed is fine and I can flow it. I will yell "clear" if you are not.

Speech:

Organization & Clarity with supporting documentation is key. When I am judging these events, I am looking for clear justification for the topic you chose. I am looking for you to be clear in your overall organization, but the internal thesis of your ideas need to be developed and organized also. I believe ethos, logos and pathos need to be developed and deployed each and every time you speak.

Interp:

I am looking for originality. I am looking at individuals to create clear and distinct characters. I need to see you develop strong, believable characters. Tell your story.

Clarity:

If you have questions, please feel free to ask.

Coaching & Competitor History:

(2020-Present): Director of Debate & Speech, Melissa High School

(2019-2020): Assistant Director of Forensics & Head PF Coach, Delbarton School

(2019-2020): Policy Debate Coach, Princeton High School

(2017-2019): Policy Debate Coach, Melissa High School

(2017-2019): Graduate Parliamentary Debate Coach, University of North Texas

(2015-2017): Policy Debate Coach & PF Coach, Southlake High School

(2014-2016): Policy Debate Coach, Prosper High School

(2014-2015): Policy, LD, & PF Coach, Crandall High School

(2013-2014/15ish): Policy Debate competitor, University of North Texas

(2009-2013): Policy Debate competitor, Lampasas

Overview: I view the debate though an offense/defense paradigm. I think that this is the best way for me to grapple with the debate. Throughout my paradigm, I've tried to limit my regurgitation of knowledge or information about debate to you, and instead tell you how I view debate based on specific questions with the specific events. I think that there are some things that I will not change based on the nature of whatever event I'm judging. Theoretical disquisitions and procedural issues are ones in which I evaluate the same. Please see the theory section. If there's a question I do not have within here, please ask me. Finally, the questions that I am answering below are 1.) questions in which people have asked me before that I can remember and 2.) attempting to answer them as best as possible.

Reasons to Strike Me:

3NR's: After nationals in 2019, I have this to say. If you're going to be rude because you lost the debate, and attempt to get me to generate some sort of concession about why I messed up, I think that you're looking for the wrong judge. I make mistakes, but if I wanted to waste my time with some sort of asinine 3NR, I would have stayed home to waste my time doing nothing. If I feel it's going poorly, the 3NR, I'll shut my laptop and tell you the same thing I told the team at nationals in 2019. You should be ashamed of yourselves and your coach should be even more ashamed due to their inability to make you understand that that's not a healthy practice.

Clipping Cards: This is defined as "intentionally or unintentionally skipping over the parts of the evidence that is highlighted, bolded, and underlined." As Louie Petit says, do not be a Lance Armstrong (Petit, 2013).

Ideological Issues: Being racist, sexist, or a biggot is a great way to strike me.

Coaching: if I have coached you in the past 4 years, I will strike you. If I forget to, it is your obligation to strike me.

Cards: If you are paraphrasing and not cutting cards in PF, strike me.

Cards (PF): I'm so tired of people "calling for evidence" and it taking a majority of the round, while in the interim stealing prep. You should either 1.) send the case before you read or 2.) immediately after you're done before cross-fire or prep starts. I will start calling for prep when you call for evidence at a certain point, and if you do not like this, strike me please.

Dumb Theory Arguments: There's a national trend going on in LD indicating that we or judges should vote on frivolous argument (e.g. shoe theory, laptop theory, and so on). These are just absurdly, un-strategic, asinine arguments. Strike me please.

Email: Brendendimmig1995@gmail.com

***Policy Debate Paradigm

General Things

What does extrapolation mean for you? For me, I think that the 2AR and the 2NR get extrapolation based on previous claims made within the debate. I think that, if this is based off of evidence, and your evidence has some sort of glaring issue that prevents you from generating access to said extrapolation, then I probably won't vote for you.

What do we have to do to flag evidence? Just say look at the evidence or make some sort of evidence contestation that necessitates that I look at your evidence. It just takes a couple seconds.

Extending is important: I think that, if you do not extend the aff or example within the 1AR, I may have a hard time giving the 2AR credit. Even if it is just a shadow extension, I think that that is better than nothing.

Is evidence comparison important? Yeah. I would say that that's probably a good way for me to reevaluate why I should prefer a particular argument over another. I think that engaging in some sort of substantive level (i.e. the warrants, author, and so on) make for good case debate (for example).

Email me: I think that this will help in case I have to go back and re-read a piece of evidence. I try not to waste people's time, thus, I do not want to have to ask if you can send me a specific piece of evidence. If you're looking to get documents from a previous debate, please see the above email.

Do you prefer a specific kind of aff? no. Read a method, soft left, or big stick aff. It's up to you. I grew up going for the big stick aff and coached that the first 2-3 years out of high school, while also coaching big stick 1AC's in PF at Delbarton. I coached pre dominantly soft left aff's at Melissa and Princeton. I coach a kid now in LD reading a historical geneology that discusses why debate is bad. I think that you should do whatever you want. I've judged some great [Coppell DR and Wylie QR] teams going for the method. I've judged some great teams [Greenhill & Jesuit] going for Soft left affs. I've judged some great teams like Highland Park and Jesuit go for some big stick affs. I think that you should be able to read what you want.

Are you okay with speed? Yes. The fastest team I ever saw was the Georgetown team that won nationals twice. Unless you're going faster, I may need you to slow down. If I cannot hear you, I will say clear.

Speaker Points: I generally do not give below a 28.5. I do not know what else to say here.

Procedural Issues

Does Competing Interpretations come before reasonability or vise versa? I think that it depends on the arguments made within the debate. Absent this sort of debate, I will default to competing interpretations within the grande scheme of this or other competitive venues of debate.

What's the biggest thing people do poorly (in your opinion) on T or any procedural issue? I think that impacting your disads or standards is important to me. For example, on the ground disad, make sure that you're indicating 1.) HOW you're losing the argument (i.e. the link) and 2.) WHAT those arguments generally look like or what they specifically are and 3.) WHY those arguments are important for either topic education and/or competitive equity.

What's generated more ballots for you on T: The limits disad or Ground disad? I think that, while not having any sort of verifiable data via my ballots, I couldn't tell you. However, I have a gut feeling that it is the ground disad. I think that people, whenever making a limits claim, are not contextualizing why a particular limit based on the interpretation or rule set in debate is a better thing or idea.

Is Framework inherently argumentatively racist? I think that it depends on the debate.

Can we impact turn competitive equity and/or topic education? Absolutely.

Does or can a theoretical argument (e.g. Condo, or some other theory argument) come before T? Sure. I've seen these debates, but I've never judged them.

Do I get broad level extrapolation for my interp? No. What do I mean by this? Well, if you just say in the 2NC "conditionality is bad", but then precede in the 2NR or 1NR to clarify this statement by saying "conditionality is bad BECAUSE they can only get dispositional counterplans or advocacies", I am not likely to give you that level of extrapolation. I think that that is too late for me.

Have you ever rejected a Framework claim to a K aff (i.e. you did not vote on framework)? Yes.

Have you voted on a framework claim against a K aff? Yes.

What are things not to do or recommend not to do on Framework? I think that you should attempt to separate the procedural issues from the aff itself. I understand that making state good or bad claims and having research burdens on Framework may come as a result of some sort of argument made on framework. however, if you can separate those two things instead of them bleeding over on the same flow, I would appreciate that. If not, that's not an issue.

If I do not have either a predictability, ground, and/or limits claims within the 2NR for T, are you likely to vote for me? probably not.

Case:

Impact turning the aff? Great. I love these debates.

Can I just go for defense, or what some people call the stock issues? No. The only time I have voted on defense was in 2015. The Role of the Ballot was quite literally to vote on defense or what I believe was solvency within that debate.

Disad:

Can we win the disad absent case in the 2NR? Maybe, but I hope that you either are making claims that 1.) the disad turns the case and/or (depending on the disad) 2.) That you're making disad solves the aff's offense in some manner.

Can we win a link turn absent a uniqueness contestation made? Probably not. Right, if you do not prove why a problem is high now and are concluding that you substantially reduce that problem, absent the first sort of argument, I presume that the problem is not likely happening now (i.e. the uniqueness argument of the disad is true).

Do you prefer to hear disads? Read what you want.

Biggest issue on the disad? Same issue on an advantage; there needs to be a good explanation of the internal link or impact module that describes how we get to the impact.

Absent a disad, can we still win the counterplan? Sure, but you'll need to make either 1.) why the counterplan is just inherently mutually exclusive or 2.) Win some sort of internal net benefit to the counterplan.

What if the disad links to the plan AND counterplan? Making link differential arguments here and explaining why (whichever side's) level of "linking" (so to speak) is not enough to trigger the disad. I also then think that this is a question of the evidence, and how good or bad the evidence is. I think that this also a question of spin, so making sure that you spin the argument is important here (for me at least).

Thoughts on the Politics Disad? Fantastic.

Counterplan

Is conditionality fine? yes.

Are two conditional counterplans fine? I mean sure, i don't care.

What about 3? Look, I'm not the arbiter that determines the number of conditional counterplans or unconditional counterplans that you get to read. I think that at a certain time, there needs to be a limit set within the debate. If the affirmative proves why their limit on the certain number is good or better, then I am more likely to vote for them. I think that this ALSO means having a NON-blanket statement interpretation. Just saying that conditionality is bad is probably not a good interpretation for the debate. I think that there's a whole slew of disads and turns that the interp is going to generate. I think that parametrasizing your interp (i.e. the negative teams gets 1 conditional counterplan and a dispositional counterplan) is probably a better interpretation.

Would you vote on internal net benefits? I would yes. If you have a specific question here that I can better answer, please let me know.

What kind of counterplan do you prefer? I like PICS's. They're really cool. Read a counterplan; i don't know what else to say. Debate is cool. Counterplans are fine.

What are some dumb counterplans? Delay is probably dumb, but I've voted on it (yeah, make fun of me. It's fair). I think that consult counterplans on the wrong topic are dumb, but I've still voted for them on the topic in which they do not make sense argumentatively to be read on.

When's the last time you voted on condo? Plano West Finals, 2020. Before that, I think that it was in 2015. People do not read conditionality in front of me a lot.

What about sufficiency framing? Yeah I guess presumption would err in your direction even if there is not a net benefit or internal net benefit. I'll err this manner if the permutation cannot solve, or if the permutation is not made, or if the permutation argument is not sufficiently explained.

What's a poor permutation? One that is not explained. I also think that good permutations are one's that are thought out and take the part of the counterplan that resolves the disad and combines it with the plan. I think that teams that are strategic with these better forms of permutations are more likely to win.

Issues on permutation debates? If you're going to make assertions that the other team's permutation is either severance or intrinsic, I need some sort of warrant or violation explaining why the other side's permutation is intrinsic or severance. Absent this theorietical or structural argument in your theory argument, I'm willing to note vote on it even if you told me all day why severance or intrinsic permutations are bad. Also, if you want to impact turn severance, go ahead. Finally, explaining to me what the world of the permutation looks like and why it avoids the internal or external net benefit is going to be important to me.

Kritiks/Kritikal Aff's:

Preferred strategy against a K aff? I don't have one. It depends on the aff.

Method vs. Method debate? Well yeah, I think that these are great debates to be had.

Do you have a preferred literature base of critical scholarship that you would like to see debated? No. I read a lot of gender studies scholarship, but I do not think that this should deter you from reading the arguments that you want to read within the debate. If you're looking to up someone based on the prerequisite knowledge of things like black feminism, islamic feminism, intersectional feminism, womanism, and various other derivatives, I guess I'm that person, but I would hesitate from deeming myself that person.

Is framework against a K aff fine? yeah, absolutely.

What's the biggest issue with the K or K Aff's? Explaining the alt and how it resolves the offense within the specific debate. I think that more tangible alternatives have a better time of operationalizing an explanation for this question. That's not to say that you can NOT read reject alts. I'm just letting you know based on things that I have been judging on the national and local circuits. I think that, like my friend Chris O'Brien, I start with the alternative, look there, and then go up.

Link argument issues? I think that you are better off with doing a couple things in front of me. First, I think that going for just one link (most likley the conceded link) within the 2NR is going to be helpful. I think that good K teams are doing this because it increases the time that they can spend on other things within the debate. Second, putting the evidence or having evidence in the context of the aff is going to get you much farther. I think that these generic state bad links are fine, but just be understanding that if the evidence after reading it is in the context of the status quo and not some new proposal, I think that I am likely to err aff on this question if said arguments are made. I think that kritikal affs to better win framework we/meet arguments should have a kritik that is in the direction (at the minimum) or at least about the topic in some sort of way. Debate bad affs for instance are nice, but if they have nothing to do with immigration, arms sales, or water, then I am more likely to vote on the argument.

Impact issues? I think that whenever judging a K vs. a Soft Left aff or a K vs. K aff, make sure that you are doing sequencing work if both teams have some sort of root cause argument. I think that this level of explanation is going to warrant higher speaker points while also generating a better ballot erred in your direction.

Would you be willing to vote on a K absent us winning the alt? I think that, like my friend Chris O'Brien, I start with the alternative, look there, and then go up. If you do not have some sort of tangible alt, then I am likley to not vote for you i if the other side then makes arguments about why these things are happening in the status quo and/or the offense is just a non-unique disad at this point.

***PF Paradigm

Calling for evidence: please see the strike section above.

Is defense sticky? No. Absolutely not.

Do you have a preference of offense (i.e. scalar offense, or threshold offense)? No? I don't care. If you're reading your scalar offense, I'm not entirely sure why you're reading these uniqueness arguments above your scalar offense. Right, in policy this is just linear (or that is the synonymous term). I think that you are waisting your time for this.

Can I read multiple ethical positions within the pro and con cases? Sure, why not. If LD gets pre and post fiat, I don't understand why you can't read structural violence arguments and util arguments, and then collapse to one within the final focus.

If I don't frontline arguments within the rebuttal, are they dropped? Yeah. The way that I view the rebuttal is that is it similar or analogous to the 2AC in policy debate. Absent some sort of answer to the rebuttal's arguments that they are making probably means that you do not get to respond to them within the summary speech.

Can I shadow extend arguments in the summary and extrapolate in the final focus? Sure. I think that that is a smart move.

Can I read disclosure theory or paraphrasing theory? I'll answer both of these separately. First, I think that paraphrasing theory is inherently not something that I think that is substantive to vote on. Go look up in the theory section of my policy debate paradigm and int he overview. I think that theory here is treated the same in policy. In other words, I think that you need to win some sort of predictability, ground (or predictable ground), and/or limits (or predictable limits) claim for me to vote on your theory argument. If I do not know why paraphrasing destroys or erode one of those standards, I'm not voting voting for you.You can have as many bright line standards, contextual definition standards because you've read some sort of great (not really great) piece of evidence by some camp staffer who published an article, or whatever. That will not get you far enough in my book. Second, sure, read disclosure theory. Again, I think that the above arguments related to this applies here as well (the criticism about offensive vs. defensive standards).

What's your threshold for a warrant or an explanation to an argument within the final focus? Pretty high. Absent a warrant for an argument mean that I am going to discount that argument. It's pretty simple; I evaluate arguments in a vaccum, and just because you explained it in the summary does not mean that you necessarily get to just shadow extend arguments with the same or full weight.

What if we did not highlight our cards? I'm noticing that more and more teams are not highlighting their cards. I'm not sure if you're doing this on purpose, but I think that I will look to the analysis of the card's tag within the final focus, and adjudicate my decision from there. This is not on you. This is on the PF community to establish a set of card norms. In other words, I will hold you to your analysis, not what is on the evidence.

Can I take prep before cross or the opponent's speech? Sure.

Do you prefer Util or Structural Violence Framing? I think that these impact framing debates and risks analysis disquisitions are fun to have. No, it's not abusive for a team to read an alternative util calculus. I think that I am more adverse to giving higher speaker points to the team that goes outside the boundaries, and pushes them, by reading some sort of alternative ethical framework or calculus.

What does collapsing mean for you? I think, collapsing for me, means that you're going for less arguments but in a manner in which you extrapolate and interact those arguments in a manner that does more for you. Whenever I hear this answer, I see some sort of upside down triangle, whereby there's 2 levels (i.e. the aff case and the negative case). Going for all the arguments that you made within rebuttal within the final focus on the opponents case, while also going for all of your contentions, seems like a strategy or easy way to lose.

Why did you say that you recommend I have uniqueness for my warrants? Yeah, you have 3 different warrants (i.e. impact modules or scenarios) about why something is bad. Just asserting that X, Y, and Z will happen does not make a lot of sense absent some sort of uniqueness argument made that postulates that that issue is not happening now.

If I win a pre-req does that mean that I win the debate? Maybe? I think that it depends on the debate. I think that I would need some more context to this question, but you may be giving away some strategy to your opponents by adding context.

Can I read definitions or observations? Sure. Be my guest.

Can I read a kritik? I mean, there's a small amount of time to get through the K within the debate. If you think that you can do it, be my guest. If you don't have certain things, and are just certain you won the debate because you only read a link argument, don't be surprised when I tell you that you lose. I think that a better strategy you be just to read the link and the impact as a case turn, and then contextualize how the aff specifically increases. I think you should see some of the link sections within the kritik section in the policy section of my paradigm.

Does the new 3 minute (or relatively new) summary change how you judge? Not really. It's like going from high school policy debate to college police debate insofar as the time is concerned (i.e. everything increases by a minute). it doesn't change strategy, or largely I should say.

Speaker Point notes: I find that there is this assimilated, similar way of speaking in PF. It sounds great, but you repeating your claims over and over, and getting to the point 10 or 15 seconds in will not necessitate me giving you higher speaker points in PF. I traditionally give higher speaker points to teams that are warranting their arguments, have good word economy, and are efficient.

3NR's: I've noticed that PF has become way worse about 3NR's than even policy debate. While this hasn't happened to me in PF, or really in any event absent the 1 time at nationals, I do want to say this. You berating a parent judge is just absurd. You berating a coach who evaluates the debate differently is not going to help you win the debate back. Tack a breath, because we're all in this together. If you're doing a 3NR because someone said something egregious, I'll be there with your coach and tab to explain the situation. Absent some sort of issue like this, just don't do it in front of me. Why? The next time I see you I'm just going to think back to the unsavory moment of you berating a judge for no reason. If you want to make judges better, have a conversation with them. Ask questions. If you want judges to get better and stick around, talk to them. Also, the other person on the panel who may or may not have voted for you will also remember. Lastly, Yes, parent judges or inexperienced judges or traditional judges are people that you may not like, or would even conclude are not the ideal situation that any competitor would like. I'm probably in the same boat as you, but that doesn't justify asinine discourse.

Evidence indicts: I think that this is great, and becoming even more popular. I think that if you just assert that their evidence errs in your favor, have a compelling reason and a piece of evidence. This is really simple.

Concessions not warranted isn't a ballot: If you go for all the concessions in the final focus, but you have not warranted a SINGLE one of those arguments, I think that I am less likely to vote for you. In fact, I probably won't. Please make sure that you are explaining your arguments.

Presumption: I think that this errs a bit differently than the way that it does compared to traditional PF judges or people that have been brought up into the PF community. If there is an absence of offense from both sides in the debate, I will err aff because I presume that voting aff does something different and changes things nominally better. If you're a coach reading this and think that I need to start erring on the negative insofar as presumption is concerned, that's fine. Please explain it to me.

Can you read arguments attacking the other side's case in the 2nd speech or for the 2nd team during the constructive speech? Absolutely. I see no reason why. This is the equivalent to reading everything within the 1NC in policy debate.

Can I read theory? Sure. I think that you should reference my theory section above.

Can I go fast? I don't care. Go as fast as you want. If I cannot hear you, then I will say clear.

Can I impact turn in PF? Sure. If you. want to read dedev, give it your best. I think that, if you don't have the proper structural components, I'm probably less willing to vote for you.

***LD Paradigm

Should I pref you because I am a Phil Debater? Probably not. I'm trying to get better at having a deeper understanding of phil, but this is not my strong suit. I'm learning more in the process and doing my due diligence to better understand different philosophy and philosophers arguments.

Will you vote on framework? Sure. I think that if you decide to go for framework, please make a mental note of several things. First, if you just want to weigh your framework above the opponent's, that is fine. I think that I need some sort of good reason about why your framework is better than your opponents. Second, I think that if you want to prove some sort of pre-condition argument or pre-req, then that is fine. Just make sure that you do this. However, if you are making these sorts of link turn arguments, and you are also impact turning their framework, just note that I am likely to not vote for you because you have functionally double turned yourself. Right, you are making an argument that your criterion better gets to their value, but that value is bad, well, that means that your framework leads to a bad thing. Just be mindful of this.

Can I go for a link turn on framework and an impact turn on the opposing value? Probably not because you have double turned yourself.

Is reading post fiat and pre fiat arguments in the 1AC Fine? For sure. I don't care or see a reason why you cannot. if the opposing team make theoretical dispositions to why you can't, then that is a different debate to be had.

Can I LARP in LD? For sure.

Can I read spikes and under-views? For sure. I think that these sort of blippy arguments or analytics made within the 1AC and the 1NC that then you extrapolate on latter within the debate, that is fine. However, be mindful that if you do not give me enough pen time to flow it and I miss it, that is not on me. That means that you should slow down.

Theory? In general? Cool. If you end up reading theory, that is fine. I want to make this as specific for LD as possible. I think that there is a difference of what offense looks like on Theory than it does for say in policy debate. If you go for a time skew argument or a bright line argument, that is not offensive. That is an internal link into some sort of offensive standard, which there's universally 3 (predictable, ground, and/or limits, or some sort of derivative [i.e. predictable ground and predictable limits---depending on who you talk to]). Moreover, if you are going to be reading a lot of frivolous theory, I think that’s you need to be discussing these arguments in one of those veins.

When judging CX I prefer a stock issue style debate but I am open to any argument. As long as you make your case I will flow it and make my decision on which team makes the better case and arguments overall. I do vote on Topicality but it's got to be a clear violation and you must win the "better definition" debate. I will also listen to K's and CP's that are ran correctly. At the end of the day which case makes the greatest REAL WORLD impact should win.

LD I prefer a Value debate over framework. Neg side should clash with Aff so if you are trying to argue a different format than aff it is like two ships passing in the night. LD by design is a debate over morals and philosophy (what is better for society) but again I will listen to any well structured argument.

Extemp Make me laugh, use crediable sources and only walk if you know how to do it. Don't let the walk mess up your speech. I want the sources but I am more intersted in your analsis of the topic.

Spreading: If you spread and it is clear good for you but I will always believe in quality over quanity. If we can not understand your arguments are you really getting to the essence of SPEECH and debate? In person if i visablly drop my pen I am no longer flowing your speech, online I will simply say clear, please adjust.

PUBLIC FORUM: Tabula Rasa ; Policy Maker ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; plans are okay ; Ks are okay, if ran and explained well

POLICY DEBATE: Policy Maker ; Stock Judge ; Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; I'm okay with running Ks, as long as they are well explained and topical

LINCOLN DOUGLAS: Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; well-organized cases and speeches are important

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE: Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; well-organized cases and speeches are important

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

TFA STATE:

PUBLIC FORM: I'm a Tabula Rasa judge on the surface and a classic debate judge in my core. Progressive debate is okay with me. No spreading. I like debate rounds that have plenty of clash , weighed arguments , excellent speeches , and good sportsmanship. I expect each round to be educational. My ballot will reflect the round's voting issues , and my own expertise / knowledge.

I value quality over quantity of evidence -- relevancy (topical) , source , unique , legit

I expect teams to adhere to the resolution. Meaning, arguments MUST be balanced -- you choose how to balance them -- these balanced arguments will be your VOTERS

My ballot weighs: magnitude ; probability ; reasonability ; overall solvency ; advantages and disadvantages ; impacts

WATCH OUT FOR DROPS! – use caution when intentionally dropping an argument, even if it’s your own.

Carry all arguments throughout the round.

Arguments must be weighed based off their impacts , probability , and timeline – this will used to evaluate them as voters.

STYLE & DELIVERY:

ALL SPEECHES MUST BE CLEAR AND WELL ARTICULATED. Bonus points for tapping into annunciation and pathos.

PRIORITZE TAGLINES—this makes flowing easier. It also keeps your arguments, cards, and evidence organized on my flow—you’ll get a better ballot from me.

NO SPREADING

USE YOUR PREP TIME efficiently

UTILIZE SPEAKING TIME WISELY

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

UIL CX STATE:

I am a policy maker judge who cherishes stock issues and will enter the round willing to flow anything. No spreading. I like debate rounds that have plenty of clash , weighed arguments , excellent speeches , and good sportsmanship. Frameworks and observations are key to the lens of the debate. I expect each round to be educational. SHOW me how / why you’re winning. My ballot will reflect the round's voting issues and my own expertise / knowledge.

PHILSOPHY:

SNAPSHOT: Firstly, I am a Policy Maker ; Secondly, a Stock Judge ; Lastly, a Tabula Rasa mindset

I need Voters and an Impact Calculus

K’s must be explained well, topical, educational, and link

My ballot weighs: magnitude ; probability ; reasonability ; overall solvency ; advantages and disadvantages ; impacts

AFF: I will pay close attention to how you frame your plan text, especially stock issues. If I do not completely understand your PLAN by the end of the 1AC, it will be hard for me to flow you. PROTECT AND ADVOCATE FOR YOUR SOLVENCY! USE FIAT WISELY.

NEG: I will flow any argument you run against the AFF. Have an even balance of OFF and ON CASE arguments. ALL ARGUMENTS MUST LINK TO THE AFF’s PLAN. Split the NEG block. Be advised: I’m a policy maker who heavily considers stock issues. T’s & K’s must show EVIDENT violations and be educational. I will assume there is nothing wrong with AFF’s SOLVENCY if there aren’t any DAs. I prefer UNIQUE CPs that cannot be PERMED.

BOTH: WATCH OUT FOR DROPS! – use caution when intentionally dropping an argument, even if it’s your own. Carry all arguments throughout the round. Arguments must be weighed based off their impacts , probability , and timeline – this will used to evaluate them as voters.

STYLE & DELIVERY:

ALL SPEECHES MUST BE CLEAR AND WELL ARTICULATED. Bonus points for tapping into annunciation and pathos.

PRIORITZE TAGLINES—this makes flowing easier. It also keeps your arguments, cards, and evidence organized on my flow—you’ll get a better ballot from me.

NO SPREADING

USE YOUR PREP TIME efficiently

UTILIZE SPEAKING TIME WISELY

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

TL;DR:

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

Please do not call me "Jacob", it makes me uncomfortable when I'm addressed by name in-round

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

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

For pref sheets:

Clash- 1

LARP- 1

K- 1

Trad- 2

T/Theory- 2

Phil- 3

Tricks- Strike/5

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

I'm usually not looking at the doc during round, but occasionally I will based on how the round plays out. Don't count on me looking back over the doc to fill holes in my flow though, if you're not clear enough for it to end up on my paper then I'm not evaluating it. I look over evidence for questions of ethics, quality, or for resolving major points of interest in the round when I absolutely have to-- not to fill in blanks from what I couldn't catch.

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

POLICY/NFA LD:

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

T/Theory: I love T and hold it near and dear to my heart. If T isn't your game, you probably don't want to run it in front of me because I always have a hard time voting for Ts that are blippy and not impacted out. I enjoy T debates that have a lot of clash on the reasons to prefer, and that attempt to compare the division of ground/education of each interpretation. I enjoy when 2NRs are 5 mins of t/theory. I do not enjoy when 2NRs try to go for procedural questions and substance and spread themselves too thin.

Reasonability does not mean "You shouldn't care abt me bcuz im REASONABLY topical"-- I have no idea what this means or how to decide whether you are or aren't "reasonably topical". Reasonability is about the aff's interpretation and its place in the literature/its division of ground.

Fairness is definitely a terminal impact-- I think that there is a lot to be said about how debate could and should look, and what fairness in an event like this has to do with that. In other words-- don't panic and alter your blocks to make fairness only an internal link to some sort of education impact, I generally find these warrants to be compelling but putting way too many eggs in one (easily impact turnable) basket.

Condo is fine, but it's on thin ice. I think condo/dispo is much more justifiable in CX, but I'm more than down to listen to condo in any CX round with 2+ advocacies if you think you can win that debate. I'm a lot more likely to err aff on the conditionality question in LD (either HS or college). I have a very high threshold for voting on condo with just one advocacy in ANY event.

I refuse to vote on Theory based on personal appearance (Shoe theory, dress theory, etc.), often these arguments are a lot more violent than people intend, and never take into account individual situations that debaters may face (and I'm not gonna force debaters to put that situation on display to win a round). If you make one of these args you're just wasting speech time.

I will typically vote on disclosure theory with a few caveats: 1) I will not vote on disclosure theory in a novice or JV division; 2) I will not vote on disclosure theory if the other debater's school doesn't exist on the Wiki; 3) We are at a UIL tournament; 4) If you don't meet your own interp and are looking for a cheap win; 5) If the tournament says not to. Disclosure is awesome, and one of the best norms established in the past 20 years of debate, but it shouldn't be a crutch or a method of gatekeeping debate from novices and programs with less information or funding. If you are a college debater, why would you not be disclosing?

*Side note about disclosure* Why oh why do we think only a round report is disclosing? I am very likely to vote on a well positioned disclosure theory that calls out posting only a round report with no cites or doc attached. Disclosure is about growing the amount of information available in the community, and making the evidence we read widely available for ethical and educational purposes (that's kinda the whole point of the theory), not only does only posting a round report not do that, it actively harms the idea of what it takes to "disclose" an aff. Grumpy old man rant aside, stop it and post at least the cites. Don't be scared of a prepared opponent, if you're scared of a prepared opponent then you'll always lose to one.

My assumption is to reject the argument on every theoretical question except condo/dispo bad (although my threshold for changing this is not incredibly high in-round).

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

CP: Counter plans are great. I like most CPs, and I don't really have any dispositions toward any CP except those that are artificially competitive (I've voted on PICs, Consult, Delay, International CPs, and many many more). However, I am also more than down to hear a great theory as to why their CP isn't legit.

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

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

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

A lot of judges say to be "in the direction of the topic"-- I think this is vague and arbitrary. You will probably have an easier time on the framework sheet with me if you are able to explain how your advocacy affirms the topic in some way or form, and you should still be arguing that we should change from the status quo (even if you're running pess), however I am also a fan of "debate about debate" Ks and I don't feel that the aff should be bound to being "in the direction of the topic" if they can win args about why the topic (or debate) is bad/exclusionary. That being said, if you can't win that debate then you'll probably lose the round.

If you're not reading evidence that is at least somewhat in the lit for this year's topic I'm probably more likely to buy into impact chains on fwk/t-usfg (i.e. If you're debating on the college AI topic and none of your ev is about AI, predictability and limits become a lot easier to win on the neg. Same goes for the current HS CX trademarks, patents, and copyrights topic/LD topic of the month).

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

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

Don't ask for 30 speaks, you're not getting them.

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

Please chill out. There is absolutely no need to be as rude as I've seen the past couple of years in these events. Snide remarks in CX, unnecessary comebacks to questions, and general lack of respect for opponents is probably my LEAST favorite thing to watch in debate. I'd rather watch someone read a 7-8 minute NC of only friv theory or 26 off a-z spec and be nice than someone execute the best strategy I've ever seen while being an ass. In CX, ask the question get an answer and move on-- there is no need to say something snarky after you get a bad answer (I promise I heard it too).

(The average speaks I've given in the fall '24 semester are approximately 27.68)

Miscellaneous things you might want to know:

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

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

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

Tech over truth, but truth influences tech.

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

The only rules of debate are the speech times.

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

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

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

High School LD:

I'm typically in the policy side of things, but I have coached students to break at TOC Bid tournaments, to the top 64 of NSDA nats, to qual for TFA state, and to a UIL State Championship in this event. I typically find myself more engaged in progressive LD rounds than traditional rounds but please just run the round however best suits you and your style of argument, I promise I have just as much game in trad rounds. I love comparative analysis, impact calc, and rounds where there is a lot of interaction between y’all’s arguments. You can go as fast as you want. My off case positions remain pretty close to the exact same as policy, so you can scroll up to get a more in depth look at those specifically.

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

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

Phil: I thoroughly enjoy good phil debate (especially on topics that don't use the word "ought"), although I'm not very deep into phil. I've read *some* of Locke and like the super old classical stuff only insofar as their relation to communication or political theory (and at a very surface level understanding). You will have to hold my hand a lot in phil cases, I took one logic class in college and barely passed-- please don't spout off a nuanced and abstract syllogism at card speed and expect me to get it first try. That's not to say don't run it or that I won't evaluate it, I just need a bit more explanation than some other judges.

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

Tricks: Tricks is bad debate, and I have a hard time justifying a vote on most tricks even if they're straight dropped. I wouldn't recommend running this style of debate with me in the back of the room-- even if you win on tricks with me, your speaks are probably getting tanked (expect a 26.5).

World Schools:

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

Hello! I'm Kat!

I was a debater for four years and am now a full-time college student who still very much enjoys Policy Debate. I have been judging UIL and TFA CX Debate for three years now and I've held local camps and small practices over the last few years.

I am very much a Tab Judge! I like coming to the debate fresh and as if I know nothing. I want you to do the connecting and show me exactly why I should vote for.

I'm good with spreading as long as you're sign posting. Just be mindful that since you are competing virtually, spreading might become an issue because of technological issues. I'm open to all off-case arguments, but I am picky with my Ks. I do not want to hear a K as a time suck. Please, if you are planning on running a K, let it be strategically planned.

I am open to, and like, Framework arguments. Again, I'm Tab, so I will be coming to each round without assumptions, so Framework sometimes gives you a great starting point.

If you have any other specific questions just ask me!

I'm a policy judge. I want clash supported by evidence and expert opinions. Please remember this is a speaking event and you should be clear when you speak. If I can't understand you, you will lose points. I want you to think about what is being said and refute it with ideas and evidence.

Policy Debate:

Policy Judge. I don't want to vote on stock issues; stop trying to make me.

'Presumption'

AFF you will lose if you

1) Can't prove burden of proof

2) Can't prove solvency (risk TBD in the round)

3) Your case gets turned and you fail to adequately answer it

4) Your case is outweighed and you lose corresponding framing and/or impact calculus

NEG you will lose if

1) the affirmative has a claim for solvency (risk TBD in the round)

2) The affirmative outweighs the negative arguments and you lose corresponding framing and/or impact calculus

Both teams can call abuse, you can severe, you can kritik, you can perm, I don't care what you do but if any of those standards are met you will lose as a team.

Ask me in the round for clarification.

LD:

Progressive, tell me how the round should be framed, you can take the debate in any direction I do not give priority to Value/Criteria over Contentions - I leave that to be decided in the round.

If I'm not given any framing I will default to assume that the value & criteria are the most significant issues in the round.

NOTE: If the rhetoric in the round is revolving around a "default" to resolution adherence I'm of the opinion that the side in affirmation holds a position of resolution adherence and the negative side doesn't thus in such rounds I will vote affirmative. Ask for clarification in the round.

---- I don't expect people to read my paradigm before going into a speech round, but I just have this here as a template for online ballots.

Extemp:

Topic

- Do you take a stance on the topic or provide a platform to inform upon?

- Do your points match the topic?

- Do you actually talk about the topic or do you just discuss related topics that you assume have a connection.

Structure

- Is there an introduction? Does the introduction flow smoothly? Does the intro provide an insight into the structure of the speech?

- Do you have primary points? Do the primary points have a sub-point structure?

- Do you wrap up the speech clearly?

- Do you give a call to action or a final note of clarity in your conclusion?

Warrants

- Do you provide sources?

Eye Contact

- (Online Debate) Do you look in the direction of the camera or do you look everywhere else?

Pitch/Tone/Emphasis

- Do you provide a varied speech or is it monotone?

- Are you loud enough?

Speech:

Category Adherence

Eye Contact (do you know the piece or are you reading it)

Dynamic/Tone/Emphasis

Stage Setting

Transitions (if multiple selections)

Hi. I'm mostly a tabula rasa judge.

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

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

I have nearly two decades of judging experience, primarily on the UIL policy circuit. I am a policy maker judge and will look for the most pragmatic and real world situations in round.

It is the role of the negative to provide sufficient clash, and I'll vote on most issues in the round if you are believable and persuasive. Feel free to run any argument and make sure you provide impacts to weigh on the ballot.

I am okay with speed in the round but will signal to you if I am unable to flow. However, I am ultimately not concerned with the number of arguments in the round. I am looking for quality, depth of understanding, and educational clash. Make sure both teams are listening to arguments being ran in the round and respond accordingly.

Above all, be respectful to each other.

2 year Lincoln Douglas Debater

2 year CX Debater

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

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

Email: haggardtiff@gmail.com

Please include me in all email chains.

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

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

Key Notes:

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

Quality>Quantity

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

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

I do require cameras to be on unless extreme circumstances.

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

I am tab but will default policymaker. This means that absent other instructions, I will weigh the harms to make my decision, but teams should still tell me how to weigh the impacts and which arguments are winners. The 2AR and 2NR should write my ballot for me. I am open to all arguments and I will vote for all arguments. That being said, run arguments that you are comfortable with and that you know well. Reading a card alone generally won’t win you the round – how you use the card and your analysis will. Clash makes for great debate rounds, so be sure to listen to your opponents.

I primarily argued policy so I am obviously most familiar with policy arguments, but that shouldn’t stop you from running K or theory if that is your strategy/preference. For disads, an impact calc is a must. I enjoy T debates but I think most teams spend too long on interpretations/violations. You should dedicate time explaining the impact of the violation and how I should vote on T. Ks should have a strong link and you should explain the story of your K clearly. It is always best to underestimate the judge’s knowledge of K arguments. For CPs, slow down when reading your plan text.

In short: the round is yours to do with it what you want. Assume I know much less than you do about your arguments and the topic. Connect the dots for me, tell me how to vote and have fun!

Background:

2019, CX Debate State Runner-Up Conf. 2A

4-year CX Debater, Slocum High School

I was a Theory-debater in high school and am very well versed in the world of debate. I have debated at both the high school and college level. I have coached four CX teams and sent all four to State. I hated (and still do hate) Open-Evidence with a passion. I frequently ran kritiks and theory in high school so I will understand them fully if you decide to run either.

---

Gmail: kasendebate@gmail.com

Please include me on any and all email chains.

---

Overview:

• I am a Games Player.
• I view the debate as a game and I believe in the rules and points that come along with the game.
• I heavily value MPX Calc and rebuttal crystallizations.
• I don't listen to Performance Affs.
• I default new in the 2 unless the Neg provides theory on why it shouldn't be permitted.
• If you argue in CX, I will stop you. If it becomes excessive, I'll stop CX.

My background in debate is pretty intense and up-to-date. In my experience, there is nothing that you can argue that I haven't seen/heard/debated against/debated with. If you manage to confuse me, that's probably a sign that something's gone wrong.

For old-schoolers and debaters from State pre-Tabroom:

K: 5

T: 1

CP: 4

DA: 5

On-Case: 4

Conditional: 4

Quantity of Args: 5

New in 2: 4

Communication = Resolution

Quantity > Quality

Theory & Framework:

• I love Theory: most theory arguments go over well with me, so long as you know how to use them.
• Back-and-forth Framework bores me — I appreciate good framing but the framework debate itself is repetitive and tiresome.

Topicality:

• I am not a fan of Topicality. (T) arguments often are filler arguments and I would rather not listen to them.
• If you have strong (T)s that aren't fillers, then go for it.
• (T)s MUST include standards and voters, otherwise, I wash the (T) on my flow.
• I have never, and probably will never, vote on Funding/Agent/etc. You can still run it, but I doubt it'll be enough to win.
• I don't care for F-Spec in the slightest -- I will (basically) never vote on a funding argument.

Kritiks:

• I love K debates and interesting Kritikality.
• If you don't know how to run a K, then don't.
• I expect the Neg to understand their lit base and author.
• If the Aff doesn't know how to respond to a K, I either expect K Theory to follow or the Neg to explain the significance of the K and why it should remain on the flow. If neither happens, it gets washed.
• Props to the Aff if they can K the Neg...

CPs:

• CPs cannot, under any circumstance, be topical.
• PICs are fine with me as long as you know what you're doing.
• CPs should assume Aff solvency in its entirety and contain net-better MPXs in the Calc.
• CPs should be net-better.
• Mutual exclusivity is a novice argument. Mutually Inclusive CPs are legendary.

DAs:

• Must be warranted
• As for MPXs, ANYTHING >>>> Nuke War.
• I don't bother with Race War MPXs.

Evidence:

• I am not a Democrat nor am I a Republican -- I will not vote for you just because you read a card on racism or something.
• I consider debaters that play to a judge's political affiliation to be among the lowest of the low.

Speaks:

• I consider myself hard to impress but that's just me.
• I reserve my 30s for the best of the best; I average 27-28

Disclosure:

I will offer oral critiques to anyone who wishes. I will disclose my RFD so long as 1) the tournament permits, 2) there's time, and 3) all debaters consent to my immediate disclosure.

If any debaters object to the immediate disclosure, then I will accept that and not disclose. If any debaters have any questions, my email is free to those who wish.

Online Tournaments:

I expect all debaters to have your cameras on throughout the entire debate. This ensures clarity as well as fairness. Do NOT communicate with your partner during your speeches/CX.

——

If proper debate decorum is consistently violated, I'll stop speeches/CX/etc. Debaters, especially at district/state should be able to properly adhere to debate decorum.

---

I wish the best of luck to all teams present and expect great things from you all.

~ Kasen Hobson '23

Texas A&M University - Classics

---

In my judgment, the team that I award my ballot to is chosen based upon their skills and arguments presented in the round. I do not judge individuals based upon their race/ethnicity/sexuality/gender/political stance/etc. I believe in an open discussion in the debate space and place resolution and communication above all.

What you say matters more than who you are.

---

For any events: Communication should be Articulate, Clear, Sincere, Authentic, and Expressive! 

For debate events: NO SPREADING (that is not good communication!) Content should be Pertinent to the case, Evidence supportive of valid points, Quality over quantity; Use Persuasion and Logic to convince me who has the best case (policy or value debate), supported by the most appropriate and valid arguments.

Enjoy!

I debated at Princeton, TX and I'm a CXer by trade, though I've been judging often for the last five years since I've graduated so I know my way around all the other formats. I am a "games" judge so I accept anything and everything so long as I've been given proper reasoning. If nothing fancy goes on I default to a policymaker position. "Conservative" and "Progressive" styles are equally valid in my book.

My three top level principles:

• Framework is King: I cannot evaluate something like American Hegemony vs Human Rights without being given a philosophical underpinning on what's a higher concern. Framework is not an end unto itself, but to be used as a tool for establishing priority of impacts. I highly recommend both sides run something on this.
• Competition over Truth: As a judge, I want to intervene with my own knowledge and logic as minimally as possible because that's your job as the debater. As long as you get the technical performance down 80% I can be flexible on the remaining part.
• Evidence Quality over Quantity: I'm less interested in the number of cards read and more in the reasoning of how they come up with the conclusion in the tagline. I'll only intervene here when there is disagreement on what's written. I understand there are cases when a good argument for the situation cannot be prepared in a card so I accept analytics within reasonability. On areas of significant clash I give it to the side that delves deeper into the warrants. When the competing claims slide over each other, I may end up evaluating it as a wash.

One more request: when you invoke innovation, please elaborate what you mean by that. It's the biggest, most annoying buzzword in all of speech and debate.

Also, I do not like disclosure theory. Study the meta or learn to improvise.

Onto the line by line:

Speed - I can accept it as long as it's intelligible. If you get to the point where you're wheezing substantially I'll tell you to clear up. Slow down on taglines and authors. If you spread on analysis and they aren't written down on the file, then I can't guarantee I'll have them down on the flow.

Topicality - I take a layman interpretation on what ought to be topical so my threshold is rather high. That said, the affirmative must still have a good technical performance in their answer.

Theory - It's okay with me, though I think it's of a lower priority than material issues and mostly evaluate it as a tiebreaker.

Turns - Link turns, impact turns, and case turns are all very powerful, but please substantiate what's going on materially. There's nothing more confusing than when both sides claim they subsume the other.

Counterplans - The viability of a CP lies in the net benefit that's established. Mutually exclusive plans are the clearest for clash and competition. I accept PICs but there better be a good reason that the aff can't perm. Unless otherwise specified or kicked, I view CPs as part of the negative's world advocacy that can be held against them. Running multiple CPs or CP and K may obfuscate the neg's advocacy, but it's up to the aff to point that out.

Case - If offense is lacking or well defended I often let the affirmative access the try or die argument. I'm not strict on case architecture on either side, but stock issues will always be fundamental and we can't forget that.

Disadvantages - On economic related impacts, the way to break beyond surface level claims is to actually tangle with competing economic theories. Is the Keynesian, Neoclassical, or the Marxist school most accurate on the scenario regarding recessions? I don't know, you tell me. On politics, I think you're obligated to read political capital theory or else it's easy to defuse with thumpers, but I don't accept that you can fiat out of it. Generally I value strong and specific links when it comes to the impact calc.

Kritiks - I can follow along with the theory, though if you start using buzzwords and jargon you'd better be able to elaborate on that. If you run a K you should understand it well on a conceptual level. Like disads, specific links and contextualization to the aff are very important. On the aff side, I'm willing to follow along with K's bad theory, counter-kritiks, and really all bets are off here.

Send the email chain to yashkhaleque2@gmail.com, I'm also available for questions and case advice.

I have judged debate on and off the past 22 years. I did CX debate for 4 years in high school.

I don’t mind spread, but it has to be done well. If it is not done well, I stop flowing.

LD is value debate. The debater should focus on supporting and weighing a value with a criterion instead of a second value. Both affirmative and negative debaters should have a value and criteria and explain how the case filters through those arguments. Both debaters should refute their opponents' arguments and extend their cases. I will vote for the debater who presents the most logical persuasive argument in support of the case and in refutation of the opposing case

CX is policy debate. The debater should focus on supporting/negating the resolution/policy. If the debaters in the round do not tell me why their argument is important, I will default to the stock issues, but I will vote on any issue if the team can clearly explain why I should care about their argument. Ultimately, I want to know what the problem is, what the Affirmative proposes to do about it, and why the Affirmative plan is a best to implement. I have no reason to vote for the Affirmative if they do not clear this burden first. The negative's responsibility is to tell me why we should not implement the Affirmative plan. I have no problems with counter-plans, but they must be done correctly.

I understand that this is a learning experience for most, so I try to make a comfortable room for most. I am good with most things in a round.

Speed is alright as long as you are clear. I prefer that you emphasize the tags and author/date in some way. Speak louder, slower, label your cards A, B, C, or say "AND." Either way, I want to know when you are moving on to a new piece of evidence. The same goes for moving on to a new argument. Be kind to everyone in the round.

Overall, I would say that I am a tab judge but will default policymaker. In other words, read whatever you would like. I will adapt to you and the round that you want. If you give me no other lens to view the round, I will vote for whatever the best policy option there is, even if that is the status quo. That being said, I want to see good, warranted debate. Extend warrants, not just arguments. I want to see the 1AC and off case positions effectively extended. This doesn't have to be long. I would just like it to be there. I like offensive arguments. Defense is necessary of course, but I will probably not vote solely on a defensive argument. Good impact calculus and round summaries should start showing up in the rebuttals. This is a good way to simplify the round and tell me what you think I should vote on and why.

Topicality/Theory: I default competing interpretations. I want to see a good T debate, with a robust focus on standards. If you do not plan to do that, I would not go for T in the 2NR.

K/K affs: I am fine with K debate. I am probably not the most experienced in all of the literature, but I am decent with lots of the mainstream stuff. I want to know the solvency of the alt/aff. I want specific links. As with any argument, know it well and extend warrants with good analysis. If you do that, I will vote on just about anything.

Block: Please split the block. I do not like new in the 2NC. New defensive arguments aren't a huge deal to me, but I will not flow new off case.

Off case: Unless you have a crazy on case strategy, I will probably need some off case arguments. DAs, CPs, Ks, anything.

Aff: make sure you are extending the 1AC. I like to see a team that really knows their aff inside and out. It is great when you use 1AC warrants to answer 1NC arguments. That is high level debating. While overviews/aff extensions are important, I have seen too many 2ACs and 1ARs where the line by line is completely neglected in favor of the overview. Balance is important. I am fine with any kind of aff, any kind of impacts. Run what you are most comfortable with.

Debate is supposed to be fun. As a judge, I will listen to any argument that is most fun/relevant/important to you. Just be prepared to debate it well. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

I tend to lean towards traditional arguments and stock issues. Maintaining an accurate flow, and following it, is very important to me. I don't enjoy frivolous arguments and time sucks. Stick to the basics. I like clear extensions, tell me why the argument or point you are presenting is important to the round, is it a voting issue or key link to the impact.

I believe debate is a public speaking event so I deduct heavily for speed that hinders your ability to be understood or impacts your ability to speak clearly.

My name is Dr. Michael Mattis and I am the Director of Theater and Debate at Grand Saline High School in Grand Saline, Texas. I have been a coach for 23 years and I am an NSDA Three-Diamond Coach who has coached Multiple National Qualifiers and State Champions.

I am very tab. I would much rather you do what you do best and I will adjust to you, rather than you adjust to me.

Cx - I am a Policy maker judge. I care more about impacts rather than solvency but you still have to get to those impacts somehow. I don’t like K’s but I will vote on it if it is run well. I don’t care about conditionality do it if you want. Stocks are important though you need to be solving something and be able to. I do care about T but make sure to run it well and you can explain why they are not or why you are topical. I consider magnitude is very important. If your going to use framework make me believe it. In my eyes death is worse than suffering because suffering can be fixed, however if suffering leads to death, this will out way all.

LD - I operate under utilitarianism, but I am perfectly fine with you running anything. All that really matters is how well you can convey your point of view and your ideas. If you can provide me with a good reason for your ideas then I will have no issue voting for you. you must still protect your value criterion, and the other parts of your case. If you don't defend everything, and you still hold your value criterion, you can still win. If you can make a good argument for yourself at the very end.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For CX I am a policy maker judge. For both LD and CX I expect clear clash, speed should not impede clarity. LD is a philosophy debate (no plans needed or desired )I don't argue the round for you. It is the debaters responsibility to use a road map and signpost. Using the word and is not a signpost.

ctrl + f "Planless Affs v. T", “Policy Aff v. T”, "Policy Aff v. CP/DA", "Policy Aff v. K", or "K v. K" for relevant sections

Cambridge '20

Georgia '23 (https://comm.uga.edu/debate/recrutiment or email jstupek8@gmail.com) Go Debate Dawgs!

they/them. ask your opponents what pronouns they prefer before the round and stick to them. pls call me jack or big dawg not judge

jackmdebate@gmail.com - please have the 1ac sent by the round start time.

mc hammer reads philosophy, you should too

i am autistic, don't read into my facial expressions as a reliable predictor of the ballot. apologies in advance for any confusion

IF YOU READ GRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS OF VIOLENCE, INCLUDE A TRIGGER WARNING AND HAVE A VERSION OF THE CARDS OMITTING THE GRAPHIC DETAILS READY IF SOMEONE INDICATES IT'S AN ISSUE. I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO HAVE TRAUMATIC FLASHBACKS BECAUSE YOU WERE TOO LAZY TO TYPE OUT A SENTENCE ON THE WIKI/AT THE TOP OF THE DOC.

*i have hearing difficulties, please either send the doc you're reading from or SLOW DOWN. i.e. you probably don't need to send your T-USfg 2NC analytics but make sure you're reading them at a speed that people that don't have the exact blocks you're looking at in front of them can still understand

**LD/PF - i only competed in policy and i'm unfortunately unfamiliar with the particular nuances of LD/PF debate so i am more likely to vote for substantive arguments than procedurals that rely on an understanding of LD/PF debate norms.

Top Level

- debate is too serious. i enjoy fun rounds, i greatly appreciate jokes. kindness is underrated - opponents are (most likely) not your enemy but rather fellow participants in an extracurricular activity who have decided to spend their weekend debating with you instead of doing literally anything else. please treat them that way.

- you get three perms per arg. new 1AR articulation of the perm warrants new 2NR responses.

- i am uncomfortable with being asked to adjudicate things that occurred outside of the round. (note: i consider the round to start when the pairing comes out, so disclosure theory etc. are still fair game i just have the same institutional (lack of) capability to handle things like Title IX violations as you). i take ethics violations very seriously. if you believe your opponents have behaved in a manner inconsistent with ethical participation in this activity, let me know and i'll contact tab instead of starting the round.

- racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anything that makes the round unsafe is a quick way to earn an instant L and zero speaker points. i will not hesitate to intervene.

- speaker points: my range is generally high-27s to mid-29s. i would probably be considered a point fairy but occasionally it goes the opposite way so warning you in advance. making and executing strategic decisions in rebuttals is the best way to get higher speaks in front of me. i reward taking risks. while i try to hold the line on new args, most judges are inherently suckers for a lying 2A. contextualizing your arguments to the other side’s will earn you more points than just spreading through a K or CP explanation written by coaches four years ago devoid of context or specificity. i.e. "CP solves advantage 1 because [warrant], solves advantage 2 because [warrant]" as opposed to "CP solves entire topic because [warrant]" or "K solves our links and case because [warrant]" and not "THEY DROPPED THE ALT (they probably didn't if we're being honest), WE WIN BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT'S JUST HOW DEBATE WORKS I GUESS".

Scale based on my immediate reaction after the speeches:

30 - Perfect. I do not want anyone I coach to hit you in elim rounds because it's gg.

29.9-29.5 - Woah. You're almost done! The summit is near and you'll be there with a few more practice speeches.

29.4-29 - Yo that was fire. Y'all did your thing and executed well. Good job!

28.9-28.5 - Nice!

28.4-28 - Pretty Good.

27.9-27.5 - Needs some work.

<27.5 - If I've given you this, you know what you did.

- the roughly two hours that i am in the room are your time. if you want to post-round me, go for it (although once i submit the ballot there's nothing i can do to change the decision) but please be courteous regarding your opponents' desires and make sure any more immediate concerns they may have have been resolved before we get into it

- read whatever you want. although i personally lean in certain directions on common debate args, i try to check as many biases as possible at the door and base my decisions on the actual debating done. i want to limit judge intervention as much as possible so comparison and telling me how i should resolve the debate is very important. if i don't have judge instruction coming out of the 2XR, i intervene to resolve the round the best i can. condo is probably the arg you are least likely to win in front of me but i'll vote for it if it's mishandled

- the status quo is always a logical option unless you tell me it isn't

- 2xr should start with: "[Our arg] outweighs [their arg] because"

- dropped args are true, it's up to you to make that matter though

- rather than tell you what i think about specific issues, i think it may be more helpful to disclose how i come to decisions. in the absence of a clear dub for either team, i evaluate the flow. if i can't come to a decision based purely on my flow and memory of the round, i read the ev for each arg and decide whether the cards support the args that are being made as well as which team has better ev for each specific arg. if i still can't come to a decision based on reading cards, i'll reconstruct the debate and necessarily fill in gaps for both sides based on my understanding of the best version of each team's args. YOU DO NOT WANT THIS. there is a non-zero probability that your cards are not as good as you think and potentially a very large probability that filling in the gaps works out better for the other team. to avoid this, DO GOOD COMPARISON. compare ev quality, risk of impact scenarios, EVERYTHING. i understand how frustrating it is when you catch an L after a super close debate because it feels like the judge did slightly more work for the other side. i do not want this for you. you do not want this for you. work with me and you'll probably be much happier with the result. in the absence of judge instruction, i will intervene as necessary to resolve the round.

Planless Affs v. T

- planless affs typically beat T in front of me with nuanced impact turns or a C/I based on counter-definitions of words in the resolution with a DA. i am not a good judge for C/Is that aren’t based in definitions of words in the rez as i am typically persuaded by the 2NR argument that it’s arbitrary and self-serving (which is irrelevant/actually good if you go for the impact turn to T). i'm most persuaded by fairness and clash as impacts to T. TVAs are defense, i won't vote on that alone so make sure you have offense against the aff's model (even if it's just that the TVA is good and the aff's model precludes reading it). i believe that procedural fairness is a terminal impact although i can be persuaded that it’s only an i/l if you make the arg

- i will vote on presumption if the neg proves that the aff just results in the squo

- i went double 2s most of my debate career. my favorite neg rounds in college were 2NC T/1NR Case but i read planless affs my senior year and prepped against T so i think i'm pretty 50/50 in these debates when equally debated

Policy Aff v. CP/DA

- affs typically beat the CP/DA strategy in front of me by either winning a solvency deficit to the CP that outweighs the DA or proving that the CP is not competitive. I will vote on zero risk of the DA but only if there's offense against the CP.

- probably a better judge for theory than most against CPs. i default to believing that CPs must be textually and functionally competitive but can be convinced otherwise absent aff warranted argumentation

- note for soft-left/K affs with a plan - although i am convinced by framing that says we should prioritize structural violence or reject util/extinction logic, you're not going to win on that alone if the neg has a CP that resolves the aff's impacts especially if the neg is winning that i should view CP solvency through sufficiency framing

Policy Aff v. T

- i am a grammar nerd, args that are based on grammatically incorrect definitions are unlikely to win in front of me i.e. i can't vote for "United States" is an adjective because that's wrong

- models are important

- i tend to do the most intervention in these debates. absent a 2NR/2AR that completely writes my ballot, i find myself resolving the round by going through my flow and the docs and reconstructing the debate with the best version of both sides' arguments.

Policy Aff v. K

- 2AR should be either fwk + case outweighs/offense OR fwk + perm + no link/alt fails. if the negative wins framework but the affirmative wins that the aff is a good idea it likely means that the aff's knowledge production is good which often solves the link.

- specificity is the most important thing is these debates. well-warranted analytics contextualized to your argument as well as the other team's will get you further than shotgunning cards with no explanation.

- if your 1AR/2AR framework explanation is entirely "you link, you lose bad" but they're going for links that have uniqueness you are probably going to lose.

- the vast majority of my college debate rounds involved cap sustainability debates so i am very familiar with the args made and ev read by both sides. although i personally believe that the cap bad cards are better, i've always cut the cap good file and will vote happily for McAfee (despite my personal belief that the card is garbage) if the other side doesn't explain their offense adequately.

- i tend to be persuaded by smart turn args regarding trivialization or cruel optimism when links seem especially contrived i.e. it's bad to say a team reading a soft left aff on a reform vs. rev topic is literally enacting physical violence against marginalized peoples "outside of the debate space" (this isn't to say i'm not persuaded by those same link args as i have and will continue to vote for "you link you lose" logic when it's debated well despite 2As whining)

K v. K

- these are the rounds i judge the least (although i find them to be interesting and wish i got to judge more) so i don't have many predisposed biases aside from defaulting to allowing the aff to read perms until the neg convinces me they shouldn't get them.

- i (believe i) am familiar with most lit bases, although this might work against you. for example, i do not want to vote for you if you read ev by José Esteban Muñoz and then claim that he makes a blanket "utopia bad" arg because that's the literal opposite of everything the author has written.

- if the neg wins the alt solves the aff, i vote neg.

- 2N - do not forget that the squo is a logical option. i.e. if you're winning that the aff doesn't solve and that there's risk of a link (for example, that the aff would cause backlash against [x] people), the squo is probably better than the aff regardless of whether or not you're winning alt solvency.

Theory

- condo is a yes/no question (i am unlikely to vote for "the negative gets [x] number of conditional advocacies", you should instead say "the negative gets NO conditional advocacies or dispositional advocacies etc"). i default to weighing the aff against the alt/squo but can be convinced to disregard the theoretical implementation of either of those options. probably not going to convince me that the neg should not get to read a K wholesale but that's more logical than some of the fw interps i've seen so ????...

- you probably should not read conflicting interps in the 1NC. 2AC to "T-read a plan" and "fiat bad" is really easy which negates any of the time skew benefits

- fiat - both sides get it until someone tells me they don't or wtv idk no neg fiat never really made sense to me but i'd vote on it if it's mishandled

authors whose work i found enjoyable or informative in no particular order: sylvia wynter, nietzsche, toni morrison, enriqué dussel, dahlma llanos-figueroa, judith butler, karl marx, gilles deleuze, felix guattari, jafari s. allen, josé esteban muñoz, reinaldo arenas, nina maria lozano, vine deloria jr., guy hocquenghem, desiree c. bailey, langston hughes, manuel zapata olivella, nicholas guillén, josé martí, colin dayan, kit heyam, ishmael reed, maggie nelson, viola f. cordova

helpful notes on a few of these authors: http://www.protevi.com/

Policy:

In short form, I’m tab. Problematic speech tanks speaks. I’m fleshing this out a bit later, so forgive me.

Ive debated in high school for 4 years, mostly policy, been around the block a time or two in Texas. Familar with most circuit styles. I love hearing a good debate. It’s a strategy game, and should be played as such. Have fun!

T: T is a priori as a voting issue in round unless framed otherwise by the affirmative, so i'd suggest that. I want to hear substantial weighing on standards and voters on neg, explain how this negatively effects the round in question or the debate community as a whole. Concession of any part of the T debate is almost always a loss. Some TVAs and RVIs never hurt anybody. I would suggest some consolidating of the 2NR, but that's up to you, not me.

DA: Disads are cool, Strong link chains are very necessary. Neg and Aff please do some impact calc. Do some framework when running against soft left/k affs please. Other than that, there's not much to say about disads.

CP: CP's are best used to compound existing arguments such as turns and external net benefits. Internal net benefits are cool too. Be ready for some theory if you're running a PIC.

Theory: Please do some work on theory please. Reasons for even valuing the theory is often neglected by both sides. Use it if you want to, don't if you don't.

Framework: This is a make it or break it. I LOVE a good, in-depth framework debate. I want to hear a clear lens to view the aff or neg, not just surface level card reading without textual analysis. The framing flow shouldn't be neglected in favor of anything, I treat it as a pre-fiat argument.

K: K debates are my personal fav. This is not a go ahead to just run the cap k without being familiar with critical theory. Strong link chains, analysis, and framing are necessary. Alt debate is key.

On Case: No question, you need it. Even just some generic solvency is better than nothing.

K Affs: Go for it!

Please include in the email chain: daltonmusel71@gmail.com

Don't see something? Ask me before the round!

My high school debate experience is mostly UIL LD, UIL Policy, and NSDA (then NFL) PFD. Our team wasn't a powerhouse debate team by any means, but I feel we did as well as we did due to a focus on speaking style and presentation, clarity of a few select basic arguments key to each debate style, and the understanding that every round was an opportunity to learn and grow (no matter what the decision was). I competed in NPDA in college and have spent the last ten years as a bilingual elementary ELAR/social studies teacher.

Currently, I tend to be a more traditional, “old-school” judge in all areas of debate. I never grew up with all of the excessive jargon and terminology so I would really appreciate it if you focused more on the substance of each argument and the bigger picture rather than expect to win on overly complex technicalities or applications of debate theory.

POLICY: I am not the biggest fan of speed for the sake of being fast. If you absolutely must spread, I must be given perfectly clear and enunciated (normal rate) taglines if you want me to flow your arguments. I am more of a policymaker/stock issues judge. I will listen to topicality, disadvantages, and counterplans on negative. I am not really the biggest fan of kritiks, unless you are confident that you can thoroughly explain them to a lay person. If you have any specific questions let me know.

LD: I am not really “progressive” when it comes to LD (prefer to hear value, criteria, contentions debate). I have voted on policy arguments such as plans, disadvantages, and counterplans (both debaters have to be on the same page) in the past though. I am not a fan of overly critical and debate-theory arguments in LD. If you have any specific questions, let me know.

PFD: I still believe that PFD should be judged as a debate “of the people” and like to see rounds focused on simple arguments based on simple interpretation of the resolution. I don’t like any LD or policy elements in CX and prefer debate jargon not really make an appearance (as people from the general public wouldn’t know these terms). Speaking skills and presentation play a big role in PFD for me. Rebuttal speeches are absolutely key for me in PFD and I am a huge fan of BOLD second speakers who go for only one or two thoroughly articulated voters in the final focus.

All of this being said, I obviously encourage all debaters to do whatever feels most comfortable for them and what they have been taught. I just ask that you be aware of my preferences and take the time to craft rebuttals and voters that clearly articulate why you deserve the round and clarify a purpose of the strategy you have chosen to use throughout.

Philosophy Statement

I am a traditional policymaker that is interested in the merits of the case.

I am more interested in comparative analysis than quantity of evidence. I do not mind hearing that certain aspects of an opponent's case have value (all of them do, even if just a sliver). It is ok for a debater to recognize the value of an opponent's case, but then I want to hear why even despite that value, it will be better to adopt your position over your opponents'. This is usually best done by analysis *supported by evidence.*

I think the Affirmative's job is to propose a topical policy solution and the Negative's job is to demonstrate why that policy should be rejected.

Keep in mind I am interested in sources. Evidence supported by a source that lacks credibility is not persuasive evidence. For example, when presenting evidence to a jury, if the witness is not credible, a jury ignores what the witness says. Similarly, if a debate judge should disregard your opponent's evidence because of the source, explain why.

I am also interested in effective C-X. I will give weight to this interaction. C-X is a highly effective way of framing your opponent’s arguments. Remember you do not have to rebut his/her argument in C-X; instead, you should set up that argument in C-X so that you can destroy it in your next speech. Keep in mind that asking one question too many, especially on the ultimate issue—“So you’re case won’t work?”—is a mistake.

At the end, I will give the round to the side that has done a better job persuading me of his/her position based on many of the criteria above (although please do not let what is written above ever stifle your awesome creativity).

Style and delivery preferences

I believe debate is about honing persuasive skills that you will use in the future to advocate for your position in whatever field that may be. I want to see persuasive skills more than debate tricks. No bill has ever been passed in Congress based on the speed of presentation. The best persuasion combines emotion, analysis, and evidence. An advocate must determine what moves his audience and focus on reaching that audience, not on what makes the advocate most comfortable. Look for cues; if I look confused, maybe you need to explain your point in a different way.

As a judge I approach competition as clash in communication. Debate is a elevated level of both communication and critical thinking applied through logical application.

I will judge any argument -- not opposed to K, Aff K, theory etc. I have awarded wins on each. However, my feelings about K/Aff K are that this type of argument is basically a protest against the event or the alleged inherent bias or unfairness of the topic/framers/system or other foundational aspect of Policy Debate. If you are refusing to engage on the topic of the round, I must hear a clear alternative to the specific failures exposed by the K/K Aff, and you must give voters.

Clash is all important, but civility is paramount to applying your arguments to the round. Ad Hominem attacks will cost speaker points, even if they are somehow tied to an inherent bias argument. There are plenty of ways to question the fairness or bias of something without somehow crafting your CX opponent into the evil embodiment of such a bias.

Rapid delivery is tolerated insofar as I can keep up. If I stop typing and disengage from the ballot, you are going too fast. This relates back to my position that Debate is a communication event, it is not an audition to become the voice that reads fine print at the end of a Pharmaceutical or Car financing commercial.

I like CP, Stock Issues, DA, On Case, and Framework arguments equally. It is up to you to teach me why your arguments are superior to your opponents and how your positions have withstood any attacks from your opponents. A great impact Calc is a way to take me over to your side...I have changed my mind many times in judging a round when I am presented with an effective final rebuttal like this.

Have fun, be respectful, and great job for working this hard to get to this meet. I look forward to judging each team I will meet.

I have coached and judged L-D debate for many years, watching it change and evolve. I enjoy this format because I think it challenges students to be critical thinkers and not just critical "readers."

I need to hear credible evidence.

I like a balance between practical and philosophical arguments, especially when debating a topic that has clear positions on each side.

As far as presentation, I will choose substance over style if presented that choice. If I can't follow an argument because of circular reasoning or speed, I cannot vote on it.

I do my best to not debate students on the ballot. I try very hard to understand your position and vote on the round I see, not the round I would have debated.

1. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate?
1. Policy maker
2. Which best describes your priorities in judging policy debate? (check only one)
   _____Communication skills are more important than resolution of substantive issues.
   _____Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.
   X Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance.
3. Which best describes your philosophy concerning evidence in policy debate? (check only one)
   _____Quantity of evidence is more important than quality of evidence.
   _____Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence.

X_Quantity of evidence and quality of evidence are of equal importance.

1. Indicate your preference for the following items (check one number for each item):
1. Preferred Quantity of Arguments ____1____2__X__3____4____5 (1= limited quantity - 5 =Unlimited quantity)
2. Topicality ____1__X_2__ __3____4____5 (1= rarely vote on – 5 =vote on often)
3. Counterplans __X_1____2__ __3____4____5 (1=Unacceptable – 5 =Acceptable)
4. Disadvantages ____1____2__ __3_X__4____5 (1= Not essential – 5 Essential)
5. Conditional Arguments ____1__X_2__ __3____4____5 ( 1=Unacceptable – 5 =Acceptable)
6. Kritiqs __X_1____2__ __3____4____5 ( 1=Unacceptable – 5 =Acceptable)

Are there any teams you should not judge due to affiliation or prefer not to judge.

Additional Comments: I am a policymaker judge who does not ignore the stock issues. State your case up front as soon as possible and as clearly as possible in the 1AC. Running generic DAs or topicality arguments by the negative is risky, I'm not a fan. I prefer on-case DAs however I've noticed that this year's topic is often attacked and attacked well with "generic" DAs. Well-thought out analysis and evidence of DAs will be essential to winning a NEG ballot. Extinction arguments don't usually sway my vote. Impact calculus will sway me—tell me why the harms/advantages outweigh the disadvantages, and vice-versa. Don't claim abuse on a technicality and don't spread because I am not sympathetic and I think spreading is abusive. If I don’t hear and understand it, it didn’t happen.

Sandra Peek

CX Judging Paradigm

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

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

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

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

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD Judging Paradigm

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

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

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

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

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

PF Judging Paradigm

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

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

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

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

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

1/8/24-edited to update years experience

I'm a college debater so you can consider me a tab judge. I'm cool with any arguments and speed is fine as long as you signpost

T- i don’t usually vote on topicality or theory unless it is something obviously something unfair to the debaters. but make sure to somehow impact out your t if you are going to make it a voter

CP- Cp’s are fine. pic cps are cool but not a fan of conditions cp. if you choose to run one make sure you do it right. biggest thing is that people do them wrong.

also you have to win on every part of the counterplan for me to vote on it net benefit’s solvency etc

K- Kritiks are fine but don’t let them distract you from the debate world to where it becomes a theory debate rather than it being a “policy debate” K aff are cool too just make the framework clear

DA/OC- easiest way to get my vote is to prove case outweighs or solvency issues.

dont be afraid to ask any other questions and good luck!

I would call myself a heavy tab judge. I will listen to any argument that you could possibly read in front of me, but only if you can do so, well. Ks, K affs, theory, framework, performances, wipeout, CPs, Ts, and anything else you could possibly run is okay with me. My only condition is that Voters must always be read. I don't care how long you spend on the argument, if you don't properly cover the voters on the individual argument, then I have no reason as a judge to vote for it.

Explicitly sexist, racist, xenophobic, and homophobic discourse does not belong in debate, so don't engage in it. People should be nice. If you are not, then you may be looking at a low point win. I do not vote based purely on speaking style but if you are rude or offensive, then don't hope for anywhere near that 30. Other than these caveats, I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to explicitly place me within. Absent debate to the contrary, I default to voting for the advocacy with the most net beneficial post fiat impacts. On all portions of the debate I tend to use the heuristics of offense/defense, timeframe/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact to evaluate and compare arguments.

Speed:

Won't be able to spread me out of the round as long as you are clear. If you are not then I will say clear once and then after that anything that does not end up on the flow does not get carried over.

Email: jameshaydenporter@gmail.com

Key things:

- As a UIL judge, I prefer people not to spread. I will give one clear call. After that I will stop flowing and I usually tune you out if you spread.

- I do not like hypotheticals. If you cannot link it in a logical way, I will not be persuaded by your argument.

- I am a TABS judge. I flow and base my decision on if you hit harms, topicality, etc.

- I value impact. When you debate, remember I look at impact calcs when making my decision.

I have competed in debate for about 12 years now. 2 years in CX, 2 years in LD, half a year in PF, and 3 years simultaneously in student congress. For the past 8 years, I've been competing collegiately on the IPDA circuit which is a layman's form of debate. I'm a little rusty on more complex esoterical arguments. If you do decide to run them, make sure you are explaining them thoroughly.

I am a tabula rasa judge and I will flow anything you decide to run. However, if you run any conditional arguments or Aff K's you'll probably lose my ballot.

I do not like spreading, because I've been competing in IPDA, where spreading is not allowed, you'll probably lose me if you go too fast. I also write kind of slow and if it's not on my flow then it didn't happen in round, so be courteous and allow for me to keep up. I give a max of two clears before I stop flowing your speech. You can speak quickly but make sure you are still coherent, this is a communications event after all.

I determine the round based on impact calc. as a default, if you want me to vote on something else, then give me a clear framework and explain the ROB.

Tech vs. Truth

If an argument is conceded but is perceived to be false, no one wins the arg. I simply scratch it off the flow because 1.) it's probably fallacious 2.) if your warrants aren't strong enough, or absent altogether, to reassure me that the arg you're making is legitimate, then it has no business winning debates and 3.) it's a waste of my time.

If an argument is false and your opponents point this out to me, then I will keep it on the flow and it counts against you in the impact calc.

Evidence cards are not warrants. Reinforce your warrant tag at the end to show me the implications of whatever you just read. I don't flow warrantless arguments because they aren't substantial enough to be weighed on impact calc. They are also just claims at that point, not arguments.

If you have any specific questions just ask me before the round starts.

I believe that first and foremost all debate should be based on communication. To that end be sure that you do not utilize forms of debate which leave the audience more bewildered than informed.

When it comes to speed, don' get a ticket. But, I will hang with you until about 350 words per minute. Exceeding that barrier will leave me with the impression that you are yet another lost narcissist with dreams of sugar TOC fairies dancing through your head.

Style, I consider myself a policymaker, although my wife seldom agrees. In argumentation, I like most arguments, however, I hate K debate when it turns totally ridiculous, i.e. time machines, comfort (keep your clothes on), pinkwashing, etc, I like theory arguments to be justified and tied to other arguments in the round that warrant their use. Humor is a plus when used appropriately.

I don't care about your WIKI. I won't ask you for your evidence after the round (Unless one of you is lying, then the liar loses). And, I don't care what your coach thinks. You're the one debating. Speak like your life depends on it.

In the end, I want to think, wow he/she would make a great president, not argh, ...another cute dog catcher. Represent the sport well.

Let the games begin.

I am a retired speech and debate coach. I coached almost all the events. I was a policy debater in high school and college (a long time ago).

Congress:

Be prepared. It is frustrating to take multiple in house recesses because nobody has a speech. Be active in the chamber (ask questions, make helpful motions or suggestions). Refute and/or reference previous speakers. Please don’t rehash. I love a good synthesis speech but don’t often see them. Good Presiding Officers are appreciated and will get ranked well.

Speech:

Public Speaking: In general, I prefer a more natural/conversational style and audience engagement. Ideas should be well supported. Transitional movement should be natural and appropriate for whatever space you are in. In extemp, the points should directly answer the topic question and the sources should be recent. I'm big on content so I'm looking for depth of analysis. In Info. I like to hear an interesting topic that isn't something everyone already knows about. Visuals should not be static - i.e. just a bunch of small pictures. In oratory, I appreciate good content balanced with humor. The solution section shouldn't just be a sentence or two.

Interp: Again, I prefer natural, believable characters. I appreciate good technique but it shouldn't be the focus. Put me in the moment with you and make me feel.

Debate:

I default policymaker but will vote for critical frameworks. If you are going to run a K, however, you should assume that I have not read the lit. and will need clear explanation. Things I like to see in a debate round: impact calculus, evidence comparison, clear signposting (If you make me guess where it goes on the flow, it might not be on my flow.) Please, please, please extend your offense. Things I don't like to see: blippy theory arguments, reading 5-10 pieces of evidence that all say basically the same thing combined with no analysis of how it responds to the argument, repeating arguments rather than extending them. Don’t go for everything in 2NR. Don’t kick the puppy rule: If you are clearly winning the round against a much less experienced team, be kind. Please feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Speed: Slow down on tags and authors (and anything else you want on my flow). I don’t care how fast you read evidence. I broke my right thumb in a car accident and although it has healed, writing is still painful. Speech drop or an email chain would be much appreciated.

Policy -

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

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

Affiliation: Winston Churchill HS

email: s.stolte33@gmail.com

**prep time stops when the email is sent, stop stealing prep**

Updates 24-25 (more recent towards top)

-I did not spend my summer looking at IPR evidence or cases coming out of camp. Like zero. Do not assume based on past knowledge that I know what the acronyms you are using or what your plan does. You should be explaining things as you would to any other judge who did not work a summer camp/does not know the topic well

-maybe this is really "get off my lawn" of me, but the correlation between teams who under-highlight evidence and who are incomprehensibly unclear is becoming increasingly frustrating to me. It won't necessarily lose you the debate, but surely these practices don't help anyone

-LD living wage: See above ^ It feels like almost every "give a living wage to XYZ worker" aff has some 'creatively' highlighted ev that more often than not indicates a lack of competitive wages, but not lack of living wages

_________________________________________________________________

Do what you do well: I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments these days. The most enjoyable rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. You are likely better off doing what you do best and making minor tweaks to sell it to me rather than making radical changes to your argumentation/strategy to do something you think I would enjoy.

-Clash Debates: No strong ideological debate dispositions, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. I think there is value in K debate and think that value comes from expanding knowledge of literature bases and how they interact with the resolution. I generally find myself unpersuaded by affs that 'negate the resolution' and find them to not have the most persuasive answers to framework.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. See above statement about highlighting, but it's hard to buy an argument when the card read supporting it consists of like 3 disparately highlighted sentences and no warrants read. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I often find this to be the biggest issue with with politics, internal link, and permutation evidence for kritiks.

-Speed vs Clarity: I don't flow off the speech document, I don't even open them until either after the debate or if a particular piece of evidence is called into question. If I don't hear it/can't figure out the argument from the text of your cards, it probably won't make it to my flow/decision. This is almost always an issue of clarity and not speed and has only gotten worse during/post virtual debate. Things you can do to fix this: pen time on theory args, numbering responses, not making a bunch of blippy analytical arguments back-to-back-to-back.

-Inserting evidence/CP text/perms: you have to say the words for me to consider it an argument

-Permutation/Link Analysis: I am becoming increasingly bored in K debates. I think this is almost entirely due to the fact that K debate has stagnated to the point where the negative neither has a specific link to the aff nor articulates/explains what the link to the aff is beyond a 3-year-old link block written by someone else. I think most K links in high school debate are more often links to the status quo/links of omission and I find affirmatives that push the kritik about lack of links/alts inability to solve set themselves up successfully to win the permutation. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation as the debate progresses is something that strategically helps the negative team when it comes to contextualizing what the aff is/does. I also see an increasingly high amount of negative kritiks that don't have a link to the aff plan/method and instead are just FYIs about XYZ thing. I think that affirmative teams are missing out by not challenging these links.

FOR LD PREFS (may be useful-ish for policy folks)

All of the below thoughts are likely still true, but it should be noted that it has been about 5 years since I've regularly judged high-level LD debates and my thoughts on some things have likely changed a bit. The hope is that this gives you some insight into how I'm feeling during the round at hand.

1) Go slow. What I really mean is be clear, but everyone thinks they are much more clear than they are so I'll just say go 75% of what you normally would.

2) I do not open the speech doc during the debate. If I miss an argument/think I miss an argument then it just isn't on my flow. I won't be checking the doc to make sure I have everything, that is your job as debaters.

3) I'll be honest, if you're going to read 10 blippy theory args/spikes, I'm already having a bad time

4) Inserting CP texts, Perm texts, evidence/re-highlighting is a no for me. If it is not read aloud, it isn't in the debate

5) If you're using your Phil/Value/Criterion as much more than a framing mechanism for impacts, I'm not the best judge for you (read phil tricks/justifications to not answer neg offense). I'll try my best, but I often find myself struggling to find a reason why the aff/neg case has offense to vote on. I don't offhandedly know what words like 'permissiblity' or 'skep' mean and honestly everytime someone describes them to me they sound like nonsense and no one can actually articulate why they result in any sort of offense for the team reading them

6) Same is true for debaters who rely on 'tricks'/bad theory arguments, but even more so. If you're asking yourself "is this a bad theory argument?" it probably is. Things such as "evaluate the debate after the 1AR" or "aff must read counter-solvency" can *seriously* be answered with a vigorous thumbs down.

7) I think speaker point inflation has gotten out of control but for those who care, this is a rough guess at my speaker point range 28.4-28.5 average; 28.6-28.7 should have a chance to clear; 28.8-28.9 pretty good but some strategic blunders; 29+you were very good, only minor mistakes

Effective communication which shows in a student's manner, preparation, performance, and substance. In debate events, it is important to offer evidentiary analysis and specific clash with either policy issues (CD/CX) or values/criterion (LD) without games. Pretty basic.

I really like policy. Common sense policy. Counterplans are great if you can sell it to me with the skills mentioned above.

Kritiks, no. Conditional arguments only if you are clear where you are going with it. I just don't exist in a world where we debate with those strategies. Does not mean I will vote against you, but I just may not understand where you are going with them. Be clear and persuasive, and I'll be more inclined to give you the ballot. Please don't be jerks in the round--I do like some decorum. Not asking you to be phony nice. Win the round with your policy and your ability to communicate that to me.

For larger school circuits whose debate style includes speed/spreading, I will adapt but not a fan. This is TFA and not UIL, so I respect what you are accustomed to on this circuit. I would ask the same courtesy of your coaches if they were judging UIL.

Jack Black rules. Be like Jack.

Paradigm--stock issues, prefer quality evidence over quantity

I am a flow judge, so do not drop arguments. Be sure to address all attacks on your case. I will be paying attention to clash in the debate, so whatever is the focus of the clash will be important to me when I vote. For example, if the clash is over topicality, I vote on that and the dropped arguments.

As long as your delivery is intelligible, I'm okay with speed. I'll let you know once if you are too fast. Then I expect speed to be adjusted.

I'm here to assess your best. Be sure to offer perspective and well developed arguments that show a total understanding of the topic. How everything relates. For example, articulate the connection between funding and solvency - "if there's no money to pay for the enforcement/products/etc, then it can't work" type of conceptual development. There should be some sort of evidence to back up a theory, but too much evidence without depth is not enough to win an argument. Really answer the WHYs and the HOWs.

I value the speaking style as much as the quality of the material. Speeches should be a convincing presentation, effectively communicating ideas, bringing everyone in the room into the discussion. (read: Speaking like an auctioneer or the person in medicine commercials reading the side effect warning label isn't including the room or natural communication in any other setting. think: professor. politician. lawyer. TED talks.)

Specifics

CX: Not everything ends in nuclear war/annihilation. It hasn't before, so what's a realistic outcome NOW? Which other impacts are there that are massively damaging to people, society, culture, etc that have happened before and could happen again in the Aff scenario? Don't spread. If you "cross supply" an author or evidence, specify which arguments are important and WHY they are, in order to show the conceptual clash. (Flush out your ideas.)

LD: Most focus should be on answering the WHY's - WHY is this wrong in the status quo, WHY is this harming people, WHY should we help, type of questions. (If we took a plan to congress and said it would cost $78M, they wouldn't say, "sure!" instantly; it would be, "wow, a lot of money. why should we spend this?") Strong V/C clash.

Extemp: Clear organization. Engaging speaking. Sources. Thorough development of what the question is asking - the context of the topic question.

Interp: Why did you choose this/these as a piece/s? Which aspect resonates with you...and why? Authenticity over emphatics. Natural and organic and what feels believable is more meaningful, for me, than a very dramatic and (overly) emotional interpretation of a scenario.

Specific Questions? I can BRIEFLY answer questions before the round.

Debate is the art of influencing the judge to agree with your arguments. If your delivery is unclear and your pace is not understandable, then you may have not effectively communicated your points. I generally lean toward stock issues, but will accept most well-formulated arguments. I am not a fan of spreading but am fine with speed as long as long as it is within reason. I am also not a fan of K's that are far-fetched. I am a fan of well-developed T's so be sure to have all elements of a T if you are going to run one or I cannot vote on it. Do not rely totally on analytic arguments as your points are more effective when supported by evidence. Neg, be sure to link your arguments directly into the aff. Aff, be sure to cover every argument made by the neg.

Lastly, and most importantly. Thank you for participating in debate. You are developing skills that you will carry with you throughout life.