Plano Senior Clark TFA Invitational
2021 — Plano, TX/US
Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Updated 4/26/22 for Post-TOC
Hi everyone! I’m Holden (He/They)
Jack C. Hays '20, The University of North Texas ’23 (Go Mean Green)
Please put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Most of this paradigm is geared towards LD, anything specific to other debate events will be near the end
Topic Thoughts (updated for the Space Topic for LD):
- Disads with good internal links are great, these are exceedingly rare on the topic, good evidence will be rewarded
- Framework violations beyond the word “resolved” are much more persuasive, if resolved is the basis of your violation then you’re gonna have some problems
- Aff teams have trouble articulating what the aff does on policy affs this topic, and I’m not sure what they do either. Do you fiat that the companies just stop? Do you fiat that there’s some agreement made that stops them from doing it? Does the country ban the operations of companies? Please tell me so I know
- Topicality should be debated more, what constitutes outer space or appropriation? I think these T debates are extremely interesting and will reward well done execution of these debates instead of the standard bare plurals stuff that has become the meta over the past few years
- There are more impacts to T than grammatical precision, please use them
I am agnostic about content in terms of what I will evaluate, but I very much prefer to have substance level debates. To clarify, I will vote on anything with a warrant (that is not violent), and have voted on almost every type of argument under the sun. I would just prefer to judge a 2NR on a disad, k, or NC than a shell or tricks. That being said, while there may be some arguments that are bad (in the sense that they are either false or just not good), the onus is on you for calling out why those arguments are bad with an explanation of such.
Respect your opponents pronouns, it is 2022 and I have no tolerance for people not taking the time to respect people's personhood. You get 1 chance, with your speaks being docked that one time, if you do it again after you have been corrected then my ballot is signed without an argument made. I am extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells.
If a round gets to the point where it is no longer healthy or safe for the debate to keep going, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know. I try my best to be cognizant but I am imperfect and may miss something, it is my job as an educator to make sure that a round and debate is as safe and accessible is possible so I take these situations very seriously.
Yes speed, but clarity is important as well
For your pref sheets:
Clash debates (k v k, k v phil, k v policy, policy v phil, etc.) – 1
K – 1
Policy – 1
Phil – 1
T/Theory – 1/2
Tricks – 3
Trad – 4/Strike
I’m serious about these rankings, I value execution over content. I am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.
In terms of ideology, I’m a lot like Patrick Fox, so you can pref me pretty closely with how you pref him.
Triggers – please refrain from reading anything with in depth discussions of anxiety, depression, or suicide that way I can adequately access and evaluate the round. Please give trigger warnings so that debate remains a place in which everyone can participate.
I flow on my laptop, I would put me at a 8-8.5/10 in terms of speed. Just be clear, slow down on tags and analytics a little please
The long version:
Who the hell is this dude who I/my coach preffed?
I’m Holden! I did LD and policy all throughout high school all 4 years, wasn't too involved in the national circuit because of financial constraints but also broke at a few big tournaments during my career. I now do NFA LD (quite literally one person policy) at the University of North Texas where I have qualified to NFA nationals and made it to octafinals of the national tournament, I also study psychology and philosophy. I currently coach and judge national circuit LD, judging over 400 rounds since 2020, and coaching students to several bids, bid rounds, speaker awards, and to late elims of national tournaments (including elims of the TOC).
Most of my research these days are on the k side of the argument spectrum, but I have also cut and coached students to go for arguments in every style of debate. This includes, theory, policy, k, tricks, and phil debates
You can call me Holden (this is what I prefer), or judge (this'll do but it's not my favorite. Anything more formal than that (Mr. Bukowsky, sir, etc.) makes me uncomfortable and will make me dock your speaks.
Conflicts: Jack C. Hays (my alma mater). I currently coach Los Altos BF, Perry JA, Sandra Day O’Connor WW, Sidwell SW, Vestavia Hills GJ, and Westlake AK
I have previously been affiliated with/have coached or have been contracted by: Lynbrook (on a team based level), and then Plano East AW, and Village JN (who I worked with on an individual level).
What does Holden think debate is?
I take my presence in debate very seriously, I love this activity very much (evidenced by me being involved with this god forsaken game for 6 years now). Debate is a game with educational benefits. I think it is my role to evaluate argument as presented in a way that necessitates the least intervention possible. I consider myself not very ideological than most (barring some exceptions) because I don't think that it's my place to determine what arguments are valid. If you do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability, I will do my best to evaluate the debate as fairly as possible (granted arguments that are violent or have no warrant are exceptions). As such, there are two concrete rules of debate - 1. I must choose a winner and a loser, and 2. speech times cannot change. Any preferences I disclose on this paradigm should matter because if I have to default to them then you did not make the argument for me.
What does Holden like?
I like good execution, some people have recently made more arguments that debaters should adapt to the judges but I am of the belief that judges should adapt to the debaters. This is not to say I have preferences, but rather I try to not let them directly influence my decisions.
I like debates that require little intervention, make my job easy for me please I hate thinking.
I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this means labeling arguments (for example, giving arguments names, or doing organization like "1, 2, 3, a point, b point, c point, etc.), I can't vote for you if I don't know what the heck the complete argument is so making sure I can understand you is key
I like debaters that collapse in their final speeches, it makes nice room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.
I like it when I am given some kind of framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can take place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, impact calc, fairness v education, a meta ethic, I don't care. Just give me something to determine what the highest layer/impact should be
To summarize the way I feel about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does a excellent job at it, "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, fair, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."
What does Holden dislike?
I dislike anything that is the opposite of above.
I dislike unclear spreading.
I dislike messy debates with little work done to resolve them.
I dislike when people go "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."
I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, I don't care just tell me that you're taking it.
I dislike when people are exclusionary to novices, I am very much in the trial by fire camp but you shouldn't throw someone into a volcano. Yes, you can spread, run disads, counterplan, k's, and even phil as long as your explanations are accessible and in good faith. But theory and tricks is a no go and you WILL get your speaks tanked.
I dislike when people make problematic arguments
How has Holden voted?
Across all of my time as a judge, I have judged 413 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff approximately 54% of the time.
My average speaks for the 2021-2022 season have been 28.57, across my entire time judging they are at 28.51
I have been apart of 94 panels, of those I have sat exactly 10 times.
What will Holden never vote on?
Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.)
Arguments that say oppression is good.
Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.
Yes, I think these are cool, defend something and have a counter-interp that substantively does something in relation to maybe limiting the topic? I am increasingly becoming convinced that there should be some stasis for debate, I think that having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers more persuasive and makes me happier to vote for you
Presumption is underrated, most affs don't do anything and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should make sure to utilize that.
For those negating these affs, I think that the case page is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the 2NR develops a really good piece of offense from the case page then the debate becomes much easier for you to win.
Innovation is appreciated, I swear I've heard the same two or three affs twenty times each. If your take on a literature base is interesting, innovative, AND is something I haven't heard this year then you will most definitely get higher speaks
Framework isn't capital T true, but it also isn't an automatic act of violence. I find myself neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I do think that the resolution should be a starting point for the debate. How you interpret that is up to you
I have voted on straight up impact turns before, and I have also voted on fairness as an impact, I think that the onus is on you to explain and flesh your arguments in a way that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging in the specific warrants of disads to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is often little to no engagement by either side in the debate
Counter-interps are more persuasive to me, and I think are underutilized, counter-interps that are well thought out and have good explanation of what your model of debate looks like does wonders
In terms of impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills
If you are going for fairness and your explanation is "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate their arguments so hack against them" 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose. If you have an explanation of fairness in relation to giving telos to debate, then I'm game for it (pun unintended)
Topicality (Theory is it’s own Monster):
I love T debates, absolutely some of my favorite. I think they've gotten a bad rep over the past four or five years because of the bare plurals stuff *shudders*, but interps that are based on words/phrases of the resolution and are gone for well will make me incredibly happy
My normal defaults for these debates are:
- Competing Interps
- Drop the debater
- No RVI's
Reasonability is about your counter-interp not your aff, people need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory shells
Arbitrary counter-interps such as "your interp plus my aff" are cringe and you are better served going for a more substantive argument
For all that is holy get over Nebel T and run topic contextual interps, I've heard the same limits v pics debate about 20 times and I'm tired of it
Slow down for me a bit in these debates, I can flow pretty well but T is monster in terms of how many warrants/separate arguments you're spewing out so give me typing time please
You need to read voters, some standards are impacts on their own (precision comes to mind) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits is an independent impact sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad
Weigh your internal links please and thank you
Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:
- Shells about the appearance and clothing of another debaters
- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this
Counterplan theory, here are my defaults:
- Counterplans with a solvency advocate, no matter what type they are = good
- PICs = good
- Process CP's = good
- Consult CP's = bad
- States CP's = good
- Actor/Agent CP's = good
Condo is good, but my leniency in LD goes down if there are more than 3 advocacies, more than 4 in policy
Contrary to my reputation of not liking policy arguments, I do quite a bit of research on the policy side of the argumentive spectrum and have cut large affs before. I love a good disad and case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. In my time in college debate, I read a plan about 75% of the time of my affs rounds and I went for policy arguments around 50% of the time in my neg rounds. One of my favorite 2NR's to give is one on a disad and circumvention, I think it's great and really rewards good research quality
I reward good evidence, if you cite a piece of evidence as part of your warrant for a argument and it's not good/underwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that it often acts as a tiebreaker
I really appreciate judge instruction, how should I frame a piece of evidence, what comes first, I think that telling me what to do and how to decide debates makes your life and my job much easier
Yes judgekick, but make an argument for it please
Explain what the permutation looks like, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you
For affs, having well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts is much preferred than the shot gun 7 impact strategy
Explanation of the DA turning case matters a lot to me, explain it please
A note on non-black engagement with afropessimism, I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. This also means that if you are disingenuous to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I'm feeling. This is your first and final warning.
This is where most of my research and thoughts are these days. I will most likely be good for whatever literature base you are reading, and have a very decent amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I have most likely judged or read the literature you are going for sometime in my years in debate, so feel free to read anything, just be able to explain it.
My ideal k 1nc will have 2-3 links contextual to the aff (one of which is a topic link), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.
I have found recently that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how that interacts with the affirmative and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alt does, your chances of getting my ballot go down. I find that examples from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense you're going for in relation to the alternative/the permutation, you should also explain the perm in the first responsive speech
I would very much prefer that you introduce an interesting new argument than recycle the same aff or the same 1NC you've been running for 2 years. At least update your cards every once in a while.
Don't run a k just because you think I'll like it, bad k debates make for some of the worst speaks I've given all year
K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC please so they can be floating
For you nerds that wanna know, the literature bases I know pretty well are: basic Cap literature, Security, Reps K's, Afro-pessimism Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Scranton/Eco-pessimism, and Settler Colonialism
The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Agamben, Cybernetics, Psychoanalysis, Queer-pessimism, Grove, Puar
I can judge these debates, I would really just rather not. I've coached debaters that have gone for tricks and helped cut tricks positions, but I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again with little to no innovation. If you throw random stuff in the 1A/1NC don't expect me to enjoy the debate. Carded and well developed tricks > "member equals body part, and body parts can't reduce IPP"
Slow down on your long underviews, yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory arguments like they're card text. Go at like 70% your normal speed in these situations
Be straight up about the implication and warrant for these arguments, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether or not I feel like evaluating them. This extends to disclosure practices.
I will not vote theory tricks v k affs based upon the suffering of an identity group, this means you should put your "evaluate the debate after the 1NC" and the like arguments away
I love these debates! I find phil a really interesting part of debate that often goes unexplored. That being said, I prefer well developed syllogisms with pieces of evidence over analytical dumps, I find that analytical syllogisms are often spammy with extremely underdeveloped warrants.
Parts of your syllogisms should at least hint at what their impact is. I think that this becomes even more essential in later speeches where you should collapse and impact 1-2 justifications along with weighing
In phil v phil debates, both sides need to be able to explain their ethic more. These debates can either be super informational, or super messy, and I would prefer that they be the former rather than the latter. Explanation, clear engagement, and weighing is the way to my ballot in these debates
Hijacks are great! Just explain them well since they're often pretty complicated and I can't really understand the warrant if it's less than 10 seconds long
Please slow down a bit in these debates, they ore often very fast, technical, and blippy and I can only flow so fast
For those that are wondering, here are the literature bases I know pretty well: Locke, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Kant, Deleuze, Hume, Descartes, Nietzsche, Berkeley, Leibniz, and Spinoza
I know these literature bases somewhat: Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Moral Particularism, and Constitutionality
I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with deleuze ethical frameworks, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe a moral claim but makes a structural one which means that it doesn't make too much logical sense to force the literature to make an ethical claim.
- Comparative worlds > truth testing
- Permissibility negates > affirms
- Presumption negates > affirms
- Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty
Since these are becoming increasingly read in front of me, and are becoming a separate argument in debate, I thought they deserved their own section. I think that these are good arguments when executed well. That being said, I think that for these to be won, you need to win either some meta level framing (such as accessibility first) or linking it to an ethical framework. I often have to ask myself “should I abandon the flow if I think that this is violent” and here is the litmus test for how I will determine to abandon the flow, I will:
1. See if you won the flow proper to see if I can avoid intervening
2. If you did not win the flow proper, I will see if the action in question is a legitimate question of violence in the debate space, your explanation may help, your explanation may not. As much as your 2AR ethos may be good, if I do not think that this situation is an act of violence with reasonable malicious intent, then I will not abandon the flow. A few instances in which I will abandon the flow can be: misgendering, dead-naming, some sort of maliciously intended argument meant to exclude individuals from debate
This is not to say I won’t abandon the flow, but I feel like there has to be some outline for how I can reconcile this, or else this would justify me becoming increasingly interventionist for littler reasons which I think is a horrible model of debate.
Yes, I can judge this. But I often time find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. I think that given the people that pref me most of the time, it will be in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, both for your sake and mine.
I would much prefer these debates be executed as a shell rather than having the round staked on them. I hate adjudicating these debates because a. They deprive me of a substantive round and b. Are normally a cheap shot by an opposing debater. As such, if you stake the round on evidence ethics this will be the procedure for which things will go down: 1. I will look into the evidence that is in question 2. Compare it to the claim/violation that is being presented 3. Utilize the rules for which the tournament is using (NSDA, NDCA, etc.) to determine whether or not it is a violation 4. Check with the debater if they are sure they want this to be a drop the debater issue, or to drop the evidence. If it is a violation, then I will drop the person who committed such with 25 speaks if it's a drop the debater issue, if it's not drop the debater then I will not evaluate the evidence and we can debate as normal. If it is not a violation, then I will drop the accuser with 25 speaks if it's a drop the debater issue, if it's not drop the debater then your speaks will be capped at a 28.
Here is what I consider evidence ethics violations in the absence of guidance: 1. If the author concludes in opposition of what is cited 2. If worlds are deleted or inserted in the middle of a sentence 3. If a debater misrepresented what the author says
For the policy kids-
- I judge circuit LD a lot (and I mean A LOT), on there I judge nothing but T, cp/da, and k debates. I can handle speed, and I will understand the intricacies of whatever argument you want to run
- Sign post please
- Weighing early is how you get my ballot (best case scenario is starting in the 2AC)
- Yes open cross
- Yes K-Aff's
- Yes T-FW
- Fairness is an internal link and not an impact
- in terms of pref ratings:
Any sort of clash debates (both policy aff v the k, and k aff v t-fwk) - 1
K v K - 1
Pure policy rounds - 2
An addendum to how I dish out my speaks, any additional speaker points you get via my challenges cannot get you above a 29.7, the other .3 is something you have to earn/work for
Across over 100+ prelims at bid tournaments, I have averaged at a 28.45 in terms of speaks, which means I'm not necessarily a speaks fairy or stingy
A 30 is very hard to achieve in front of me, and the only ones I have given out is because of the utilization of the challenges
I don't evaluate "give me x amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad utilize the ways to get extra speaks I have below
They're adjusted according to the tournament, but here's a general scale -
29.6+ Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament
29.1-29.5 Great round, you should be in mid to late elims
28.6-29 You should break or make the bubble at least
28.1-28.5 About middle of the pool
27.6-28 You got some stuff to work on
27-27.5 You got a lot of stuff to work on
Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it
Challenges (Max up to 1 point):
- Come into the room and shout "rev up those fryers" loud enough for people outside the room to hear = +.5
- If you send pictures of your cute pets in the doc, +.1-.5 depending on how cute I deem them (no snakes please, I have a phobia of them and this will get your speaks docked half a point)
Other ways to just boost your speaks:
- Be pleasant (not in the artificial "hi judge how are you doing" way, but like just be vibey i guess??)
- Humor inserted into your speeches in an organic way
- Good strategic choices that make my job easier
If you have anymore questions about my paradigm, please don't be afraid to email me or ask me in the room.
Random Sliding Scales that I think are Fun (Stolen from Patrick Fox)
Voting for policy----X----Voting for the K
Researching/coaching policy-------X---Researching/coaching the K
Good evidence-X---------Bad evidence + spin
Will read ev without being told------X----Tell me what to read
Asking "did you read X card"-------X--- Learn to flow or run prep/CX for this
Yes RVIs-------X---No RVIs
Fairness is definitely an impact-------X---Fairness is definitely not an impact
Alternatives/K affs should solve things or lose--X--------Alternatives/K affs can not solve things and not lose
"It's pre-fiat"--------X--Actual arguments that mean things
Debate good---X-------Debate bad (the activity)
Debate good-------X---Debate bad (the community)
Creative, alternative models of the topic + offense---X-------Impact turn everything vs framework
Yes ur Baudrillard/Kant-X---------Not ur Baudrillard/Kant
Feelings and jokes--X--------Debate robots
Mime-like expressiveness---X-------Statue-like poker face
Assume I understand the things--------X--Assume I do not understand the things
Speaker point fairy-------X---Speaker point goblin
LD should be like policy-------X---(Some) LD stuff is cool
Capitalism----------X( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
I do not have a specific paradigm for any debate event, I do emphasize the items below however...
-Feel free to be unique and run anything you choose as long as it is factual, honest, and topical.
-Be respectful of your judges, audience, and probably most importantly your opponent
<do not make gestures via your vocalizations or physicality that could indicate a sense of disrespect towards he/she/them>
-Be culturally component and aware of your privileges when making general statements, truly try to understand someone else's experience before conducting a stereotype
-Speed is fine if you are CLEAR.
-Claims and Warrants are coactive.
-Road maps are ideal and a recap at the end makes me happy :)
***REMEMBER YOU ARE BOLD FOR COMPETING AND YOUR WORDS HOLD POWER***
- Debated four years at Liberty University (Policy debate for about a year and a half and more kritical/performative arguments for the last two and half years with the majority of my arguments starting with black women and moving outward such as cap, ab set col and soo on) definitely would say that I was more of a performance debater than anything in the end
- I was an NDT and CEDA Octofinalist and won first speaker at CEDA (But my biggest accomplishment was by far learning all three countries that make up the baltics lmao)
- Currently a GSA at Liberty University
- Yes, put me on the email chain —— firstname.lastname@example.org
Just a heads up: I know alot of stuff about different things but I don't know everything so you should assume that I am not well versed in your args don't assume that I know what your talking about but also dont talk to me like im an idiot I'm smart just don't know every k/ arg out there
- If your gonna try and full-on spread in online debate I hope your mic and connection is good if not I probably won’t catch anything you say --- don’t sacrifice speed for clarity especially in online
- Debates are too long for yall to be yelling back and forth and being mean to one another for a ballot. There’s a line between being mean and petty I enjoy petty I don’t enjoy mean people. Be nice and Have fun
- Speaker Points --- totally subjective I try and start at 28.7 and then go up and down based on a person’s performance in a debate but if you mention Scandal/Olivia Pope whom I love in your speech I will bump your speaks like .4 ---- in debate its become a trend to ask for higher speaks which is fine but if your gonna do that you best not suck or I will automatically give you a 28.5, also I feel like you need a justification for asking for those speaks outside of a speaker award
- Probably better for critical/performance args but I also know my way around a policy round ;) extinction this extinction that extinction everything lmao no jkjk
(On this when it comes to arguments and style, I am pretty much open to anything if it doesn’t fall into any of the ism’s racist, sexist, or ableist (and any other ism I haven’t listed). I am also not down for death good, but anything else I am pretty much down for.)
How I view debate ---- Overall, I think the debate is a game first and foremost BUT I think the debate has the potential to be more than a game I think that there are conversations that we should and can have in the debate space. BUT I also think competition structures many of the decisions we make in debate. So I guess that comes down to whether that’s a good or bad thing? ---- Every moment of the debate I am actively thinking about my decision and what im gonna say in the rfd... wont lie I probably have an idea who I am voting for before the debate is over.... all this means is during cx i pay very close attention its where I get clarification on things I don't understand and I am flagging key args early on in the debate on my flow
- Just an FYI when asking questions about my decision I will defend my decision, I will answer question I will do my best to give you advice for future debate but I wont argue with you on my decision lmao you wont change my mind I assure you of this but feel free to ask clarification questions and what not
- And lastly judge instruction in the 2AR and 2NR is like super important to me --- I see it as you just gave me a bunch of information and arguments now tell me what to do with it: What should I prioritize? What do your args mean in the context of this debate? Why the aff or neg's understanding is incorrect? and ect. --- The chances of you getting my ballot without judge instruction in the final speeches is so little because if you leave me to sort through all the arguments and information with no direction you cant get mad at me if I make a decision you dont agree with
---- You can stop reading here but if you want more insight on the wonderful world of Morgan pls continue -----
K aff’s --- Think they are great the more creative the better ---- I prefer that they are in the direction of the resolution. Think they need defense on why they should get the ballot and why you are in the debate space.
K’s ----- I don’t know every K in existence but with thorough explanation and well execution I will probably be fine. I think the links need to be specific to the aff so if you read generic links in the 1NC BUT I need the Block to be pulling lines from the aff to prove the link ---- its called contextualization and without it you will lose --- Not a fan of reject alt just cuz they don’t do anything but if you’re like reject the aff and then do this instead then yeah that works
Floating PIK's need to be like lowkey flagged earlier in the debate cuz if it just pops up im not voting on it and needs to be well explained
Yes, the aff impact turns the K not gonna do that work for you to prove that
FWK ---- Framework makes the game work. Don’t think fairness is an impact but somehow, I feel like I would still vote on it. I think you need a TVA. Also, a reason why your model of debate is good and yes I will vote on it
Policy aff --- ngl if you’re in this boat I am probably not the best for you. If you read a soft-left aff I am probably good for you, but hard-right aff’s I am probably not the best for but I understand them I just would ask that you be very thorough in how you explain the aff
Theory is fine prefer it be well explained and not just blocks read at me tho I am about disclosure theorized out tho but if you must know I have a high bar and dont read new aff's bad either --- For condo I think you get three world I get annoyed when a team reads more than like 7 offcase to collapse on 2 in the block cuz its like what the point? What a waste of paper, time and my attention tbh I just think a bunch offcase positions doesn't really lead to good debates
When it comes to arguments and style, I am pretty much open to anything if it doesn’t fall into any of the ism’s racist, sexist, or ableist (and any other ism I haven’t listed). I am also not down for death good, but anything else I am pretty much down for.
Regardless of what you run at the end of the debate do not leave me with a bunch of information I have to sort through myself because I will do what I want with it and you are just gonna have to deal so tell me what to do with. Meaning I think judge instruction is very important and absent it I don’t think you are allowed to be upset if the decision doesn’t go your way.
Head coach at Plano East Senior High.
In LD, I’ve gotten much more progressive, but I tend to still favor traditional.
-I do not like Kritiks; they are generic and lazy debating - I will not vote for them.
-On case attacks are important!
-Theory, CPs, PICs, RoB, DAs, are all good.
-Do not read at me while giving voters.
-2AR does not necessarily have to be line-by-line.
-I understand spreading, but if you become unclear I will say "clear" once, and after that, if you do not clear your speaking, I will stop flowing, more than likely hurting your chances. 7/10 speed please. Slow down on tags please.
In PF, I’m traditional. I don’t like spreading in PF and there should definitely not be CPs, Theory, Kritiks, or anything like that.
In Policy, pretty much the same as LD above. I have a lot less experience in Policy than the other debate events, but I have some competitive CX history and can cross apply progressive LD knowledge.
In all debates: I do not tolerate rudeness - especially in cx/crossfire. I love seeing passion in rounds, but being passionate about your topic does not mean you get to be rude. Excessive rudeness/terrible attitude results in 25 speaks.
Include me in on email chains: email@example.com
I look forward to hearing you speak!
EMAIL CHAIN: firstname.lastname@example.org
If you have ever had me as a judge you know I pace and move around the room during prep. I am hyper-mobile. My learning necessitates movement. In the virtual world sometime I pace and go back and forth off screen, but I am never more than a couple feet away and always listening and ready to go when you say you are ready. Just don't want anything thinking I bailed on them.
I was a policy debate in the 1800s. This means debate is about the flow although I am old so your speed should be at 80% of what you think is appropriate. I currently coach LD and WSD and Congress, although I mostly have LDers. I tend to have more of a policy oriented views on issues given my history and given where I coach tends to push those formats more often than not. In terms of judging, I judge almost exclusively LD. Personally, I am a classic liberal. This means, I will listen to anything, but argument from those place will have language that is more understood by me. I have personal experience with violence. This means you should be very considerate and understanding when it comes to warnings so that I can prepare myself mentally.
I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks). Also, debaters who attempt to spread out an opponent because they are a newer or less experienced debater will quickly lead me to give them the lowest possible speaks. Let me be clear, I do not have a problem with speed. I have a problem when debaters use it to exclude others. Foster an inclusive community! In general, treat your opponent in a considerate manner and if you choose not to I will give you the lowest speaks possible and depending on how extreme the issue is I may simply vote against you. I will never back-flow, this is a oral activity.
This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.
I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debate very well and should only be used when you are had an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate.
I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.
A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good, skep, determinism you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).
If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. If it is more approachable for you, then make that clear and then go for it. Access trumps all! You are definitely behind if your argument is simply that you are the one to introduce this concept into the debate space. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that my debaters have read narratives and this approach can be very effective, but when not developed well it is frustrating to me.
I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might be and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship field that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.
I have very frustrated feeling about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.
If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.
If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.
If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.
I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.
I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.
Finally Word for All
I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.
Background/experience: I debated for 3 years at Montgomery High school competing two years in policy and one year in LD.
TAKE IT SLOW FOR ME I DONT REALLY JUDGE ANYMORE I NEED A SEC TO GET UP TO SPEED.
General Paradigm: I really think debate has become an activity involving strategy over anything else in policy and ld especially. Therefore, I will tend to be more perceptive to strategy over grandstanding on your critiques. Additionally, I felt like during my career that judges tended to put their own personal beliefs about debate and the issues being debated on a pedastool making them biased toward certain arguments like Ks over theory or theory over Ks. My goal is to be a complete blank slate as far as that goes. I believe things like frivolous theory can be a strategy even though some judges are biased against it. That's not to say I'm a theory hack because I'm probably the opposite, but I am receptive to it just as I am to a DA or K. Also don't say racist stuff or I probably won't like you.
K: I read Ks throughout most of high school and am well read in most of the literature. That being said, I am not a K hack. I am probably going to know if you don't understand what you're reading or talking about. Most of the critiques I read were high theory involving authors such as baudrillard, deleuze, bataille, Heidegger, etc. I'm not going to grandstand about how you have to explain Ks thoroughly. They should have some explanation in the 2nr but some of this stuff can't be simplified down to a third grade level so I don't expect that to occur. I feel like the debate community has allowed some kids to get away with little explanation and say they are a great debater while other times judges use it as a cop out to not give an RFD. Just know what you're talking about and I'm cool with it. Also k affs are great and strategic.
REPS: i think reps matter alot so if you do something blantly offensive or racist/offensive i feel inclined as an educator probably to pull the trigger.
LARP: I read policy affs and DAs throughout my policy career and somewhat as an LDer. I really like these arguments because they allow debaters to be strategic with turns and usually allow me to learn some cool stuff too. Have fun! I love DAs, CPs, plans, etc.
Theory: I never really read theory unless I was forced to. That's not because I didn't like it but I thought some judges would hesitate to vote on frivilous theory. I am happy to say that I am not one of those judges. Read frivilous theory all you want. Just remember that usually there are simple intuitive responses that are effective. Also I default competing interps but I don't have a specific leaning toward reasonability or competing interps one way or another.
Phil: I didn't read Phil whatsoever until my senior year. I still am not read on the literature. That being said, I think Phil arguments are great and I will do my best to evaluate them just as I would a k. Just be prepared to explain it to me and how it interacts with offense in the round. If you like reading Phil, go for it.
Email me at email@example.com if you have any questions or for the email chain.
Competitive Background: I competed almost entirely in UIL during my speech and debate career (it is the only circuit that my school competed in). I competed in CX Debate all 4 years of high school and advanced to UIL state each year. My 3rd year I broke to octofinals at UIL state and I finished off my 4th year as UIL state champion. Along with CX, I also competed in informative speaking and prose at the regional level.
Judging Background: I have been judging speech and debate for a few years now along with hosting clinics for schools in the central and west regions. I have been a contracted consultant for several school districts as well as a judge. I judge the UIL state meet as a hired judge, as well as various tournaments in other competitive circuits. I judge in accordance to the rules in the appropriate constitution for the tournament.
I am a tabula rasa judge so I come into the round as a blank slate. I will listen to any arguments that you make; however I typically am more swayed by on-case arguments than anything else. The following is a list explaining how I typically weigh arguments when making a decision (5 for highest priority and 1 for lowest):
Once again, I will listen to any argument. This ranking system is just a general explanation of how I typically vote, but you can always change my mind with the power of your arguments. Roadmaps and impact calculus go a long way with me. Keeping the flow easy to follow will only help my overall judgment.
Plano Senior '20 (coached by Alex Yoakum, Adam Tomasi, Robert Shepard, Neal White, and Cheryl Potts)
Indiana University '24 (Coaches: Brian Delong, Jacob Bosley, Matthew Bricker, Jamie Davenport, and Ayoka Wicks)
2X NDT Qualifier (21,22)
Add me on the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
CONFLICTS: Plano Senior(TX), Clark High School(TX), Stanford Online MB, Saratoga AG
TLDR: I am fine with you reading anything if it is not offensive.
Largely agree with
NOTE FOR ONLINE: Record your speeches. If anyone's internet goes out you should immediately send the recording to everyone in the round. If you don't have a recording, you only get what I flowed.
Some Generic Stuff
1)I care a lot about evidence. I will read through most, if not all, of the cards at the end of the debate. I won't insert arguments into the debate based on what the evidence implies, but I can't vote for you if your explanation of the evidence is based on some misreading. I do this to encourage you to know your cards well and utilize them the best you can. Unpack your warrants and be comparative; use lines of your own and your opponents' evidence to flag important arguments that matter to my decision.
2)I can handle speed so feel free to go as fast as you want, BUT if you are hitting a novice or anyone who has a disability of which they can speak at a faster rate.
3)I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, and WEIGH and DEVELOP a ballot story.
4) Use all of your speech and cross-ex time. I will dock speaker points if you use cross-ex for prep, or if you end a speech early. I think that there's always more you can ask or say about an argument, even if you're decisively ahead.
5) Don't cheat - miscutting, clipping, strawmanning etc. It's an auto-loss with 0 speaks if I catch you. Ev ethics claims aren't theory arguments - if you make an ev ethics challenge, you stake the round on it and the loser of the challenge gets an L-0. (this only applies if you directly accuse your opponent of cheating though - if you read brackets with an ev ethics standard that's different).
6)I will assume zero prior knowledge when going into a round on any subject, which means it's on you to make me understand your warrant purely from the speech itself. For example, even if I know what the warrant for something like gratuitous violence if I don't think your explanation completes a logical warrant chain on why gratuitous is an accurate description of relationships, I won't vote for you.
8)Prep stops when speech doc is sent.
9)Please have pre-flows ready when you get in the round so we can start immediately.
10)If you are hitting a novice, please don't do something like reading 5 off and making the round less of a learning experience and more of a public beat down. It just isn't necessary. I will give you higher speaks if you make the round somewhat more accessible (ie going slower, reading positions that they can attempt to engage in, etc).
11)The quickest way to LOSE my ballot is to say something offensive (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.)
12) If you harass your opponent (i.e asking them if they are single in CX), I will drop you with 0 speaks and contact tab. Absolutely zero tolerance of any forms of harassment in front of me. I will not hesitate. Any judge who is tech>truth should believe the same - since to be tech>truth assumes value in the game, and the game cannot exist without players. Players do not want to play if they are harassed while playing.
Theory: I will default to “competing interpretations” unless told otherwise. I will not make any presumptions on the voter level of the debate. This includes the voter (fairness/education/etc.) and the implication (drop debater/argument). Failure to present arguments in favor of a voter and its implication is to present an unwarranted argument. Instead of doing the work for you, I will not evaluate the argument, and I will default to truth testing. This also means you should be extending your voter and its implication properly and in every speech. I am fine with frivolous theory if executed properly. I believe that RVI is very illogical and non-sensical, thus I will not vote on RVIs.
Kritiks: I like good K debate a lot. Your impacts must link into a framework. They could link into a normatively justified framework, or they could link into a pre-fiat role of the ballot. An NR containing a well explained, and well impacted K that doesn't forget about the case is a good thing. An NR containing a K you've never read the lit for is very frustrating. Ask yourself if you can explain your position without the use of buzzwords, if the answer is no, you risk being in the latter category. Take time to clearly explain and implicate the links/impacts/framing arguments and contextualize them to the aff.
Philosophy/FW: I really like a good framework debate. Please make all framework arguments comparative. I will default to truth testing unless told otherwise.
LARP/Policy Positions:I love judging good policy rounds. Copied from Yoakum's paradigm: "Unsure why I have to say this but DA are not an advocacy and if I hear the phrase "perm the DA" you immediately drop down to a 28. If you extend "perm the da" then you will drop to a 27." If you read a plan please read specific evidence instead of general util offense for the topic. I am kind of ambivalent towards the whole "are perms advocacies or tests of competition" debate. Regardless, you must articulate either why a perm is net beneficial or how the CP is not mutually exclusive from the aff (or, ideally, both). I WILL NOT VOTE ON A PERM THAT IS NOT EXPLAINED OR DOES NOT DELINEATE HOW THE PLAN AND CP ADVOCACIES ARE COMBINED. If you read a billion perms and its like: 1. perm do both 2. perm do the aff then the CP 3. here is an intrinsic perm, then I probs won't vote on any of them unless you EXPLAIN. For god sakes please weigh!!!
Tricks (Stole from Yoakum's paradigm): Alright, so you roll up into the room and you got this really tricked out case with 100 different a prioris, so many theory spikes that they are literally jumping off the page to fight for fairness, and the classic incontestable descriptive offense, and you are ready to win. I just have a couple of requests:
1. I want the spikes clearly delineated. None of that hidden theory spikes between substantive offense bs. I won't catch it, your opponent won't catch it, so it probably doesn't exist (like absolute moral truths).
2. Slow down a little for theory spikes.
3. If you extend an a priori, lean more towards the side of over explanation rather than under explanation. I have a high standard for extensions, so I need to understand a) why the a priori means you affirm/negate b)the claim, warrant, impact of the arg
4.Do not make tricks is the only thing you do, your speaks will suffer heavily.
K Affs:I don’t care whether you read a plan or not, but affs should have a specific tie to the resolution and be a departure from the status quo that is external from the reading of the 1AC. Impact turning framework is more strategic than counter-defining words or reading clever counter-interps, but you should have a clear model of debate and what the role of the negative is.
Framework:Affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic, even if not traditional endorsement or hypothetical implementation of a policy. At the bare minimum, affirmatives should "affirm" something. I am much less sympathetic to affirmatives that are purely negative arguments or diagnoses.Teams should have a robust defense of what their model of debate/argument looks like and what specific benefits it would produce.Teams tend to do better in front of me if they control the framing of what I should do with my ballot or what my ballot is capable of solving. Whether it signals endorsement of a particular advocacy, acts as a disincentive in a games-playing paradigm, or whatever else, my conclusion on what the ballot does often filters how I view every other argument. Teams tend to do better with me the more honest they are about what a given debate or ballot can accomplish."TVAs" can be helpful, but need to be specific. I expect the block to actually provide an example plan text. Solvency evidence is ideal, but warranted explanation for how the plan text connects to the aff's broader advocacy/impact framing can be sufficient. If the 2NR is going to sit on a TVA, be explicit about what offense you think the TVA accesses or resolves.
Policy v K: Don't lose the specificity of the aff in favor of generic K answers. Reading long framing contentions that fail to make it past the 1AC and 2ACs that include every generic K answer won't get you as far as taking the time to engage the K and being intentional about your evidence. You should clearly articulate an external impact and the framing for the round. I'm more likely to buy framework arguments about how advocating for a policy action is good politically and pedagogically than fairness arguments.
K v Policy:Ask yourself if you can explain your position without the use of buzzwords, if the answer is no, you risk being in the latter category. Take time to clearly explain and implicate the links/impacts/framing arguments and contextualize them to the aff. Make sure to tell me why the impacts of the K come first and weigh the impacts of the K against that of the alt. Absent serious investment in the framework portion of the debate/massive concessions, the aff will most likely get to weigh the aff's impacts against the K so impact comparison and framing is vital. Framework arguments should not only establish why the aff's framework is bad, but also establish what your framework is so that my ballot is more aligned more closely with your framework by the end of the debate. K's don't have to have an alt and you can kick out of the alt and go for the links as case turns.
K v K: Affs should have an advocacy statement and defend a departure from the status quo. Affs don't have to have a clear method coming out of the 1AC, although I am more likely to vote neg on presumption absent a method. I have a higher threshold for perms in debates where the aff doesn't defend a plan, but just saying "K affs don't get perms" isn't sufficient for me to deny the perm.
Policy v Policy: Nothing much to say here, but please weigh!!
T: I enjoy a good T debate and think T is very underutilized against policy affs. Make sure you are substantively engaging with the interpretation and standards and aren’t just blitzing through your blocks. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.
CP:Explanation is crucial. I need to be able to understand how the CP operates. 2NCs/2NRs should start off with a quick overview of what the CP does. Blazing through this at top speed will not contribute to my understanding. Fine with you reading PICS
DA:Framing is everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.
Theory: I love theory debate if executed properly. I will default to “competing interpretations” unless told otherwise.
I prefer line-by-line debate to big picture in summary, rebuttal, and final focus.I am fine with Policy/LD arguments in PF.
1) The only thing that needs to be in summary and final focus beside offense is terminal defense. Mitigatory defense and non-uniques are sticky because they matter a lot less and 2 minutes is way too short for a summary. BUT, if you do not extend terminal defense, it doesn't just go away; it just becomes mitigatory rather than terminal ie I will still evaluate risk of offense claims.
2)First summary only needs to extend the defense with which 2nd rebuttal interacts. Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend both the link and the impact of the arguments you go for in every speech (and uniqueness if there is any).
3)2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- dont try to respond in a later speech.
4)Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.
5) If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and Final Focus.
6)I'm fine with progressive PF- I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. PFers have a hard time understanding how to make a CP competitive- please make perms if they aren't. Theory, Kritiks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my LD paradigm above.
7)You get a 1:15 grace period to find your PDF, and for every thirty seconds you go over, you will lose .5 speaker points. If you go over two minutes and thirty seconds, the PDF will be dropped from the round.
8)Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.
9)If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct 0.2 speaks each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.
10)Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I would love for an email chain to start during the round with all cards on it.
I evaluate speaker points purely based on strategy and whether or not you actually listened and slowed down when I yelled clear.
Speaker points will be arbitrary, but I will try to be as consistent as I can be.
Eric Mueller Judging Philosophy
I can be convinced to be a policy maker with some exceptions. Default mode of policy making is policy advantages weighed against risks of disadvantages and consideration given for counterplans and possible solvency deficits. Multiple CPs can be irritating but also at times strategic. Obviously advantage CPs can be an exception.
I read evidence. I like comparisons of the quality of evidence compared to the other team. Not just qualifications, but unanswered warrants in the evidence. Take the time to pull warrants out of the cards and explain them. It will go a long way here. Explain why your evidence should be preferred.
I also like you to take the time to explain specifically how you think you win. Put the whole round together in a quick "story." How do you want me to view it? Compare it the other team's "story." Tell me how this is taken out and that outweighs this. It makes it easier for me to frame your approach as I decide. Give me some "big picture analysis." Don't just get mired down in line by line. I don't need 4 minutes of overview or "canned" overviews. Make specific to what is occurring in this debate round. Otherwise, it's boring.
Put me on your email chain. My email address is email@example.com.
I also often break with the conventional format. I am willing to vote for kritikal negative and affirmative arguments. So, yes. I will vote for your kritikal affirmative. In fact, I would prefer the negative debate about the offense the affirmative advocates rather than a constant resort to framework debate. That said, I will also vote negative on framework against kritikal cases. However it often comes down to an impact debate that many negatives are not very prepared for and the affirmative is usually very prepared to debate. I am always looking for something new.
It is the job of the negative to explain how K functions with respect to affirmative solvency. I think that needs to be hashed out in more specific ways than I often see occur. How do advantages with short time-frames factor into the question of whether to vote on K first? It is more clear for me with things like settler colonialism than it is with Marxism, for example. But don't assume. Take the time to explain. Make the reason it comes first very clear. How does the K undercut their turns? Be specific. Use examples. Don't make it just a non-unique disadvantage with a floating pic alternative. Sell it.
I also think there are reasons why there might be advantages left for the affirmative even given the criticism provided by the K. I think sometimes more specific affirmative evidence proves the plan can still have advantages to weigh vs. K impacts (as in Marxism) especially when the time frames are quick. Why does K come first? Has that been explored?
Framework against critical cases:
I also believe that it is necessary to answer clearly case claims by critical affirmatives that answer the voting criteria on framework. Think of framework as the disad, and case arguments as solvency that allows the framework disad to outweigh the case. Framing matters. I think "competitive equity" as a standard against critical affirmatives is often untenable for the negative. Focus more on the nature of voices and representational aspects of the need for grammar. Think semiotics. That makes voting negative on T easier in these cases. You need offense, not just terminal defense. T must be framed as offense against the case.
Quickly worded "Do both" or "Do plan and K" sometimes leave me confused as to what the world of the perm really looks like. Take the time to frame your perm for me clearly. How does it take out CP/K? How does it interact with the link to any net benefit? On the negative, hold the affirmative to clearer explanations of how the perm functions. Confusion for me usually breaks negative in the presence of a net benefit.
I’m not a big theory guy. I understand theory but I don’t like voting on it. I will if necessary.
All in all, I’m a quality of argument person. Focus more on making quality arguments rather than quantity. Kick out of stupid things early and focus on what you want to win in the block. I have a tendency to allow new explanations of old arguments in the rebuttals and love a crafty 2AR.
School affiliation/s - please indicate all - None
Hired - yes
If HIRED - what schools/programs in Texas do you work with if any: none
High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years - n/a
Please list ANY schools that you would need to be coded/conflicted against - none
Currently enrolled in college? grad school University of Texas at Dallas
College Speech and Debate Experience - parliamentary debate
Years Judging/Coaching - 4
Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event - 25
Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year - lots
Check all that apply
_XX___I judge WS regularly on the local level
_XX__I judge WS at national level tournaments
Rounds judged in other events this year
Have you chaired a WS round before? yes
What does chairing a round involve? facilitating between speeches
How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? equal burdens
What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? flow
When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. I think there needs to be a balance of both.
The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? for strategy it's a matter of addressing the arguments in the round and how well they adhere to the norms of their speech order.
WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast? style
WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? which side presents more compelling logical warrants as to why something is true.
How do you resolve model quibbles? whichever side does a better job of explaining why we should prefer theirs
How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? whichever side does a better job of explaining why we should prefer theirs
Hi, welcome to my 30 second tutorial called, 'Answering Arguments Wins Debates.' Notice I didn't say 'repeating arguments wins debates,' because it doesn't. You have to listen to your opponent's argument, and then craft a response that shows why your side of the resolution is comparatively better regarding this issue. Telling me their argument isn't well-warranted isn't enough. You have to provide me with a warrant for why your side of the debate wins that point.
Now onto the stuff about me...
NO SPEED IN DEBATE. If it's faster than you would talk to a parent or teacher, don't do it. I will say clear once, then I will take off speaker points if I have to say clear again. I find speed problematic for two reasons. 1) it does not promote an inclusive debate space, because participants who are new or rarely compete cannot truly participate. 2) it is completely ableist to assume all of your competitors and judges will be able to meaningfully understand your speech. A decade ago I experienced a bipolar break, and since then my brain doesn't work as fast, and my ear-to-brain interaction isn't what it used to be. That doesn't mean I am stupid. It just means that I need to hear things at a normal, conversational speed.
***Whether it's prelims or elims of LD, PF, or worlds, at the point that you disregard my ability to participate in the round, you will not win my ballot. You might think you can win the other two ballots in an elim round, but it's not a great idea to have a 50% chance of winning/50% chance of winning/0% chance of winning when you could go slower and have 50% chance of winning each judge.*** Please note that I rarely am put in policy rounds, but sometimes I am needed. In prelims I expect a slower round. In elims, I will not be offended if you go your regular speed, but you have a greater chance of winning my ballot by going slower, as pointed out above. If you are in LD, PF, or worlds I WILL be offended if you go faster than my preference, and offending judges is not a great look.
In terms of argumentation, I will consider anything that isn't offensive. If you're trying to make an argument based on debate jargon explain it to me. Just because you think you sound cool saying something doesn't mean I am going to vote on it. I do not vote off tricks on the flow. Not every dropped argument actually matters. On the flipside, don't ignore arguments. LISTEN to your opponent. Respond to them.
I vote more on the big picture - overall impacts, overall strategy. I want to see you show why your side of the resolution is comparatively better than your opponent's. I do not like overwrought impacts. I am going to buy the impact about a million people that has a high probability of happening and a strong link chain over an existential impact that has a shady link story. If you think your opponent's impact is ridiculous, I probably do, too. Point that out to me so I can vote on yours instead. Every time a debater makes an argument that extinction level impacts have a zero percent probability, an angel gets its wings and Tinkerbell can fly again. You want to save flying paranormal creatures, don't you? Then be the person who isn't impacting to extinction.
Lastly, be respectful of me and of your opponent. If I am cringing by how rude you are in CX, you won't be getting high speaks. I don't vote for bullies. I vote for debaters. If you have questions about how to get better after the round, you can ask me. If you want to re-debate the round, I will not be tolerant. You had a chance to communicate to me, and if you lost, you lost. I am not going to change my mind, and arguing with me will just mean I will be in a bad mood if I ever have to judge you again. I judge often enough you want to be the person I smile when I see.
Updated 4/10/22 - Very slight tweaks, 99% the same
Lindale '21 U of Houston '25
Conflicts: Roberto Sosa, Leah Yeshitila, Anastasia Keeler, Ben Freda-Eskanazi, Adeeb Khan, Armaan Christ, Andrew Tsang, Sophia Tian, and Alyssa Sawyer
Tech > Truth to the fullest extent ethically possible
Phil - 1
Theory - 2
Policy - 1
Tricks - 3
K - 2
History: I debated at Lindale for 4 years doing LD the entire time. I did traditional debate for a year and a half my freshmen year and the first semester of sophomore year. I was introduced to circuit debate my junior year and read some anti-cap lit all junior year with little to no success. Senior year though I read mostly phil and theory with the occasional DA 2NR or policy aff. I qualified to the TOC my senior year winning 2/5 bid rounds and broke at the FBK RR.
Senior year aff wiki - https://hsld20.debatecoaches.org/Lindale/Pittman%20Aff
Senior year neg wiki - https://hsld20.debatecoaches.org/Lindale/Pittman%20Neg
- Was my favorite when I debated
- Probably comfortable with whatever author you read
- Syllogism > Spammed independent reasons to prefer
- Dense framework debates should have good weighing and overviews to make them resolvable
- General Principle means nothing - just answer the counterplans lol
- default epistemic confidence
- I appreciate K debate and it's importance but it's not my personal cup of tea
- Almost all of my friends/co-working coaches are primarily K coaches so it's not like it's completely out of this world to me
- Not susceptible to K tricks (PREFIAT MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING STOP SAYING IT PLEASE)
- Please stop being cringe e.g copying Mich KM, edgy for the sake of edgy, being overly dramatic for *flare*, etc
- Do not read nonblack afropess in front of me. Just don't do it. Strike me if you plan on doing so.
- Alternatives should probably do something (eMbRaCe tHe DeAtH dRiVe means nothing) do material actions like joining the Communist Party or burning down the state
- Alt solves case/Link turns case are smart and I think underutilized
- I've grown more and more appreciation for policy debate as I've coached and judged - I think it's my favorite now
- Complex policy debates will be rewarded with speaks
- Weighing is how you get my ballot (sometimes my ballot is literally x weighed, y didn't so x wins).
- Will evaluate your wacky impact turns
- Please do more case debate
- Perms are tests of competition not advocacies
- Uncondo means, unless going for theory or a higher layer, the advocacy must be in the 2NR
- I will judge kick if instructed but I really don't want too since I think that forces the aff to debate both the world of the CP and the squo
- pretty comfortable with
- Basically Hacks for Disclosure
- Don't think voters are needed (every standard can be impacted out independently and probably connects to both fairness and education)
- I think RVIs are great, underutilized and important for debate to deter bad theory and force substance
- Will vote on friv theory but it should be related to the round i.e I like AFC but I don't like "must wear x clothing" because AFC has some connection to the arguments in round but clothing does not
- Default on drop the debater, competing interps, yes rvis
T-Framework v K Affs
- Middle of the road - not hyperfash but not autoaffirm
- Err neg
- Not at all susceptible to debate bad affs as I think it's intuitive that debate is good
- 1AR probably needs a counter interp
- TVAs are overrated and usually don't solve the 1AR offense
- the 1AR should still do LBL and the 2NR should not be 3 minutes of an overview that can be summarized in "I think clash is cool"
- I read tricks every once in a while and understand the strategic value in them but if your opponent missed something I probably did too.
- I'll evaluate it (sadly) but if you make me evaluate it please do it well and not just an old Testimonies aff from 2017 or something
- If you don't have too, please don't.
Do not perceive me - "Why should Phoenix affirm" legitimately makes me squirm and I hate it
Default/Average is 28.5 but I am called a speaks fairy
Just have a good time - at the end of the day, you are all high schoolers yelling at each other about random topics whether it be Kantianism or International Relations in random classrooms or zoom calls this isn't as serious as you think it is, just have a good debate and everything will be fine :) Also non-CX clarifications are fine - I'm not someone who will yell at you and say "grr questions only cx!!!1111!!" I do not care. Also, don't be rude to your opponent for no reason, no need to be hyper aggressive or anything it's just a debate round.
If you harass your opponent (i.e asking them if they are single in CX) I will drop you with 0 speaks and contact tab. Absolutely zero tolerance of any forms of harassment in front of me. I will not hesitate. Any judge who is tech>truth should believe the same - since to be tech>truth assumes value in the game, and the game cannot exist without players. Players do not want to play if they are harassed while playing.
Stolen from Patrick Fox who stole it from YaoYao - "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. You work hard to debate, and I promise I will work hard to judge you and give a decision that respects the worth of that."
My favorite debates so far:
JWen v Max Perin @ Emory Quarters 2022
Daniel Xu v Miller Roberts @ TFA Prelims 2022 (Only ever double 30)
JWen v Anshul Reddy @ King RR 2022
Hello Competitors, Coaches, and Tournament Directors,
I hold a Master's in Communication from Wichita State University. I have been coaching speech and debate since 2002 at the high school and college levels. I am presently coaching for Trinity High School in Euless, Texas.
LD- I appreciate the connection that LD makes between current issues and the values that drive them. It is very important to me that competitors really understand their own cases well. As this is LD and not CX, make sure all of your arguments link clearly to your value. Progressive, policy-driven arguments are welcome, provided the links to the value and framework are very clear in the case presentation.
I can tell pretty quickly, especially during CX and rebuttal rounds, if you really understand what you putting forward. I much prefer fewer cards that are understood well to a large quantity of evidence that you barely understand or that is taken out of context. Some cases are won and lost in the CX potion of the round because one opponent is able to demonstrate that the other either doesn't understand their evidence or that they are using cards out of context.
I enjoy both traditional and progressive cases. Ks and CPs are welcome. Make your links obvious. I prefer impacts that are realistic over ones that exaggerate and/or over -catastrophize. Time-frame usually factors into this directly. (I. E., climate change-based extinction impacts are not going to occur in the next five years so they would not outweigh an urgent matter that has a smaller impact but in a more immediate time frame).
I am well versed in a variety of philosophies including post-structuralism. I expect your case to line up with your theoretical framework. The clash of values is what makes LD unique. Progressive cases are fine but make the links clear to your value and framework.
I prefer cases to take a little and plant it well. I will tolerate spreading if you really feel you must do so. However, you should know that but I do not prefer it. My personal opinion is that the main reason that competitors spread is out of a lack of the ability/self-discipline to consolidate their cases into the time frame given or in an attempt to simply overwhelm their opponent. My opinion is that self-disciplined, well-researched competitors should win on the value of their arguments and not on these tactics.
If I can't understand you due to your rate of speed, I will dismiss the point you are making and deduct speaker points. You will know when you have lost me because I will stop writing and stare directly at you or the camera. If you see me doing this, slow down. If you must resort to spreading, have a reason (i.e. your opponent did it first and now you must do it in order to answer everything on your flow). If you must do it, do it very well (speak clearly, use signposts, etc). I recommend sharing your case with your opponent and judge if you plan to speak at an abnormally fast rate.
I give higher speaker points to debaters who make an effort to use solid elocution skills (varied tone, enunciation, volume, eye contact, etc.) Your arguments do not matter if you can not make them in a manner that they can be heard and understood by an audience.
Framework > Evidence > Impact
Congress: The beauty of congressional debate in my mind is that it puts you into a situation that models the kinds of skills you may likely use in business meetings and negotiations in the future. Diplomacy is a big part of what I think makes congress important. I rank speeches that offer practical arguments and that show that you have thought through the topic on a logical level. Diplomacy matters a lot to me in congress and I rank students highly who show respect to the other legislators even when disagreeing with their arguments. Creative solutions are welcome suggestions to many bills but they should also be rooted in realism.
Oratory: This is probably my favorite event. I am looking for speeches that bring forward your unique voice and ideas. Your story, your ideas, and your thoughts will connect to those who have inspired you but what I am looking for most is for you to inspire me. My paradigm here is less specific because this event allows you to be yourself more than any other event. That is what I am looking for. I want to see you. I want to see your thoughts, hear about your hopes, and get a glimpse of the world as you see it and/or as you would like for it to be. You do You!!! I want to see you shine!
Extemp: Be aware of current events and know the research that you chose to quote well. I stay informed on most of these events as a coach. I am going to rate someone higher if they use a few select pieces of research well and combine them into a very thoughtful and articulate presentation. I don't need to see a ridiculous number of sources, I need to see you thinking about your topic and delivering your speech with confidence. Do not make up research. I will usually figure that out fast. I coach this.
Poetry/Prose, HI/DI, Duet/Duo, Program of Interp: My heart beats for these events. I love the impact that we can make with narrative presentations and I enjoy these rounds tremendously. I am not someone who thinks that you should be limited by your age, gender, or race in what selections you chose. I think Interp gives us the freedom to play with some of these ideas in ways that we might not be able to on film or in theatre. I love blended/woven pieces because I like to see what you put together. Your cuttings should tell a clear story with a beginning and middle and end. Your characters should be believable. If you are working with gender, age or race find a way to do create those characters with authenticity and respect. Act but do not overact. Make your characterizations and voicing seem real. Don't be afraid to use silence. Don't scream/shout unless there is a really good motivation to do so for your character. And, most of all, please pick me for these rounds :)
PF/World Schools: These events have emerged in my circuit during the time I spent out of high school coaching and in the higher education world. At the time of this writing, they are very new events for me. I am intrigued by them but I am very much still learning. I am interested in judging some of these rounds because I want to learn more about them. However, you should know that I am new so place me accordingly.
Overall Notes- I don't really like speed or spreading. If you choose to spread then you will need to make your taglines clear. If I cannot understand your tags then I cannot flow the argument. Also do not expect me to be able to understand all the analysis from your arguments if you do not slow down for it.
LD- I tend to consider myself to be more of a traditionalist when it comes to LD. I enjoy a solid framework debate. I tend to vote for the debater that impacts out their arguments the best. I tend to judge based off the quality of arguments not the quantity of arguments. I think that one good argument can win the round for either side. I am not as comfortable with policy arguments in LD, but I was a CXer, so if you are in a panel situation I won't automatically vote you down for running them.
CX- I am a policymaker judge. I tend to judge based from a util mindset unless you give me another framework to work through. I really like to hear debate that focuses on the balance between terminal and real-world impacts. I tend to like cohesive negative strategies that work together. Personally I am okay with conditionality, but if you want to get into the theory debate and impact it out in the round go for it. I am fine with any sort of theory debate. On T I default to reasonability. If you have any other questions feel free to ask.
Hi, I'm Ashley!
I debated in high school LD debate for four years, qualifying for TFA state, NSDA nationals, and clearing at a couple of bid tournaments. I also had some success in UIL circuit. I was a mentor for W.in Debate my senior year.
Tricks/Friv Theory- Strike
- I'll evaluate anything unless it is morally repugnant and could potentially harm someone or a group of people (no racism, sexism, ableism, oppression good, etc.)
- Do not read an argument if you do not have the agency to do so.
- EVIDENCE: you really need to put author qualifications in citations and provide sources. Also, don’t misrepresent evidence. It’s a form of cheating and can easily result in an L 25.
- DISCLOSURE: I think pre-round disclosing is good. Put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Extend/compare warrants and weigh! Extending taglines is annoying and doesn’t help you
- Tell me what layer of the debate comes first or else I might make a decision that you will not like.
- I have not done research on the topic. In-depth explanations are helpful
- Creative arguments make me very happy (speaks will be boosted).
- Strategic collapses make me very happy (speaks will be boosted). The 2AR/2NR should absolutely not come down to everything.
- On the line-by-line, numbering arguments makes flowing much easier for me.
- I think long overviews are underrated. When done right, they can be super strategic (be very specific when re-grouping args).
- give me a nice ballot story, make the decision really easy for me!
- slow down
- In the case of disconnections: make sure you are recording your speeches. CONSIDER THIS A WARNING. MY WIFI HAS BEEN UNRELIABLE LATELY SO PLS KEEP THIS IN MIND
Love! I am very familiar with most types of kritiks (I still would like a nice overview). If you want to read a K, you need familiarity.
quality>quantity links. More specific links are better
Explain alt solvency thoroughly. I need to understand the world of the alternative that I am voting for.
Compare evidence. Weigh. Extend warrants.
I have become worse and worse at understanding jargon in these debates, just be very thorough in your explanation instead of making me sit there and try to figure out what "the net benefit to the perm and the uniqueness in the alt of the status quo hijacks the internal link of the impact" means.
CP specific to the aff makes them much better; should have some net benefits. DA should be cohesive and specific as well. That being said, I don’t mind generic DA and CP
If your 1N/1AR is going to be a card dump, please explain the significance of each card (taglines don’t count). I will not do the work for you. This really differentiates between those who simply read what is provided to them by coaches and those who actually understand what they are debating
Make it unique. More non-conforming performances seem much more effective to me. If you decidedly read a performance that looks/sounds like every other case, I'm just going to be confused as to what the performance is achieving.
The more creative answers to T you come up, the better.
Rather than only giving me this form of debate good justifications, explain why engaging with this form of debate is good.
If you have other strats besides fw I will be very pleased. like I said, creativity wins me over more
I only think it is good when there is actual abuse. I enjoy substantive debates much more, but if this is your A-strat then go for it.
Defaults: competing interps, no rvi, dtd
Go slow on analytics! I suck at flowing as it is. I'm not flowing from the doc.
Substantive T debates are much more appealing. Draw out turns/DAs to the method
Clearly establish impacts to standards. Weigh!
Be sure to explain it super well and in-depth if you want me to vote on it. I am not deeply familiar with a lot of phil. I am definitely not the judge for dense phil debates. I am going to be lost.
No!! :( Waste of my time and your opponent’s time and it’s at the expense of you and your opponent’s education. Not willing to vote on it sorry
I am an assistant debate coach. I debated in Lincoln-Douglas for four years in High School, and I did four years of both NFA LD and Parliamentary Debate in college. In this time as a competitor, I have seen and debated virtually every category/type of argument.
I'll vote off of pretty much anything as long as it's weighed.
I will judge traditional rounds, I will judge progressive rounds. I've debated in both worlds and have little preference.
Speed is fine. I will say "clear" or put down my pen if I can't keep up.
Kritiks are fine on aff and neg.
Please explain the literature you read. If you name-drop authors and don't clearly explain through evidence/analytics what their theory entails, the argument is tough to land. Assume I am not familiar with the author you're reading.
I care about the alt. Make it make sense, please.
If you tell me in the first speech that some major real-world abuse is happening to a marginalized group in the aff advocacy and then abandon it a speech later for strategy, I will take speaker points.
Full disclosure: I love good T debates.
The preference is for in-round abuse to be demonstrated.
Theoretical abuse is sufficient for a ballot if properly demonstrated in the shell.
I want the violation to be as specific as possible.
Standards and voters are essential.
All other arguments
Generally, I am okay with any argument. Give me impacts, an explanation of the literature, and a reason why it warrants a ballot.
I don't flow it, but I pay attention.
If you want points for C-X on the flow, put it on the flow during your speech, please.
Be respectful and polite where possible. Rudeness will lose you speaker points.
Ask specific questions in-round and you shall receive specific answers in-round!