NIETOC TFA Space City Swing
2022 — Houston, TX/US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Tab judge so run anything you’d like as long as its nothing offensive ie impact turns to oppression. I don’t default to anything so all arguments must be communicated clearly in the round including the implications of those arguments. Spreading is fine but slow down and be extra clear on tag lines and author names. If you have any specific questions just ask me before the round.
Hello debaters! I am a new parent judge so please read and know your audience.
1) DO NOT SPREAD. I will have no issue telling you that I didn't vote for you because I couldn't understand what you were saying.
2) Be sure to clearly present your value and contentions. I am new and need these to be obvious.
3) Run any sort of progressive argument at your own risk! I can do my best to evaluate these sorts of arguments, but once again, I will have no problem telling you that you lost because I didn't understand your argument so make sure they're impacted well.
3) Err on the side of over-explaining as opposed to under-explaining.
In conclusion, I'm just another judge, if maybe a lot less experienced. Thoroughly explain your arguments and why you should win the round and you'll be alright. If you're winning on a turn, say that. If your opponent has dropped a contention, say that. Explain your arguments, impact your arguments, and let's do this! Good Luck!
I am an old school traditional judge.
PF - Keep it simple. If you run a plan, a K, or theory, you are unlikely to get my ballot. Treat me like I have no idea what this topic is and explain EVERYTHING. Weigh impacts to get my ballot. Don't complicate a pro/con debate.
LD - For UIL, stick to a traditional format with Value/Criteria and Contentions. Weigh and give voters. For TFA, just know that I loathe rapid delivery and love explanations. If you are going to run a counterplan in absence of an affirmative plan, I will not vote on it. LD is not 1 person policy. Uphold your value throughout the round.
Remember, debate is impossible without effective communication.
FLASHING IS PREP TIME! If you are not speaking, you are prepping. My prep time clock is the official prep time clock.
Debate well. Don't go fast. Don't make frivolous or untrue arguments. You have a prescribed debate topic for a reason, so debate the topic.
I am a parent volunteer judge with children doing debate for many years. I have been judging debate for a few times already. I judge the debate based on who persuades me of their side more with facts and logic. With speed, I am comfortable with slower and clear speaking. In LD I understand the importance of value and criterion so please make sure you have both and that your arguments center around them.
First time judge, please speak slowly and clearly. Logical, fact based arguments are valued.
Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I teach at GDS in the summer.
Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: email@example.com.
Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!
Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)
Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.
Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll put my pen down if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.
Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!
WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.
I debated for Strake Jesuit from 2013-2017. Just graduated from college with 2 years of policy experience. I'm ok with speed just slow down on taglines. I'm ok with most arguments (barring homophobia, sexism, racism, etc.) but if you have any specific questions feel free to ask me.
speed is fine as long as you make an email chain/speech drop - email is firstname.lastname@example.org
im fine with all types of debate. i love critical arguments/case positions that engage with various types of philosophy. k debate is my favorite. cool with everything else.
one note on theory: i do not like frivolous theory (i.e. down my opponent since they are wearing socks - yes, i have seen this shell). if your opponent gets up in the next speech and says this is stupid and don't pay attention to it. i will discard it and i will not see it as a voting issues. that being said, if there is actual abuse in the round, theory is not only fine but welcomed. competing interps over reasonability.
please feel free to ask any questions before the round. ill be more than happy to answer them
1. Be nice and respectful. If you are highly offensive or disrespectful, I reserve the right to vote you down.
2. Speed is fine, but be clear and slow down in rebuttals. If you go top speed in rebuttals, I will miss arguments.
3. I prefer interesting and creative arguments. I will usually prefer truth over tech and decide on the most cohesive weighed argument. If I don't clearly understand, I don't vote. Tell me how to vote please.
4. If you do what makes you comfortable and throw a voter on it, you'll be fine.
I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.
My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech. I will most likely not vote for a technical interaction that hasn't been heavily explained in the round. If you are grossly misrepresenting technical arguments to another debater, I reserve the right to not vote on those arguments.
I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny, nice, and/or like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often than not I'll decide your way.
I don't believe in speaker points. I will either give you the max (99.99999999999% of rounds) or you will get the minimum (reserved for doing something abhorent)
If you are oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.
Please keep me entertained(two invested debaters is enough). I have severe ADHD.
Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.
Hello! My name is Jorge Gomez and I am a Speech and Debate coach who considers these events as a powerful and natural expression of human emotions and thoughts. When it comes to debate, please consider the delivery of your speech. If we, the audience, cannot understand or hear your points and evidence then already we are starting off with a rocky foundation. At the same time, speed is a natural thing in a timed setting. I understand if you have to say your arguments at a quick pace. I'm just not comfortable with someone speaking as fast as super humanely possible. There is a line that you should consider. Quality arguments and weighing them are always stronger than listing countless cards without much weighing or explanation. Signposting is always welcome in your speeches as it helps with the flow of the debate. Consider time limits...going over grace periods could cost points. And most importantly...please be respectful during all events which includes speech, in between rounds and different speakers.
Updated - 7/29/2023
Coached debate at HAIS (1), Crosby (3.5), Dulles (3.5), and Niles West (1.)
Debated policy for 4 years at Crosby (2004-2008), In College at UMKC (Fall 2009), and Houston (Spring 2009, 2012-2015)
- If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.
- If you think the appropriate response to other people explaining how they need to be included in debate is to say "West is best" or "Violence towards people like you is good" please strike me.
- Purposeful or dismissive acts of misgendering will result in a full speaker point loss and if the other team makes it an argument the possible loss of a ballot.
What is Debate?
I think that we need to understand we are a community of people responsible for the activity, We are responsible for teaching and guiding students to make decisions that are descriptive of the community they wish to compete within.
Framework is very normally in high school debate used as a way of excluding debaters. Framework doesn't have to be this but unfortunately in the vast majority of HS debates it is used this way. The framing is an exclusionary one and doesn't have the nuance to get out of most of the aff offense.
If you read framework this way then I'm not the judge for you, not because I would be upset with you but rather because I will likely be very sympathetic to aff arguments about exclusion. If you think your TVA is a silver bullet it's not, and your SSD arguments a lot of time are overhyped. I think I agree fundamentally that most of these debates devolve into meaningless hyperbole on both sides. The aff is always debatable and somewhat predictable the question is how does the expansion of predictable limits make it so that the debate is worse and how that change is bad. In this way limits are generally an internal link to clash or fairness and I really think that a clear weighing and impacting out of these is of the utmost importance. I am substantially more likely to vote for clash if it is used as an impact filter/impact than I am persuaded by fairness.
Framework is best when it's simply a disagreement about the meaning of the topic/roles and the negative impact and weighing is about the relative change in the way that debate functions. The expansion of limits and the recognition of the affs value is important. Questions about the roles of the sides and preparedness for those roles. About the ground that the negative has under each interp and why one interp is better than the other. To me, the most important question the negative can push forward is "why negate?" a lot of the affs answers to this question seem problematic. This is not a question of value in fact it seems to assume if the affirmative is right about their normative claims about the resolution why should anyone have to affirm it and if that's the case how do we determine what we are debating about? Why is the negation of negation good? This puts a higher burden, in my mind, for the affirmative to win the framework debate. Most affs have great reasons why they are good but they do not tend to have good reasons why they should be negated.
Critical affirmatives should have a solid defense of both their importance but also the importance of debating it. There should be a clear area of debate that the negative can and should engage in. That being said I really enjoy watching good Kritikal affirmatives deploy the various ways of relooking at debate structures and topics. I find affirmatives that are either very small but willing to engage with whatever strategy the negative chooses, or conversely, very large structural affirmatives that will engage on a theory level with everything to be the best. Be ready to answer the core questions negation should ask you. Why this aff? Why this round? Why negate this? Why this ballot? If you think you have good answers to those then I'm likely going to enjoy watching the debate.
Kritiks need to have a clear link-impact scenario with a way of resolving those claims. That could be the framework Interp, or the alternative in most debates.
Framework debates can be very important. I think interps that ask me to wish away the affirmative impacts are lackluster. I'm more interested in how we should be weighing things than an argument that says we should artificially bracket off the affirmatives 8 minute speech. You can definitely win we must prioritize ontology, epistemology, or Ethics, or we should bracket off certain types of considerations if they are bad, however, I'm not generally willing to bracket off the aff's ability to advocate for their should statement but rather if their impacts are important or not.
I am way more willing to vote for specific instances of link-impact scenarios than I am for an uncontextualized larger theory of power claim. Specificity will almost always be important to win my ballot. I am a bit pessimistic about what we can achieve in debate rounds but also believe the entrance of different scholarships into debate can and do have value. It however is up to the debaters to make those arguments in a compelling way.
Theoretical rejections of the team have an incredibly high burden in my mind. Theoretical rejections of the argument have a much lower burden. For me to vote for a team entirely on theory they must prove that the debate was borderline impossible. Contrarily to win reject them argument you only have to prove the debate would be better without the argument. To me using theory to force a condensing of the round is a sound strategy. Also, generally, if you're conceding that conditionality is good then you're highly unlikely to get me to vote down the team on another theory argument.
Disadvantages are the core of all aspects of debating. Make sure you extend all three components when going for a DA. This includes when going for Disadvantages from any perspective.
Calling into question the legitimacy of many different types of counter-plans should be a portion of your strategy. Too many affirmatives allow the negative to get away with a lot of abuse on the counter-plan that they shouldn't. CP must have a text, a clear solvency mechanism and a net benefit. Please make sure you extend each if you go for the argument.
I view debate as a communications event. So, present your arguments using a professional and conversational style. If I'm not flowing, you are not clear. You may speak at a pace a little faster than that used during normal conversation as long as you are not speaking in a monotone and normal breathing is not inhibited.
There is a reason the topic is being debated at this time. Take it seriously and don't waste my time with case approaches that do not consider the framers' intent. Debate topics reflect real concerns present in society. I'll consider most anything you present as long as it's done professionally and with thoughtful analysis and supporting evidence. I try hard not to debate you and to vote based on the arguments you and your opponent present.
TFA World Schools Debate:
School affiliation/s - please indicate all (required): Clements
Hired (yes/no) (required): No
Years Judging/Coaching (required): 20 plus
Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)
Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required)
__X___I have not judged WS Debate this school year but have before
Rounds judged in other events this year: Congress
__X__ I have not judged much this school year. --My team has a strong parent volunteer group that judges during local tournaments so that I can be available to problem-solve, etc. for our competitors. These include a large number of World Schools debaters. I teach four full-year debate classes.
Have you chaired a WS round before? No
What does chairing a round involve? facilitating the debate round
How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? A group versus group debate with a focus on world views or global concerns. There is much more emphasis on analysis and logical reasoning than in other debate types where citing evidence is critical.
What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? I flow what each team member says and I make knows of the opponents' responses or lack of them.
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. Not really. I listening for clear and logical explanations for each argument. Debaters should carry a basic thesis throughout the round.
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? The "model" should be carried throughout the round. Clarity of strategy is important.
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? Clarity and reasonableness of the claim; relevance is important as well.
How do you resolve model quibbles? Whoever best carries the model throughout the round wins. Making connections and articulating relevance is important.
How do you evaluate models vs. counter-models? They need to be linked to the topic. The counter-model, if given, should clearly link to the topic and provide something that the model does not. Exposing the weaknesses of the model helps.
I am a stickler for good presentation and civil debate. Respect and clear argumentation are important for me in all events. I will be very focused on the flow of argumentation and will judge off of what was presented and how.
Congress: Good use of sources, creative speech writing, persuasive delivery, clash, and adherence to Parliamentary procedure are essential. It is also important that the chamber act respectfully and cooperatively, where civil debate occurs and the conversation is not dominated by any individual or group of competitors.
CX: Affirmative teams will need to address stock issues convincingly. Clash and Extension in later rounds are more important than new arguments. Avoid Kritiks and spreading.
LD: I prefer traditional LD; No spreading, civil clash, and a strong emphasis on philosophy over policy. I will tolerate progressive debate/Kritiks and policy, however, be careful and make sure your case is well crafted with this.
IEs: Do not overcomplicate your performance. I am looking for effective delivery!
PF: I prefer to hear good arguments and sources. Spreading is not encouraged. Good summaries and crystallization are key.
WSD: Clash is key. Crystallize the differences and present mechanisms effectively. Spreading is not encouraged.
I debated for Cypress Woods Highschool in Houston in LD for 3 years. I primarily went for the K throughout my career.
I debated for Langham Creek Highschool in Houston in policy for 3 years, crossing over to LD my senior year. I primarily went for the K throughout my career, but was very flex and dabbled in every form of debate. I worked as an assistant coach in PF for SpiderSmart Sugarland and now work as an assistant CX and LD coach for Langham Creek Highschool.
email@example.com - email chain
"Do whatever you want. None of the biases listed below are so strong as to override who did the better debating, but adjusting to my priors could maximize your chances of winning and result in better speaks." - Aden Barton
Spreading is fine.
Read anything you want.
Debate is incredibly difficult and time-consuming. I love this activity and hope you can as well. I feel as if lots of judges think it’s your responsibility as a debater to please us as judges, no, it is my responsibility to please you as debaters with a respectable and well thought out decision. I have tremendous respect for the hard work you’ve done to come here and will try to reciprocate that in my decision. I will always be ready to defend my decision. “If you feel unsatisfied with my RFD, I encourage you to post-round me. I will not take any offense or make a determination on your personality on the basis of your reaction to my decision. I was always quick to disagree with judges as a debater and have always considered disagreement the highest forms of respect.” – Vikas Burugu.
I will certainly reward good evidence if you have it. However, your evidence is only as good as you can explain it to me. “Regarding argument resolution, spin outweighs evidence. Spin is debating. Evidence is research. The final rebuttals should be characterized by analytical development rather than purely evidentiary extension.” – Rafael Pierry.
Read what you want and read it well. I do not personally believe the ballot is a referendum of you as a person, especially in highschool. 99% of debaters go through the stage where they read bad, stupid, and not well-thought-out arguments because they find them interesting. I don't think any of those people genuinely believe those positions, but rather are ignorant to how arguments can be harmful. The best thing I think we all derive from debate is reflexivity, if you think people's arguments are bad and violent, say so, beat them on it, the worse their argument is, the easier it is to beat, people will stop reading stuff after they get hit with a L25. Debate is great because people can read what they want and shift the norms, be innovative, be unique, do what you want, I encourage it.
Tech over truth but tech is influenced by truth. Those who read arguments that are naturally grounded in truthfulness naturally appeals to my human biases and would render your argument more persuasive, but technical debaters can ALWAYS beat truthful claims. Truth over tech is an excuse to insert human biases into debate that overrides and demeans good argumentation.
After watching the 2022 NDT Finals, I think the judge has an obligation to minimize as much intervention as possible, obviously our human nature necessitates certain preconceived notion’s influence upon our decisions but the sole method of my adjudication will be my analysis of the way both teams analyze, argue, and implicate their own arguments, I will not do this for you, simply analyze the way in which you do it yourself.
I think debate is a game not in the sense that there are rules we should follow and a structure around what we do, but in the sense that we play to win. That same game can absolutely be a site of beautiful and authentic good, through activism, revolution, argumentation, and more, but even so, no matter how you choose to play the game, winning in front of me means convincing me through a form of persuasion to give you the ballot.
- I will vote on ad-homs / call outs.
- ivis need dtd warrants when introduced.
- big overview K debaters are not as good as line by line ones, i prefer you do the latter.
- i will keep note of cx.
- i will try to be as tab as possible thus, "I do not default in any way. if you have not sufficiently justified an argument, I just won't vote on it. this includes things like layering -- theory does not come before substance if you have not told me why it does." - Liam Nyberg, to clarify, this means I WILL vote on extinction outweighing your condo shell on magnitude if you do not layer.
- things that are particularly harder for me to flow, this does not mean i am not open to these args or that i'm dogmatized against them but that you might want to slow down, "Phil AC/NCs that are 50 pointed with TJFs, Reasons to Prefer, and Pre-empts with enormous philosophical jargony tags that are hardly even delineated." that is all for now.
SPEAKS: In general, I find myself most moved and assign the most speaks to people who signpost, are clear, do good evidence analysis, and display a sense of cohesion within their rhetoric and argumentation. I find myself most persuaded by people who are assertive, aggressive, and firm with their rhetoric but do not come off as rude, refer to McDonough JN, Wake Forest RT, Aden Barton and Zion Dixon. People who best exemplify these traits will get the most amount of speaks in front of me.
Specific things that will get you more speaks.
- Sitting down early if you have won, +! Conversely, sitting down early when you have lost, -!
- Referencing other debaters/teams as examples in some of your warrants. Contextualizing stuff to debate history is so cool.
- Being clear. The slower the clearer almost 90% of the time. The louder the clearer almost 90% of the time as well. University RH is a benchmark for how your spreading style should be to optimize speaks in front of me.
- Good argument strategy and tactics i.e going for the right choice in the 2NR, time allocation, and speech construction. You can win different routes but taking the easiest path to victory will garner more speaks.
- CX Dominance, not being lost or seeming evasive in cross, as well as putting your opponent into binds.
- Sending pre-written analytics will help your speaks and probably my flow.
I will not award you for the 30 speaks spike.
Lowpoint dubs only ever go to people who I found rhetorically less persuasive but won a dropped arg.
I'll start at 28 and go up and down from there.
I'll disclose speaks, I think it's a good norm.
I'll yell clear if you're too fast so don't be worried about outspreading me.
Any other questions, please ask in person or email – firstname.lastname@example.org
I am an experienced judge who coached high school for 25 years at Westfield HS in Houston, TX and judge frequently on the TFA and UIL circuits. I tend to be more traditional but will accept theory and progressive arguments if they are well explained. I judge based on quality of arguments, not necessarily quantity. I look for well organized speeches in extemp, with a preview in the beginning and a review of main points in the end. In interpretation I want well established characters who are easily distinguished. Movement is good but shouldn't be to an extreme. In POI I want a clear explanation of your theme as well as distinction when you move from one genre to the next.
In congress, I want organization. I prefer a preview of points but that isn't an absolute necessity if arguments are well developed. I want CLASH. It's important that legislators names are mentioned in clash, not just "the affirmative said" or "the negative said. I judge a lot of congress and except clarity and persuasive style. This is not policy debate so speed is a negative.
Assistant Coach for Langham Creek High School
Call me Justin or Judge or whatever I don't care
I am tab.
Debated at Langham Creek High School, LD 1 year CX 1 year . Currently debating CX at UofH. Mostly a critical debater, on affirmative I have run critical disability studies kritiks, and on negative I've run afropess and cap k. I've also run stuff like spark and death k tho. (both thanatophobia and death good). Don't need to conform to me, I'll vote on literally anything as long as there is no real harm in triggering others. My advice? If you think it might just ask them.
tldr: Run whatever you want.
A lot of this is stolen from the paradigm of Eric Beane, so feel free to check that out as well for further questions because I tend to agree with him.
Critical Affirmatives – Go for it. I think the affirmative should probably have something to do with the resolution, but those terms are loose. I did K Affs all the time, so probably a good judge for that. Just be ready to answer T and presumption because those are very easy ways to lose on a K Aff
Disadvantages – I think a lot of the time debaters (me) ignore disadvantages when you have just a bit of defense on them. If you run a DA, try to spin something along the lines of "there is still a chance they trigger the DA". If you are against a DA, try to specifically indite their evidence. I find no-link arguments are usually the best way to go, and the second best way is to just have offense ready.
Counterplans – I don't like running against counterplans but that's just because they are very easy ways to the ballot if not handled effectively. If you can prove the CP solves better than the aff AND/OR that it avoids the DA AND that it is fair, then you'll probably win. I'll vote on it.
Kritiks - Love these bad boys. I have always been a K debater and will probably be more interested if you run one of these. That being said, don't just read a 5-minute block and expect the ballot. Lay out specific links and, if possible, show things in round that your opponent has done which perpetuate/ignore your kritik.
"Method Debate" - I think the way we debate is, probably, fine. It could, probably, be better, but I don't have any strong opinions on changing it. But, if you lay out a way for the debate to be done/judged and your opponent doesn't refute it, then I will default to that.
Case Debate – Don't ignore it. As a 1N I would read 5 minutes of Afro-pess cards and then 3 minutes of case. It's always good to weaken their arguments and you can use it to fall back on if needed, so there is no reason to not do it. Also, if you just ignore your opponents case and only read prewritten blocks about oppression or something, you'll probably lose anyway
Topicality - Give your interpretation, and give standards, a TVA goes a long way. I'm not sold one way or the other on topicality out of the gate, so do with that what you will. I tend to be more favorable of reasonability arguments than other judges but will vote on T, either way, depending on who gives the best standards and reasons to prefer. Don't just say why your standards are good, say why they outweigh your opponents. Also, structural fairness probably comes before procedural.
"Strange" Arguments / Backfile Checks - Go for it. Debate can get really boring and repetitive at times, so its nice to be reminded that at the end of the day this is just a game we do for fun. Unless your parents are forcing you I guess. Wipeout, SPARK, Death good, whatever. Maybe you want to sing a song or do a skit, I don't care. As long as you can back it up and know what you're talking about, there is always a chance I vote for you.
Feel free to ask any questions.
daniel please, Not judge and definitely not sir
So who is this random guy?
Policy debater at Houston Memorial (2022), TFA, and NSDA Qualifier with a horrendous record at National Circuit tournaments- Arkansas 26(Not debating)
*PF stuff at the bottom
(Real theory-Condo, T Violations vs LARP AFF, etc.) 1-2
Trix-The cereal is for 3-year-olds, and so is this kind of debate :)
Read bold if you have 5 min before round
Good news: My younger sister is starting middle school debate, so for the first time ever… I’m kind of a quasi-coach.
Bad news: I’m now writing for the Arkansas Razorback affiliate for Sports Illustrated. This means I judge whenever my publisher gives me a weekend off, which is like once in a blue moon.
I don't know how to say this without sounding like captain obvious in that Hotels.com commercial, but say what needs to be said to win the debate. If your 5-minute overview wins the debate, how can I fault you for reading it?
EXPLAIN JARGON! TOP of the NR/2ar should write the ballot for me, slow down, and really emphasize WHY you're winning this debate.
Speed is fine(a little-known fact about me, my fine motor skills aren’t the best due to, well reasons, so if there’s a long TAG, hold your horses and let my hand catch up, yes looking at you K debaters). GO SLOW ON TAGS AND AUTHOR NAMES and on the T debate
No RVI's!(like literally unless the neg reads a million T/Theory shells) That means don't spend 30 seconds of the 1ar reading an RVI, and 2ns STOP spending 2 minutes answering it. I promise I will be as unbiased as humanly possible in every other aspect of the debate. Let me have this one thing. Thanks! If you like to give a 3-minute RVI 2ar on a regular basis PLEASE strike me!
Analytics, send em. thanks. It's beneficial online, you never know when your audio is going to cut out for a split sec, also it's just better for accessibility. No, I'm not interested in publishing your analytics to the internet or sending it around the circuit to screw with you...
A quick word on speaker points: I think they are the worst form of judge intervention possible. My definition of the best debater ever or being "on the bubble" is wildly different than the judge for your next round and the round after that. Both debaters start at 30. Don't be mean. Don't come into the round looking to pick a fight with someone and you should be able to keep that 30.
I don’t care what debate looks like, it’s just that I only understand certain kinds of debate and thus can only (correctly) judge those kinds of debate. If you are comfortable with an incorrect decision, feel free to stop reading and pref me a 1. I would love to say that I have experience with all types of arguments and I’ve spent the last 5 years of my life obsessively cutting cards and reading literature every spare moment I get, the reality is I didn’t. NOT obsessively worrying about the latest development on whatever topic it is for that weekend. As you’ll see down below though, I have done debate before.
*below is how I feel about certain args and how I debated, please don’t be discouraged in running a certain argument based on the info below… I have biases/preferences, we all do, any judge that tells you otherwise is lying.
Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality Bad
Politics DA is a thing-x----------------------------Politics DA is not a thing
UQ matters most--------------------x------------Link matters most
Try or die----x-------------------------------------What's the opposite of try or die
Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity
Presumption--------------------x------------------ No presumption
Resting grumpy face----------x-------------------Grumpy face is your fault
CX about impacts---------------------x-----------CX about links and solvency
Referencing this philosophy in your speech-----------------x----plz don't
Disclosure Theory-----------------------------x--------------Shut up and deal with it
(Creds to Buntin)
Other Random Stuff and rants
I will not stop a debate just because your opponent has read an author you don't like
I will not vote off anything that breaks the structure of the debate-(ie, speech times don't exist)
False accusations of Racism and Sexism are just as bad as Racism and Sexism itself
That being said... If you feel uncomfortable during a debate, PLEASE say something
role of the ballot = roll of the eyes
Card Dumps are bad. Quality>Quanity PLEASE, I'm BEGGING YOU
keep your own time
extreme clarity when cross applying is key
You have prep. Use it.
Again, Have fun!
PF- Claim Warrant Impact, just like all other debates. I'm about as progressive as they come. 98% of the time I judge LD. That means I have tolerance for speed, plans, CPs, K's, and the whole nine yards. It also means that I have the same evidence standards as your typical circuit LD judge. Paraphrasing does not exist*. Read the card like an LD case if you want me to flow the author names. Otherwise, you are out of luck, Read the card. Send the card. Be as clean as a whistle when asked for the card.
*If it's novice, I'm far more lenient. Have fun.
I am what you would consider as a lay judge.
As a parent judge, I will judge on 3 things.
2. Enunciation/ Clarity
Go slow, make your arguments clear, and tell me why you want me to vote for your side at the end of the round. I will choose the side who makes it the easiest for me to vote for them.
If you speak extremely well you can get high level speaker points from me (29 or 30).
At the end of the day, make sure you have fun and be respectful to each other.
I am a stock issues judge. I believe that the affirmative plan must fulfill all their burdens. If the negative proves that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected. As a stock issue judge, I generally prefer a clear, eloquent presentation of issues in round, and dislike arguments that seem to not relate to the topic on the surface.
Hi, I'm Zarik (he/him). You can call me Zarik, ZT, Tao, judge, or any combination of these names. I would like to be on the email chain - email@example.com
Background: Currently a senior LD Debater at Bridgeland High School (probably done debating at this point lol). 5th at 2022 6A UIL State, qualified to TFA State x3, Doubles at TFA State 2022.
I was a heavy on LARP and Phil as a debater, so take that information if you will.
LARP - 1
Theory - 1
Phil - 2 (Depends on type)
K - 2 (Depends on type)
Tricks - 5 (or strike me tbh)
I will pretty much vote on every arg if it is cohesively developed and I am able to explain back to you the claim, warrant, and impact in my RFD. (except if the arg is obviously morally reprehensible e.g. sexism, racism, etc.)
LBL > Long Overviews
Tech > Truth (but I think both are important)
Flex prep is cool; prep stops when you finish compiling the doc.
My judging philosophy is to be as non-interventionist as possible; people spend a lot of time prepping for this activity and you deserve the right to read whatever arguments that you want. That being said, I am a very expressive person, so if your argument does not make sense, I will probably make a face at you.
LARP - Pretty self-explanatory; you can run pretty much anything (plans, cp's, 7 minutes of case turns, disads, etc.). If you are aff PLEASE extend solvency or I will negate on presumption. Also, PLEASE collapse in the 1AR/2NR. I do not want to hear 5 different extinction scenarios that are all really underdeveloped in your rebuttal speeches. 0% risk is a thing.
1-3 Condo is probably good for neg flex; anything else is probably sketchy.
Functional and Textual Competition in the CP is probably good, but I will vote on PICS and Consult CP's etc. unless the aff wins abuse in the shell.
There needs to be an justification for judge kick (can be like 5 sec) if you want me to kick the offs for you; otherwise just spend the time kicking them yourself.
Comparative Worlds over Truth Testing (really easy to be convinced otherwise)
Theory - Fine with any theory; the more frivolous the arg then the lower threshold that I have for responses, but I will still vote on it UNLESS it pertains to the appearance/properties of the other person (e.g. water bottle and shoe theory is absolute b.s.). PLEASE extend paradigm issues.
Defaults (Please don't make me use them):
DTA > DTD (Unless it's T)
Competing Interps > Reasonability
No RVIs on shells
Content > Form
Text > Spirit
Topicality - I actually really enjoy topicality debates, including Nebel and Leslie, if they are done well (which is find is pretty rare, even for myself). Just contextualize why you win semantics>pragmatics or vice versa/both and the warrants for T "a" or bare plurals and if you do it well, you will probably get good speaks.
Phil - Fine with mostly everything if explained well; I pretty much only read Kant on aff LOL. If it's kind of a benign philosophy, it's probably good to have in the case to me whether is deon v consequentialist and how impacts are weighed under the framing. Syllogism > Independent Justifications. If you are reading util, PLEASE stop reading the Moen evidence it says a bunch of nothing and just switch to the Blum evidence.
Kritiks - I have a good understanding of Set Col, Afro-Pess (I will not vote on non-black Afro-Pess), Baudrillard, Pyscho (Lacan), and Foucalt/Agamben. I have a base level understanding of Empire, Queer-Pess, Asian Melancholy, Adorno, and Deleuze. If you are reading other authors/topics, you either 1) probably shouldn't read it because I might not understand it, or 2) explain it really well to me.
K Tricks (root cause, alt solves case) are cool, Floating PIKs are probably abusive but the other side should either run theory or ask for it in CX.
Tricks - Please delineate them and not hide them in a paragraph; that's not cool for me nor your opponent. If you're winning on tricks you're probably getting low speaks unless it's actually developed really well in your first speech and I've never seen that trick before.
Turns to tricks under truth testing is actually really cool if you pull it off you'll get good speaks.
Hey debaters, my name's Connor Taylor, he/him. I'm a senior at Cypress Woods High School. I'm good with all kinds of debate (I've done LD, Policy, and Pf) but here's my listing for LD bc that's what I'm doing now. I qualified for UIL Regions, TFA State, and broke at UT to trips in 2021. Jacob Koshak was my coach, if you want to have a good understanding of my background go read that.I wanna be on the speech drop or email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com. I prolly disclose speaks if you ask. These r my prefs its quick
1 - LARP
LARP is fun. I did a lot of larp, most topics are good for larp. Plz don't force it read ur best strat but larping is what I would say I was probably the best at. I think good larp needs heavy on the weighing page, and inherency is something I need to take from my policy days. Plz plz don't read an aff that has already passed.
1 - K
As long as debaters thoroughly explain the link as well as the k itself, it is my favorite form of debate. It'd be my first voter. If you don't know the K don't read one please its a no bueno.
2 - T/Theory
T is a good argument, don't force it. I like T as an answer to actual abuse, like if they run a non-disclosed K aff or something. However, don't come in w some garbage t interp that literally breaks the ground. If you do go for T, please do a good job. I feel that T can get washed out and super duper boring to the point that the round loses its whole meaning.
Theory is a good check, but I don't like it as a strat. I'm not the judge for you if you mostly do theory, the K v theory debate is fun though.
edu>fairness - debate is a game sure, but I debated to learn about new topics n crap. Like yeah fairness matters, but education serves as a method for us to understand what is fair. If we were not educated, we wouldn't know if something was skewed. Education is the only thing we can keep from debate in the long run.
competing interps > reasonability - Unless the shell is friv, competing interps makes for better debates. If the judge can reasonably decide whether the theory is good or bad bc the debater spends time telling them to, the debater can just give a counter interp that makes the round more fun.
tech>truth - its a game but if you play the game bad you have to lose. Theory does come on the highest layer unless told otherwise (i lost on that so i know). I will say that i prolly have theory and k closer than most for layer so just tell me where to evaluate it.
5 - Trix/Spikes
Tricks are for kids and spikes are dumb. I would vote on them, but its a low threshold for answering them. I feel like they skew the round unfair for the debate, like the "cover" speech literally cannot concede an argument or the round is done basically.
Do underviews and overviews. It won't hurt to do either and is good, makes it an easy way to the ballot. I like rebuttals that are top down and not all over the place, tell me where to flow it/when to im on paper as of writing this idk if that if that stayed
If you have any questions ask. Make jokes if you can. As for speaks, you ought to be fine unless you aren't fine. If you aren't fine you'll prolly know. Just don't be racist/sexist/homophobic. I'm open to questions before and after round, plz just don't postround my decision. Ill defend it, and if im somehow wrong sorry :/. Ig u got judge screwed
I like clean, clear, concise, warranted arguments and responses. Speed is not an issue as long as you are organized and coherent. Slow down if speed interferes with the flow of ideas. I think conditional arguments are abusive and cause me to intervene. Theory can be a voter if arguments are developed and applied. Generic theory arguments are a waste of time. I appreciate debaters making logical arguments that are specific to the round instead of reading prepared responses. A sense of humor is appreciated. Crystallize issues in rebuttals. Tell me how you want me to weigh arguments in the round and which arguments are voters. Use CX time to clarify issues and to establish your strategy. Flex prep is fine.
Win the flow. As simple as that.
In terms of your constructive arguments or "original case":
I don't mind "creative" contentions so long as they are properly supported. This means that your primary contentions only need to be tangentially related, so long as you provide a cognizable link to the resolution. It is your opponent's job to raise a valid defense, call irrelevance, or reframe the more important arguments.
This gives you a lot of freedom to implement "more interesting" arguments. However, this is not a pass to present truly abusive or wholly non-topical arguments.
In terms of responding to your opponent's case:
I will vote for whoever wins the flow. Therefore, I like when debater's roadmap clearly and give explicit voters. I don't count roadmaps against a debater's time so long as they are less than 30 seconds.
I will not flow an argument in your favor unless you tell me why I should. Conversely, if your opponent drops a contention completely, I won't flow it in your favor unless you tell me to. I firmly believe that it is the judge's job to flow all arguments, but it is not the judge's job to debate/argue in their mind for you.
I don't mind the use of "kritiks" (AKA "critiques"), but not at the expense of becoming completely non-responsive to the constructive(s) before you. Over-reliance on pre-blocked responses in a rebuttal is also not favorable.
I am comfortable with spreading and don't actively discourage it. However, keep in mind a judge can't flow what they can't understand. Therefore, if your spreading is not decipherable or the tournament is virtual and the technology cannot support spreading, it might be wise to opt for a slower speaking rate.
Pre-flow before you come into the room. Keep your own time. If you don't already have the time constraints and speech order memorized, make sure to write it down before we start.
I don't care if you sit during these. In LD/CX, please don't start reading blocks of evidence in response to questions... in an effort to drain the clock. In PF, I prefer teams to alternate asking and answering questions (unless it's a very brief follow-up). If not, a lot of unnecessary time gets taken up by asking/negotiating who is going to take the next question.
Have fun and be civil.
Experience: I have taught at NSD, VBI, TDC. I've been coaching since I graduated in 2015 and I am the former director of debate at the Woodlands High School. My main experience is in LD, but I competed in/coached in NSDA nationals WSD (lonestar district), judge policy and PF somewhat irregularly at locals and TFA State. Across events, the way I understand how things work in LD applies. (WSD Paradigm at end)
Update for series online:
1. I have not judged any circuit-y debate since Grapevine, go slightly slower especially since it is over zoom. I do not like relying on speech docs to catch your arguments, but this is somewhat inevitable in zoom land. If you do go off doc or skip around you need to tell me.
2. Do whatever your heart desires. The paradigm below is merely an explanation of how I resolve debates, not a judgment on what kind of debate you like/have fun with. You can read pretty much whatever you want in front of me (with caveats mentioned below).
LD Paradigm (sorry this is long)
TL;DR: Use TWs, do not be rude, I am truly agnostic about what kind of debate happens in front of me. If you do not want to read through my whole paradigm check pref shortcuts and "things that will get your speaks tanked/I won't vote on."
K: 1-2 (more comfortable with identity Ks like queer theory, critical race theory, etc. I know some post-structuralist like Derrida, some Deleuze, Butler, Foucault, Anthro). Give me a 3 if you read Baudrillard unless you're good at explaining it
A bunch of theory: 2. I have been judging a lot of this lately, so do what you will. More specific theory stuff below.
Tricks: 2-3 I like good tricks but please have the spikes clearly delineated. There have been a couple rounds recently where I started to believe negating was in fact harder due to the affs that were being read. This kind of debate makes my head explode sometimes so collapsing in this form of debate is essential to me.
Policy/LARP: 3 (I guess?) I understand all of the technical stuff when it comes to this style, but I am not the judge for you if you're hoping that I would give you the leg up against things like phil or Ks. I vote on extinction outweighs a lot though (just bc I think LD has made a larger ideological shift towards policy args)
The trick to win my ballot regardless of the style/content: Crystallize!!!! Weigh!!!! Your 2nr/2ar should practically write my ballot.
I know that all of these have me in the 1-3 range, just consider me 'debate style agnostic'
I am familiar with most kinds of K lit, but do not use that as a crutch in close rounds. Underdeveloped K extensions suck equally as much as blippy theory extensions. Here are some other things I care about:
1. Make sure the K links back to some framing mechanism, whether it is a normative framework or a role of the ballot. You can't win me over on the K debate if you don't clearly impact it back to a framing mechanism. The text of the role of the ballot/role of the judge must be clearly delineated.
2. Point out specific areas on the flow where your opponent links. I'm not going to do the work for you. Contextualize those links!
3. If the round devolves into a huge K debate, you must weigh. Sifting through confusing K debates where there isn't any weighing is almost as bad as a terrible theory debate.
Overview extensions are fine, people forget to interact them with the line by line which makes me sad. If there are unclear implications to specific line by line arguments I tend to err against you
Non-black people should not read afro pess in front of me. You will not get higher than a 27.5 from me if you read it, I am very convinced by arguments saying that you should lose the round for it.
I vote on these relatively consistently, the only issue that I have seen is an explanation of why the aff needs the ballot -- I rarely vote on presumption arguments (e.g. "the aff does nothing so negate!") but that is usually because the negative makes the worst possible version of these arguments
I am just as likely to vote on Framework as I am a K aff -- to win this debate, I need a decent counter-interp, some weighing, and/or impact turns. Recently, I have seen K Affs forget to defend a robust counter-interp and weigh it which ends up losing them the round. Maybe I have just become too "tech-y" on T/Theory debates
Also, generally, a lot of ppl against Ks have just straight up not responded to their thesis claims -- that is a very quick way to lose in front of me -- I sort of evaluate these thesis claims similar to normative frameworks (e.g. if they win them, it tends to exclude a lot of your offense)
This is the type of debate I did way back when, so I am probably most comfortable evaluating these kinds of debates (but I only get to rarely). I studied philosophy so I probably know whats happening
Make all FW arguments comparative
Unless otherwise articulated, I probs default truth testing over comparative worlds when it comes to substantive debates
Phil debaters: stop conceding extinction outweighs. It is my least favorite framework argument and it makes me sad every time I vote on it
If you are reading theory against a K aff/K's then you need to weigh why procedurals come first and vice versa. If the K does not indict models of debate/form then I presume that procedurals come first (e.g. if the neg just reads a cap k about how the plan perpetuates capitalism, then I presume that theory arguments come first if there is no weighing at all)
You should justify paradigm issues, but I default competing interps and no RVIs. Reasonability arguments need a specific/justified brightline or at least a good enough reason to 'gut check' the shell. I think people go for reasonability too little against shells with marginal abuse
I tend not to vote on silly semantic I meets unless you impact them well (e.g. text>spirit) my implicit assumption is that an I meet needs to at least resolve some of the offense of the shell. So, if the I meet does not seem to resolve the abuse, then I likely will not vote on it absent weighing
aff/neg flex standards: need to be specific e.g. you cant just say "negating is harder for xyz therefore let me do this thing" rather, you should explain how aff/neg is harder and then granting you access to that practice helps check back against a structural disadvantage in some specific way
If there are multiple shells, I NEED weighing when you collapse in the 2nr/2ar otherwise the round will be irresolvable and I will be sad
Really, just weighing generally.
Shells I consider frivolous and won't vote on: meme shells, shoe theory, etc
Shells I consider frivolous and will vote on: spec status (and various other spec shells beyond specifying a plan text/implementation), counter solvency advocate, role of the ballot spec (please do not call it 'colt peacemaker')
Combo shells are good but please be sure that your standards support all planks of the interp
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. I was and continue to be terrible at flowing, so help me out a little by starting out slower in the underview section.
Sometimes these debates make my brain explode a little bit, so crystallization is key -- obvi it is hard to be super pathosy on 'evaluate the debate after the 1ac' but overviews and ballot instruction is key here
Also, I likely will never vote on evaluate the debate after "x" speech that is not the 2ar. So if that is a core part of your strategy I suggest trying to win a different spike. I probably voted on this once at the NSD camp tournament, which was funny, but not an argument I like voting on. Similarly, I will evaluate the theory debate after the 2ar; you can argue for no 1ar theory or no 2nr paradigm issues however.
Against Ks, I will likely not vote on tricks that justify something abhorrent. I think 'induction fails takes out the K' is also a silly argument (again, I voted on it like once but I just think its a terrible argument)
Unsure why I have to say this but DAs are not an advocacy and if I hear the phrase "perm the disad" you immediately drop down to a 28. If you extend "perm the disad" then you will drop to a 27. I'm not kidding.
Perms need a text, explanation of how the advocacies are combined, and how it is net beneficial (or just not mutually exclusive)
I do not really have any theoretical assumptions for policy style arguments, I can be convinced either way re:condo and specific CP theory (PICs, consult, etc)
Extinction outweighs: least favorite argument, usually the most strategic argument to collapse to against phil and K debaters
Unsure what else to say here, do what you want
Speaker points are relatively arbitrary anyways, but I tend to give higher speaks to people who make good strategic decisions, who I think should make it to out rounds, who keep me engaged (good humor is a plus) and who aren't mean to other debaters (esp novices/less experienced debaters). Nowadays, I tend to start you off at a 28 and move you up or down based on your performance. The thing I value most highly when giving speaks is overall strategy and arg gen. If I think you win in a clever way or you debate in a way that makes it seem that you read my paradigm before round, then the higher speaks you will get. I think I have only given out perfect 30s a handful of times. At local tournaments, my standards for speaks are a lot lower given that the technical skill involved is usually lower.
Things I like (generally) that ensure better speaks: overviews that clear up messy debates and/or outline the strat in the 1ar/2nr/2ar, effective collapsing, making the debate easy to evaluate (about 7 times out of 10, if I take a long time to make a decision it is due to a really messy round which means you should fear for your speaks; the other 3/10 times it is because it is a close round).
If you are hitting a novice, please don't read like 5 off and make the round less of a learning experience and more of a public beat down. It just is not 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).
Things that will get your speaks tanked and that I will not vote on:
1. Shoe theory, or anything of the like. I won't vote on it, instant 25.
2. Being rude to novices, trying to outspread them and making it a public beatdown. Probs a 27 or under depending on the strength of the violation. What this means is that you should make the round accessible to novices; do not read some really really dense K (unless you are good at explaining it to a novice so that they can at least make some responses), nor should you read several theory shells and sketchy/abusive arguments to win the ballot. Not making the round accessible is a rip, and I think it is important for tournaments to be used as a learning experience, especially if it is one of their first tournaments in VLD.
3. If you are making people physically uncomfortable in the space, and depending on the strength of the violation, you can expect your speaks to be 26 or lower. If you are saying explicitly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc things then probs an auto-loss 25.
4. Consistently misgendering people. L 25
5. I will not vote on the generic Nietzsche "suffering good" K anymore, I just think that it is a terrible argument and people need to stop going to bad policy back files, listen to some Kelly Clarkson if you want that type of education. L 25
Style: To score high in this category, I not only consider how one speaks but the way arguments are presented and characterized. To some extent, I do think WS is a bit more 'performative' than other debate events and is much more conversational. As such, I think being a bit creative in the way you present arguments wins you some extra points here. This is not to say that your speech should be all flowery and substanceless; style is a supplement to content and not a replacement. Good organization of speeches also helps you score higher (e.g clash points, the speech has a certain flow to it, etc).
Content: The way I evaluate other forms of debate sort of applies here. The main thing I care about is 1. Have you provided an adequate explanation of causes/incentives/links etc? 2. Have you clearly linked this analysis to some kind of impact and explained why I care comparatively more about your impacts relative to your opponents? Most of the time, teams that lose lack one of these characteristics of arguments. The best second speeches add a new sub that puts a somewhat unique spin on the topic - get creative.
Models v. Counter-Models: The prop has the right to specify a reasonable interpretation of a motion to both narrow the debate and make more concrete what the prop defends on more practical/policy oriented motions. To some extent, I think it is almost necessary on these kinds of motions because while focusing on 'big ideas' is good, talking about them in a vacuum is not. Likewise, the opp can specify a reasonable counter-model in response/independent of the prop. I try my best not to view these debates in an LD/Policy way, but if it is unclear to me what the unique net benefit of your model is (and how the counter-model is mutually exclusive), then you are likely behind. On value based motions, I think models are relatively silly in the sense that these motions are not about practical actions, but principles. On regrets/narrative motions, I need a clear illustration of the world of the prop and opp (a counter-factual should be presented e.g. in a world without this narrative/idea, what would society have looked like instead?).
Strategy: Most important thing to me in terms of strategy is collapsing/crystallizing and argument coverage. Like other formats of debate, the side that gives me the most clear and concise ballot story is the one that will win. The less I have to think, the better. Obviously, line by lining every single argument is not practical nor necessary; however, if you are going to concede something, I need to know why it should not factor in my decision as soon as possible. Do not pretend an argument just doesn't exist. I also do not evaluate new arguments in the 3rd speeches and reply. For the 3rd speech, you can offer new examples to build on the analysis of the earlier speech, which I will not consider new.
Also, creative burden structures that help narrow the debate in your favor is something I would categorize as strategic. The best burdens lower your win conditions and subsequently increase the burden on the opposing side. Obviously, needs to be somewhat within reason or a common interp of the motion but I think this area of framing debates is under-utilized.
(sorry if the above is somewhat lengthy, I figured that I should write a more comprehensive paradigm given that I am judging WS more often now)