I love to see honest acting in interpretation events. If you have blocking, l'd like it to be clearly purposeful and clean. Most importantly, have fun.

In platform events I like you have unique analyses of your topics with clear implications. Again, above all else, just have fun.

In Oratory, Info, and Impromptu: I value your originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of ideas of personal importance. Cite your sources, explain their importance, and tell me why it matters.

In DI, HI, DUO: It is crucial that you tell a story in a meaningful and impactful manner. Characterization, gestures and facial expressions, and, vocal variation will all add to the overall decision.

Overall speaking skills or/and argumentation are critical to winning! But remember the most important thing is that you learn!

Spread only if the speed you use also allows for enough enunciation that I can understand. I can keep up, but only if I can comprehend.

I believe in traditional debate. In LD, everything is about the V/VC construct and should apply to it. I don't really care about definition debate unless it is absolutely vital. Observations don't really matter to me unless both sides agree to them.

In, PF I try to take the position of a typical citizen judge and base "my knowledge" only on what you tell me in the round and not what I already know. Civility is still important in cross-examination so it is important to remember that with me.

In Policy, I am least familiar, so I base everything on my flow and which side has the most arguments standing by the end of the debate. Also, and I know it may be unusual, but I do care if the plan actually makes sense because I can't vote for it if it doesn't.

I don't listen to parenthetical documentation as a source. What does that mean anyway???

Let's have a great round!

My judging paradigm is very simple. I believe the purpose of debate is to teach competitors to think critically and communicate effectively. Evidence is only important if a competitor can tell me why it's important. It is imperative for the competitor to demonstrate a true understanding of the arguments they are making. To that end, I think spreading should be avoided when possible, but I am fine with some speed.

I like to see clear clash and persuasive argumentation. Assertiveness is good, rudeness is completely uncalled for and may cost a competitor the round if it is pervasive enough. Further, competitors should be respectful and deferential to judges regardless of the judge's experience.

Debaters should come prepared for technology catastrophes. Bring paper copies, USB storage devices, and contingency plans. I flow when I judge, so I only take things into consideration that are said in the actual debate. If you are spreading to the point that your words are unintelligible, I will put my pen down. If that happens, you will not be getting credit for anything you say until you can be understood enough for me to resume flowing.

email - vl15 at rice dot edu (please add to the email chain)

Have any questions? Ask me.

I did policy debate at St. Andrew's Episcopal School in Mississippi from 2016 to 2020. I also did a semester of NPDA at Rice University.

Here are some of my general thoughts about debate:

- I believe that debate is primarily an educational activity. I have no problem intervening when argumentation or discourse is harmful to the debate space.

- Outside of the above, though, I feel my role as an adjudicator is to allow debaters to debate how they're comfortable debating - my role is not to impose my predispositions about debate upon others. I will attempt to intervene as little as possible to make a decision.

- That being said, I am predisposed to grant greater credence to clearly articulated and warranted arguments that advance a coherent theory/understanding of how the world functions. I am indifferent as to what mechanism/framework you utilize to advance these arguments.

- To me, the most persuasive speeches have been the ones where people take the time to dwell on important framing issues in the round and provide compelling analysis as to why they're winning there in a straightforward manner.

Policy Affs

- I feel that there is stronger value to "defensive" arguments than most. It should be possible to win that an affirmative doesn't solve or that there is zero risk of a link to the disadvantage.

- I think that solvency deficits and internal-link takeouts are underutilized and help minimize policy affs well.

- Many policy affirmatives contain, at best, tenuously constructed internal links; teams ought to be unafraid to exploit these weaknesses.

Critical Affs/Framework

- You should be prepared to explain your methodology clearly. I am fine with non-policy affirmatives being read, but I am less experienced in evaluating these (that doesn't mean you shouldn't read them if that's what you do!).

- Even if the affirmative doesn't affirm the resolution, it is better if it relates to the topic in some manner.

- I'm not all that convinced that procedural fairness is intrinsically valuable, but it is probably an internal link to several important impacts (clash education, the collapse of debate, etc.).

Disadvantages

- Specific analysis is important in selling your scenario. Be detailed in your explanation of the link level and the rest will hopefully follow.

- I prefer that you contextualize the disadvantage to the affirmative; even if you have generic links, explain how they implicate the affirmative ("turns case" arguments help mitigate external offense from the affirmative!).

Counterplans

- Most counterplans are alright, although I think that process CPs and international fiat are questionable. Delay counterplans are likely abusive.

- Clever counterplans are fun but are probably not very theoretically legitimate. That being said, there's nothing wrong with a good theory debate.

- Conditionality is probably good (to an extent).

Theory/Topicality

- I default to competing interpretations.

- Good procedural debates are well-organized, well-warranted, and contain good impact weighing. I like these debates.

Critiques

- Teams that read Ks well are able to (1) explain their theory clearly, (2) explain how their theory directly problematizes the affirmative/the affirmative's theory of the world, and (3) explain how their alternative praxis directly resolves these problematizations.

- I may not have more than a surface-level understanding of your theory.

- Framework is probably important for both the aff and the neg in these rounds.

Updated February 2023

Caveat: This is my perception of what I think I do. Those who have had me in the back of the room may have different views.

The TL;DR version (applies to all forms of debate).

1. The resolution is pretty important. Advocate for or against it and you get a lot of leeway on method. Ignore it at your peril.

2. Default policymaker/CBA unless the resolution screams otherwise or you give me a well-reasoned argument for another approach.

3. “Roles of the ballot” or frameworks that are not reasonably accessible (doesn't have to be 50-50, but reasonable) to both sides in the debate run the risk of being summarily thrown out.

4. Share me to the speech doc (maierd@gosaints.org) but I’m only flowing what you intelligibly say in the debate. If I didn’t flow it, you didn’t say it.

5. Fairness and reciprocity are a good starting point for evaluating theory/topicality, etc. Agnostic on tech v. truth debate. These are defaults and can be overcome.

6. Rudeness, rules-lawyering, clipping, falsifying evidence and other forms of chicanery all make me unhappy. Making me unhappy reduces your speaker points. If I’m unhappy enough, you might be catching an L.

The longer version (for all forms of debate)

The Resolution: Full disclosure – I have been a delegate to the NFHS Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 (all years for Mississippi except 2022 when I voted on behalf of NCFL) and was on the Wording Committee from 2018-2020, the last of those years as chair. There’s a lot of work that goes into crafting resolutions and since you’re coming here by choice, it should be respected. Advocate for or against the resolution and I’ll give you a pretty wide degree of latitude on method. If you’re just going to ignore the resolution, the bar is pretty low for your opponent to clear to get the W (though I have seen teams bungle this).

File Sharing and Speed – Yes please, but understand I’m only flowing that which comes out of your mouth that I can understand – I don’t flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. I only go to the speech doc if a) I lost concentration during the speech through no fault of your own, b) I need to read evidence because there is a dispute about what the evidence says, or c) I want to steal the evidence for a future round. If you bust out ten blips in fifteen seconds, half of them aren’t making the flow. Getting it on my flow is your job and I have no problem saying “you didn’t say that in a way that was flowable”.

Arguments: Arguments grounded in history, political science, and economics are the ones I understand the best – that can cut both ways. So while I understand K’s like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality, I have a harder time with those that are based on some Continental European whose name ends with four vowels in a row who says that not adopting their method risks all value to life. Your job is to put me in a position to be able to make the other team understand why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. If you don’t do the work, I’m not doing it for you. Regarding “framework” or “role of the ballot” arguments – if what you’re advocating isn’t at least reasonably accessible to both teams, I reserve the right to ignore it.

Deciding Rounds – I try to decide the round in the least interventionist way possible – I’ll leave it to others to hash out whether I succeed at that. I’m willing to work slightly harder to adjudicate the round than you do to advocate in the round (basically, if neither debater does the work and the round’s a mess, I’m going to look for the first thing I can embrace to get out of the round). If you ask me to read evidence, especially your evidence, you’ve given me a tacit invitation to intervene.

Point Scale – Because I judge on a few different circuits that each have different scales, saying X equals a 28.5 isn’t helpful. I use the scale I’m asked to use to the best of my ability.

Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:

1. Rudeness – Definitely will hurt your speaks. If it’s bad enough, I’ll look for a reason to vote you down or just decide I like to make rude people mad and give you the L just so I can see you get hacked off.

2. Gratuitous profanity – Saying “damn” or “hell” or “the plan will piss off X” in a frantic 1AR is no biggie. Six f-bombs in a forty second span is a different story.

3. Racist/sexist/homophobic language or behavior – If I’m sure about what I saw or heard and it’s bad enough, I’ll act on it unilaterally.

4. Falsifying evidence/clipping cards/deliberate misrepresentation of evidence – Again, if I’m sure about this and that it’s deliberate, I’ll act on my own.

5. Rules-lawyering – Debate has very few rules, so unless it’s written down somewhere, rules-lawyering is likely to only make me mad. An impacted theory objection might be a different story.

Lincoln-Douglas Observations

1. Way too much time on framework debates without applying the framework to the resolution question. I’m not doing this work for you.

2. The event is generally in an identity crisis, with some adhering to the Value Premise/Criterion model and others treating it like 1 on 1 policy, some with really shallow arguments. I’m fine with either, but starting the NC with five off and then collapsing to one in the NR is going to make me give 2AR a lot of leeway (maybe even new argument leeway) against extrapolations not specifically in the NC.

3. Too many NR’s and 2AR’s are focused on not losing and not on winning. Plant your flag somewhere, tell me why you’re winning those arguments and why they’re the key to the round.

Public Forum Specific Observations

1. Why we ever thought paraphrasing was a good idea is absolutely beyond me. In a debate that isn’t a mismatch, I’m generally going to prefer those who read actual evidence over those who say “my 100 page report says X” and then challenge the other team to prove them wrong in less than a handful of minutes of prep time. Make of that what you will.

2. I’ve never seen a Grand Crossfire that actually advanced a debate.

3. Another frustration I have with PF is that issues are rarely discussed to the depth needed to resolve them fully. This is more due to the structure of the round than debaters themselves. To that end, if you have some really wonky argument, it’s on you to develop your argument to where it’s a viable reason to vote. I will lose no sleep over saying to you “You lost because you didn’t do enough to make me understand your argument.”

4. Right now, PF doesn’t seem sure of what it wants to be – some of this is due to the variety of resolutions, but also what seems like the migration of ex-debaters and coaches into the judging pool at the expense of lay judges, which was supposed to be the idea behind PF to begin with.

5. As with LD, too many Final Focuses are focused on not losing instead of articulating a rationale for why a team is winning the debate.

I am knowledgeable about LD and PF debate styles. I debated in high school for four years and was a member of the Alabama Forensic Council now.

I know how to judge progressive debate, but I prefer not to. I think some progressive debate has leaned towards elitism and I believe all debate should be accessible to all peoples. For that reason, it is ok if you spread- but I prefer you not to. If you are bad at spreading, I will tell you you're bad at spreading. Always be sure to flash me and your opponent your cases if you choose to spread.

I judge off flow. Simple as that.

After 4 years of judging in MS and at five National Tournaments, the most important advice I can give if I am selected to be your judge is:

*Be respectful of yourself, your opponent/fellow competitors, and your judges.  This includes being mindful of your time constraints, being considerate in your conversations/arguments/speeches, and being well prepared to present your case(s) and/or your piece(s). 

*Have fun!  You can take this tournament seriously, be well-prepared, and have a blast all at the same time.  Your time in high school will fly by, so no regrets, only memories!  

Good luck!

Hey! My name is Faraaz Yousuf, I mostly did Policy in high school with a little bit of LD. I look forward to judging your debates!

Just some top-level things, don't be rude, don't be unethical with evidence (i.e. falsifying, clipping, etc.), really just make sure to be respectful during rounds and there shouldn't be any issues at all.

Policy Debate/General Paradigm

Good organization and clarity are extremely important. Make sure your arguments are well explained, and having a consistent structure in your speech helps immensely with judging a debate. Be thorough with your arguments, make sure you lead me through why you're winning the round. Make sure you do impact calculus, things like weighing probability and magnitude. I'm down to vote for most arguments, just explain. Be persuasive.

Speed is fine, do make sure you're being clear as well. I'll say "clear" twice before I stop flowing. It should be pretty clear when I either stop typing or writing things down. *As a later addendum to this I've been a little removed from judging debate and don't quite have the same ear for spreading, I should still comprehend you for the most part but I would def take it down a notch, or at least ramp up in speed as a speech or round progresses to allow me to better acclimate to the speed (which is also a good tip in general in my experience debating).

I try to avoid giving nonverbal cues, but reactions do slip out of me sometimes so do keep an eye out for that.

I'll try my best to evaluate rounds based on the approaches articulated in them, but I do tend to default to a policy-making perspective when nothing else is offered. I'm open to other approaches, just the explanation should be clear, though that should be ideal for any argument in a debate.

I feel like I tend to lean truth over tech, but as long as theory arguments have a well-developed explanation I'm perfectly comfortable voting for them. Just because I tend to lean truth doesn't mean you can hand wave away any theory arguments.

I think K's are good, I just may not extremely familiar with whatever literature you're basing it off of so the explanation may have to be a little more in-depth for me to get it.

I like to think I'm decently equipped to judge most rounds if you have any questions at all feel free to ask me before the round starts!