I say my paradigm before round its pretty basic. I'll accept most arguments if they're presented well and link. The only exclusion is that I will NEVER vote on non disclosure, its not a real argument and is counter to debate and seeks to prep out cases and place the burden of pre round prep on your opponent

*For any PF rounds I happen to judge - I have never debated PF in my life, but I've debated enough to know how to judge it. Just remember I'm not really familiar with the structure of PF.*

I want to be on the email chain. Please email me at hebronlc111@gmail.com

If you have any specific questions, ask.

I'm a first year out and I debated LD with Hebron for 4 years

State and Nats qualifier

I'd highly prefer if you'd share your constructive speech and evidence in some way, whether that be through email or google doc.

You should go for any argument you want, but here are my familiarity with arguments ranked:

1) Ks/K-affs

2) LARPing

3) Theory

4) Phil

5) Tricks

Online Debate Things

-Please go slower if we're online

-Keep a recording of your speeches in case anything happens

Defaults

Speed - I'm fine with spreading, but please don't spread analytics (especially theory stuff) at your highest speed. I can't type that fast. Will say clear once.

Open cross in CX and flex prep in LD are fine.

Sending Evidence - It'd be ideal if you could send your prep out during prep time, but if you need to take a few seconds to send it out after, it's fine. Anyone caught stealing prep gets 25 speaks.

Default args

1) No RVIs on theory

2) Competing interps > reasonability

3) Default framing - Util

4) Tech > Truth (this excludes racist, homophobic, or sexist remarks)

Speaks start at 28.5 at locals and 28 at TOCs. Although clarity and speaking ability can somewhat affect speaks for me, you gain or lose most of them based on argumentation and strategy.

If you're debating someone less experienced, be nice.

I also don't flow CX so concessions need to be brought up in speeches.

ask me before the round

OFFICIALLY RETIRED

I am a new parent judge. No spreading and please don't be rude.

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

Hello all debaters!

My name is Anaiya Moran, I am currently a third year college student at Texas Woman's University in Denton. I attended Newman Smith High School, located in the Carrollton-Farmer's Branch district. My speech/debate experience in high school includes 3 years of varsity Lincoln Douglas debate, as well as a few novice congressional debate rounds and public forum. As for judging, I have experience with all debates along with theatrical events also. My paradigms include:

- I am okay with speed, as long as you are clear and I can understand every word. Please slow down and annunciate tag lines clearly. What I cannot understand, I will not flow.

- I am not a fan of theory debates or K's, so if what you're running is not topical, does not include a value/criterion, or simply does not make sense to me without clear explanations, I will not vote for you.

-I am fine with flex prep, as long as all competitors are. Email chains are also okay, as long as I am included on them.

- I suggest that debaters keep their own time, however if you need me to, just ask.

- Lastly, BUT most importantly, debate is suppose to be FUN. Please be kind, courteous, respectful, make eye contact, speak clearly, and enjoy every moment!

In an LD debate I will not flow more than 3 off case arguments!

Debate for me first and foremost is an educational tool for the epistemological, social, and political growth of students. With that said, I believe to quote someone very close to me I believe that it is "educational malpractice" for adults and students connected to this activity to not read.

Argument specifics

T/ and framework are the same thing for me I will listen AND CAN BE PERSUADED TO VOTE FOR IT I believe that affirmative teams should be at the very least tangentially connected to the topic and should be able to rigorously show that connection.

Also, very very important! Affirmatives have to do something to change the squo in the world in debate etc. If by the end of the debate the affirmative cannot demonstrate what it does and what the offense of the aff is T/Framework becomes even more persuasive. Framework with a TVA that actually gets to the impacts of the aff and leverages reasons why state actions can better resolve the issues highlighted in the affirmative is very winnable in front of me.

DA'S- Have a clear uniqueness story and flesh out the impact clearly

CP's- Must be clearly competitive with the aff and must have a clear solvency story, for the aff the permutation is your friend but you must be able to isolate a net-benefit

K- I am familiar with most of the k literature

CP'S, AND K'S- I am willing to listen and vote on all of these arguments feel free to run any of them do what you are good at

In the spirit of Shannon Sharpe on the sports show "Undisputed" and in the spirit of Director of Debate at both Stanford and Edgemont Brian Manuel theory of the TKO I want to say there are a few ways with me that can ensure that you get a hot dub (win), or a hot l (a loss).

First let me explain how to get a Hot L:

So first of all saying anything blatantly racist things ex. (none of these are exaggerations and have occurred in real life) "black people should go to jail, black death/racism has no impact, etc" anything like this will get you a HOT L

THE SAME IS TRUE FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO GENDER, LGBTQ ISSUES ETC. ALSO WHITE PEOPLE AND WHITENESS IS NOT THE SAME THING

Next way to get a HOT L is if your argumentation dies early in the debate like during the cx following your first speech ex. I judged an LD debate this year where following the 1nc the cx from the affirmative went as follows " AFF: you have read just two off NEG: YES AFF: OK onto your Disad your own evidence seems to indicate multiple other polices that should have triggered your impact so your disad seems to then have zero uniqueness do you agree with this assessment? Neg: yes Aff: OK onto your cp ALL of the procedures that the cp would put into place are happening in the squo so your cp is the squo NEG RESPONDS: YES In a case like this or something similar this would seem to be a HOT L I have isolated an extreme case in order to illustrate what I mean

Last way to the HOT L is if you have no knowledge of a key concept to your argument let me give a few examples

I judged a debate where a team read an aff about food stamps and you have no idea what an EBT card this can equal a HOT L, in a debate about the intersection between Islamaphobia and Anti-Blackness not knowing who Louis Farrakhan is, etc etc

I believe this gives a good clear idea of who I am as judge happy debating

Hebron '22 - 2A for 4 Years

Texas '26

Add me to the chain: aayansayani@gmail.com

A majority of my debate knowledge has come from Aashir Sanjrani, Krish Patel, Gavin Loyd, Xain Bhagwandin, and Rahul Kolla. Take a look at their paradigms if you have any questions.

TL;DR

• Dropped arguments are true
• Fine with speed, be clear
• I will evaluate ANY argument & will vote on ANY argument
• Racism & Sexism = Auto L + 25 Speaker Points
• Please do not read more than 1 T shell
• Line by Line
• Tech > Truth 99.9% of the time

*For LD: Everything below applies

-- arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact (not a one-liner slipped in)

K's

- I primarily read Warren on Aff and Psychoanalysis on Neg, but I am probably familiar with and will understand a majority of Kritiks, so run whatever!

- Generic links are okay, just CONTEXTUALIZE them to the 1AC PLEASE - It will be hard for me to vote on a link that does not explain how the affirmative triggers it

- Framework does mean something in these debates (unless its impact turned lol)

- The alternative should probably be extended in the 2NR

- Short overviews are good but if it is long, just tell me to grab another sheet of paper

- Line by line is probably where most K's are won or lost. Good line-by-line can always win you the round.

K Affs (love these !)

- Have some sort of relation to the topic even if that means it's just one card

- for fw, I like a strategy where the 2AR goes for a disad to their model and uses it to impact turn their standards and impacts

- Interpretation/Models of debate is fine

- Leverage Your Theory Of Power - It will help a lot I promise

Framework v K Affs

- The best framework debates from what I have seen is where the 2NR goes for Clash and a TVA

- Fairness is NOT very persuasive in most situations

- Not a fan of switch side v affirmatives that make a scholarship claim

- Answer Their Theory Of Power - If you do not and the 2AR leverages it correctly, it will be VERY hard for me to vote on Framework

- Evidence does not make a big difference in my decision, but if you feel that you have a VERY good piece of evidence tell me to read it after the round in the 2NR

Counterplans

- Does not mean anything if you do not have a net benefit extended in the 2NR

- Consult CP's are cheese

- Besides that everything else is fine!

Disadvantages

- Evidence quality probably matters

- Try to have a specific link, contextualize well if you do not

- Do Impact Calc

- Make your internal link story clear

Topicality v Policy Affs

- Not familiar with it, probably don't read it in front of me

- If the aff clearly meets the resolution it will be hard for you to prove to me that they don't

- I find these debates boring

Theory

- Go for it

- 5 min 2AR/2NR of theory would = higher speaks.

Extra Stuff

- Presumption v K Affs could go any way

- Condo can be good or bad

- Start @ 28.5 and go up or down

- Teams underutilize PICS or PIKS, I think this is a very good strategy vs K Affs

Novice:

This year is about learning and understanding the fundamentals of debate. I suggest NOT reading a planless aff this year. If you do run one I will not punish you but speaks will be capped at 28.5. Feel free to ask me questions after the round and look at the other sections to understand how I feel about other types of off-case positions. Have fun this year, it's just a time to get better!

Hi, I'm Nick! I debated on Hebron's LD team for 4 years, first year out!

Qualified and went to outrounds at TFA state. Went to nationals as well.

Please put me on the email chain, at nickscheufler17@gmail.com

Ask me anything before round! Give me a good convo and I might bump your speaks!

Its my first tourney of the season, so please go a little slower :D

TLDR: Speed is cool, and I'm good with anything you want to run.

Except Trix

has a hard time voting for disclosure

I took this from Blake Andrew’s paradigm and I think it sums up what I want debaters to do in a round pretty well.
"If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it, and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."

If you have any questions before the round starts please don't hesitate to ask.

Preferences:

Little caveat, when it comes to online debate specifically, I recommended you spread slightly slower. Its mostly just do to the nature of online, since things are a little more choppy. If you go full speed I'll probably catch most of it, just a small heads up :D

Speed: I'm good with spreading. However, if you are going at a speed where you gasp every second, I will say "clear" a couple times before I stop flowing until you slow down. Tdlr: as long as I'm not telling you, your speed is fine.

Sending evidence - I don’t count time for sending evidence, but will dock speaks if someone is stealing prep time. When someone else is sending evidence nobody should be taking prep. Put me on the email chain/Speechdrop/any way you can get me the case.

Traditional: A good traditional debate is fun. Generally, I will vote off the person who wins on the argument level (framework, CP, case, etc). Argument weighing is very important, you need to explain why your argument matters, and not just read it against the case. Clash is still important(mostly for making the round not a complete bore). I default to util in the event that both frameworks are dropped.

Policy: Just remember to weigh ;-;. Just because you run 8 off, doesn't mean you don't have to weigh, clash, or answer the opponent's case. Plan Affs are fun, run them if you'd like.

On framework specifically: I'm generally good with any form of framework you choose to run, from value/criterion to Kant, to Fichte, etc. Please don't drop framework. I dislike judging rounds where both people drop fw, and I have to default to util. (Note: “Dropping” framework is completely different than a strategic concession as negative, using the extra time to read more against the aff, and winning off of their framework. If thats what you plan to do, by all means, go for it).

Theory and Topicality: I will vote off of these, however, you still need to explain why the argument is the most important(i.e, why you should win because the opponent is untopical or violates the theory). Also, please don't run disclosure(when it's abundantly clear that they either don't have a wiki, and/or didn't know that the wiki existed), honestly, i probably wont vote off disclosure in general(unless there has been some SERIOUS shennaniganns going on), and while i believe that open source should be the norm, disclosure is often just used to smash small schools. I won't dock you for it, but it won't be considered in the decision. I typically only vote for legitimate(not frivolous) theory. In order for me to vote off of theory, the abuse has to be apparent.

Kritiks: I have a slight threshold for K's(basically, you need to have an alt/methodology, and your cards just have to not completely contradict your tags, and even then, well if you tech it enough anything goes.). Generally, as long as you explain your Kritik well, I should be able to vote off of it. However, just because you win the theory of your Kritik, doesn't mean you win why that argument matters the most(basically, still weigh arguments, and you should be fine). This also extends to K Aff's. Overall, I enjoy a good K round. I am most familiar with Cap Lit, but dont think i'll skew for it.

Phil: When judging these rounds, framework/your philosophical methodology is fairly important, so make sure you explain and utilize it. I have decent knowledge of a few common phil strats(stuff like Kant and Hobbes), and detailed knowledge of the ones I ran(stuff like Nietzsche). Overall, as long as you explain you case, actively clash with the opposing case, and do decent enough work on the flow, I should have no problem voting for you.

CPs/DAs: I'm perfectly ok with these, Plan-Inclusive counterplans are also alright!

Tricks/Trix: Please don't. Save both of us the pain and suffering. If you run these I'll also know you didn't bother to read the paradigm, so we'll both be sad.

Also, please don't be extremely rude to your opponent, doing so won't lose you the round, but your speaker points will suffer.

Defaults- all of these can be persuaded differently you just need to give me a reason why:

1. No RVI on Theory- IE theory is no risk

2. Competing Interps > Reasonability

3. Default Framing = Util

4. Tech > truth (in all instances except for things like racism good, sexism good, homophobia, etc; but by that point, you're either trolling(which in that case, there are much easier and less morally reprehensible ways to troll) and/or are outright displaying unethical actions, so don't act surprised when you auto lose). On that note, I'm actually alright with Death K's, they just need to be run well, and focus on the actual literature and not target specific groups).

Speaks: I start from 28.5, and go up or down from there. Things that influence speaks are clarity, speaking ability, and strategic decisions

Basically, don't be a complete jerk to your opponent, and you'll be ok.

Also, being nice, and having a little fun can go a long way towards improving your speaker points(If you ask, I'll disclose speaks). A little levity and comedy will help raise your speaks(though you can easily get a high total without it).

Beat me after round in a 1-2 stock game of smash(my switch will be on me), and I'll boost your speaks by .5-1 points. (I will only do this after the decision has already been given, so this won't affect the ballot in the slightest, and only if doing so won't slow down the tournament)

Alternatively, Show me your flows, and I'll give the same boost if they are organized and neat.

Paradigm:

I'm essentially a tabula rasa judge in that I will listen to justifications for any paradigm that you can convince me to hold  That isn't to say I don't have biases, but I can be convinced to vote against them if you set up standards, win them, and meet them.  One bias that I do hold (and it can be overcome) is that I default to seeing myself as judging the resolution up or down.  That is to say, if you affirm the resolution, I vote affirmative.  So, if you want to, say, run a topical PIC from the negative, you need to tell me why I should write "negative" on my ballot for something that is affirming the resolution.  

Speed:  

Speed is fine so long as you are not skipping syllables or slurring your speech. Too many debaters have a tendency do this to gain speed.  If you want to go faster than you can anunciate, you do so at the risk of losing me.  Slowing down on taglines and citations is always a plus, because I tend to organize my flow around cards (unless you get very theoretical, in which case, I'll switch to line numbers...so number your arguments in this case). It's also a good idea to get louder (and clearer) on phrases within the card that you especially want me to hear.  Doing this will ensure your argument gets on the flow in context.  Most judges like to hear cards and not just taglines, so we can evaluate source indictments.

Flashing:  

I'm evolving on flashing.  I once disliked it because I noticed that it made teams stop flowing, and resulted in less line-by-line rebutting.  This is an unfortunate habit.  I still allowed it because were some teams who managed to handle it just fine.  I think reading clarity is also sacrificed when flashing, because there is not the added pressure of having to be understood by your opponent.  But you still have to be understood by your judge!  Email chains are no better than flashing, by the way, and differ only in that judges are sometimes included in the chain.  I tried this once, and I realized that *I* stopped flowing!  It's not to say that I don't like being in on an email chain (so I can look at it during prep), but if you send me briefs, I will still not flow with them. 

On the other hand, teams who flash look more critically at their opponents' evidence and are less likely to accept the tagline as an accurate description of what the card says.  Even though all of the above problems are real, this new critical way of assessing evidence makes it worth it to flash.  So, flash away, but don't let that stop you from flowing!

This paradigm works for CX, LD and PF, but I should add that 

1) in LD, I am sympathetic to suggested paradigms that flow from the resolution.  For instance, if a resolution includes a call to action, a plan makes more sense.  If it doesn't, then not so much.  I can be convinced to shift this bias, but you must tell me why.

2) in PF, I tend to think more like a lay judge, since that is the spirit of the event.  I will be evaluating speaking skills and your ability to make logical arguments more broadly persuasive to a reasonable (but lay) audience.  That isn't to say I won't follow the flow if you get technical, but I will give you some lattitude to use grouping to buy time for more pathos and ethos.

My email address is icowrich@yahoo.com

I like creative arguments, you can run almost anything. I am fine with speed, I will say clear once and then put my pen down and stop flowing you. Remember to signpost, and make sure to list clear voters at the end of your last speech. DO NOT RUN DISCLOSURE THEORY unless absolutely necessary, its boring, overdone, and a waste of everyone’s time, I will not vote off of it unless there is literally nothing else to vote off of in the round. Yes, I want to be on the email chain Hannah.Len.smith@gmail.com

toby.whiz@gmail.com

Fundamentally I see debate as a game. I think it is a valuable and potentially transformative game that can have real world implications, but a game none the less that requires me to choose a winner. Under that umbrella here are some specifics.

1. Comparative analysis is critical for me. You are responsible for it. I will refrain from reading every piece of evidence and reconstructing the round, but I will read relevant cards and expect the highlighting to construct actual sentences. Your words and spin matters, but this does not make your evidence immune to criticism.

2. The affirmative needs to engage the resolution.

3. Theory debates need to be clear. Might require you to down shift some on those flows. Any new, exciting theory args might need to be explained a bit for me. Impact your theory args.

4. I am not well versed in your lit. Just assume I am not a "____________" scholar. You don't need to treat me like a dullard, but you need to be prepared to explain your arg minus jargon. See comparative analysis requirement above.

Side notes:

Not answering questions in CX is not a sound strategy. I will give leeway to teams facing non responsive debaters.

Debaters should mention their opponents arguments in their speeches. Contextualize your arguments to your opponent. I am not persuaded by those reading a final rebuttal document that "answers everything" while not mentioning the aff / neg.

Civility and professionalism are expected and will be reciprocated.

Speech events. I am looking for quality sources and logic in OO and Inf. I have been teaching speech for 18 years and will evaluate fundamentals as well.

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.