*Bolded information is for skimming if you're short on time.

**Online Tournament Notes: I'll unmute and let you know if you're having audio problems. Still comfortable with speed, but ask that we slow down a couple of notches from top speed to account for lag.

Round Info:

Feel free to just call me Kay; pronouns are she/her. I did policy for four years at North Lamar High School and graduated in 2017. I am currently a full-time social worker, so I don’t judge as much as I used to, which means that my topic-specific knowledge isn’t super high this year.

If you are using an email chain, my email is kay.edwards1027@gmail.com. If you are flashing, I don't want the flash and I'll ask if I need a specific piece of evidence post-round.

Attaching to the flash/email isn't prep unless it's excessive. If you're moving stuff between documents or around inside the document, that should be on the clock. If anything gets excessive, I'll let you know to start prep again.

Philosophy (all events):

Debate should be about the arguments you find "best" for you. I am comfortable and equally happy in well-warranted policy debates as I am in well-warranted kritikal or performance debates. When not given another framing mechanism, I tend to default to an offense/defense paradigm. My general answer to what "should" be allowed in a round is that theory read/answered by the debaters will parse that out.

[added on 2/23/2023] - For the sake of transparency, I want to add a few caveats to the above. The more I listen to it, the more I've discovered that I have a pretty high threshold for voting on disclosure theory. Just something to be aware of if you choose to read it in front of me.

Speaker Points (all events):

I assign speaker points on strategic decision-making and organization (including signposting and coherent line-by-line). I will dock speaker points for excessive rudeness, demeaning others in the debate, and intentionally making offensive/discriminatory arguments or comments in the debate.

Easy Routes to my Ballot (policy but also everything else really):

1. You should construct the narrative you want on my ballot. This means that I don't want to have to fill in internal links, test truth claims, or filter your offense through the framing that wins the debate.

2. Consistency across speeches is important. That means I'm not voting on 2NR/2AR arguments from the 1AC/1NC that aren't in the block or 1AR. I also have a pretty high threshold for buying arguments that are shadow extended through the block/1AR.

3. I prefer evidence analysis/extension over card dumps. I very seldom find dumping cards onto the flow in the 2NC/2AC compelling if I'm not getting some articulation of how the evidence functions in the round.

LD Paradigm:

I'm fine with everything from more traditional value/criterion debate to more policy-style debates, performance debates, etc. Have the debate you want and are most comfortable having. That being said, some of the less common LD arguments (skep, NIBs, etc.) are pretty out of my wheelhouse and will require some serious explanation for me to understand them enough to feel comfortable voting on them.

One other thing I like to add for LD'ers: winning framework (morality good, util good, etc.) isn't enough to win the debate if you aren't winning a piece of offense through your framing. I won't do the work of weighing your offense for you, either, so please show me how your offense connects to your framing.

PF Note (updated September 2020): I don't judge very much PF, but you all ask this question, so I'll go ahead and make it easy on you: defense isn't sticky. If you want me to vote on it, I need to be able to track the argument from speech to speech.

Feel free to email or talk to me in person before or after the round with any questions that come up!

I competed in CX, Congress, and IEs for several years but I have been competitive in pretty much everything.

Policy/LD: Run whatever you want. If you can actually present it and know what you're debating, I can understand it. Open to whatever and voters are open. I tend to be very lenient in writing the ballot but I will not do all of the work for you. While I definitely have a tendency to write the ballot for people if I see where they are trying to go, I DO NOT FLOW CROSS unless you tell me to. Spreading is fine, I can handle any speed you throw at me as long as you sign post.

PF: I tend to be a more traditional PF judge just because that's how I was taught. I don't really judge PF a lot so I'm pretty much open to anything.

Congress: I should put this in all caps but if you behave unprofessionally in chamber, I will dock you. Hard. Nothing is worse to me than complete disrespect for the round, competitors, and judges. Also, I don't automatically vote you up just for being PO despite a lot of judges doing this. Don't run for PO if you don't have your Parli procedures down.

IEs: No topics are off limits and follow the parameters of the event. Not much more to say.

If you have any questions whatsoever, please feel free to email me at autumnellgass@gmail.com.

I usually write very extensive ballots and try to give a line-by-line of the debate with examination of the flow in my ballots/RFD, if it is not showing up that this is the case, I will have lengthy notes for you.

CX- Policy Maker judge with a default to stock issues. I want a case that can stand on it's own two legs and will not accept cases that aren't complete. I believe in Fiat for the legislative process except for funding. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE SIGNPOST EVERYTHING. I am lazy as a judge and if you keep me on track I will flow accordingly and will be able to keep up. Not a fan of Ks but will listen to them if they are spoon fed to me.

LD- I am old fashion value debate judge. Although I love topical debate I will not vote for your AFF or NEG without your value and criterion and will weigh framework debate above all else in the round. Do. Not. Spread. Communicate.

PF- I want good line-by-line argumentation and heavy signposting. The more you keep in order on the flow, the better your chances of winning the debate. Good impact calculus will go a long way.

Congress- I like good refutation. I do not like repeated arguments and will vote you down if you are not adding to the debate. Giving speeches just to give speeches will not get you anywhere with me. If the PO keeps an orderly chamber and commits few errors (I get the error every now and then especially with questioning) they will rank high on my ballot. I am also not opposed to ranking the PO first if they are #1 in the round. Questioning should not be a shouting match. If you are rude to other debaters during questioning I will not rank you. I understand some competitiveness but not allowing someone to answer the question and constantly interrupting will not be tolerated on my ballot.

Extemp- Humor goes a long way with me. Keep it old-fashioned and stick to the book. Be sure to emphasize your sources because I do keep count. My count won't affect my ballot much but if I'm stuck between two speakers, this will help me decide a little easier.

HI- Comedic timing is everything. If you're going to land a joke, it must be timed perfectly.

DI- I hate screaming. I deduct the most points from people who scream. I like a good build-up and tear-down during most DI pieces. It shouldn't just be sad, sad, sad, sad, sad. I should go through a whirlwind of emotions. I don't mind the heavier pieces.

Duet/Duo- Relationships, relationships, relationships. You and your partner need to be in lockstep and be timed together. The worst

All other interp events- It is an acting exercise, not a reading exercise.

Competitive Background: I competed almost entirely in UIL during my speech and debate career (it is the only circuit that my school competed in). I competed in CX Debate all 4 years of high school and advanced to UIL state each year. My 3rd year I broke to octofinals at UIL state and I finished off my 4th year as UIL state champion. Along with CX, I also competed in informative speaking and prose at the regional level.

Judging Background: I have been judging speech and debate for a few years now along with hosting clinics for schools in the central and west regions. I have been a contracted consultant for several school districts as well as a judge. I judge the UIL state meet as a hired judge, as well as various tournaments in other competitive circuits. I judge in accordance to the rules in the appropriate constitution for the tournament.

I am a tabula rasa judge so I come into the round as a blank slate. I will listen to any arguments that you make; however I typically am more swayed by on-case arguments than anything else. The following is a list explaining how I typically weigh arguments when making a decision (5 for highest priority and 1 for lowest):

Topicality-2

Solvency-5

Inherency-4

Significance-3

Harms-4

DA's-3

Kritiks-1

Once again, I will listen to any argument. This ranking system is just a general explanation of how I typically vote, but you can always change my mind with the power of your arguments. Roadmaps and impact calculus go a long way with me. Keeping the flow easy to follow will only help my overall judgment.

Email: laurenholloway03@gmail.com

she/they

Hello! I am a senior at Melissa High School, and I have competed in Policy for the last three years.

I will listen to any arguments that you choose to run in round. As long as you provide a suitable explanation for why I should vote for them, we should be good.

I am a sucker for a good impact debate. Tell me why your impacts outweigh & why you win on magnitude/timeframe/probability.

I will not tolerate disrespect between opponents/partners in round. Please just be a considerate person, and we will have no problems. This also goes for any hateful/harmful/bigoted language; I will not take kindly to it.

Debate is supposed to be an enjoyable and educational activity, so please be a good person, and we can have fun with it!

Good Luck! And feel free to ask me any specific questions about my prefs if you have any! :)

I am primarily a CX judge, but I am familiar with most forms of debate.

alrjns@gmail.com

Speed- I am good just be clear on tags and I want the evidence sent beforehand

DA- Good (I don’t see why you wouldn’t be)

CP- Again good

T/Theory- I want good evidence of in and out round abuse

K/K aff- I will not pretend like I go home to read literature on my off time, but I am familiar with a lot of common Ks (like cap) I am not a judge that will just vote for you if you run one, just do it well. Ks should not be ran just to pull one over on your opponents

Please ask me question if you do not understand. I do not take kindly to rudeness. Trust that I know what is going on in the round. I do not need you to humiliate you opponent to understand that you are winning.

I will value whatever I am told to value.

However I will default to T above all else, then Impacts.

No 'new in the 2'.

Make sure to signpost.

Email: ronaldlongdebate@gmail.com

Competed in events through UIL, TFA, TOC, and NSDA circuits. UT Austin 2020, hook 'em horns.

You either win, you learn, or both.

2021-June 2023: Director of Speech and Debate, Callisburg High School

2018-2021: High School debate consultant

2018-2020: Policy Debate, NDT and CEDA circuits, University of Texas at Austin

2018-2020: Student Assistant, UIL State Office - Speech and Debate

2014-2018 years: Speech and Debate, Princeton High School

Sparknotes:

I think I am a gamer judge. For the most part, I treat debate as a game. You can run any argument, and it should have some claim, warrant, and impact. Do what you do best. I evaluate arguments by comparative analysis through a lens of offense/defense. I vote close to how I flow. I look for specificity, line-by-line, warrants, and contextualization. I’ll vote for any argument under any framework you explicitly put me in and win. Typically, I evaluate tech over truth. Around the neg block, I like a strategic collapsing of arguments. If you can't beat a bad argument, you should probably lose on it.

For other specific strategies and threshold questions, ask me before the round.

Don't...

make offensive or rude comments. I’ll probably start deducting speaker points.

cheat, for the most part, that means don’t clip cards.

Logistical Stuff:

Do not unnecessarily draw out flashing/speech drop/email chains.

Speaking:

Speed is fine; go as fast as you want (after GT-AM 500 WPM, I may yell “clear” twice before I stop flowing).

I like catching theory args, analysis, warrant-level debating, and sometimes authors, so slow down a bit there.

“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer; if you use it, it’s minus one speak.

Framework:

I'm fine with good framework debate and am okay with voting under any framework you explicitly tell me to. I think it usually comes down to winning some argument about why you have a better model of debate and/or some methodology. There should be an impact or offense to whatever standard you extend. You should probably be winning some piece of offense under that framework. Impact framing on arguments you plan on winning under the framework debate is probably helpful.

T:

I don't really default to competing interps or reasonability. It depends on the debate. There are general parts of T. If you go for T, then explain and have an impact or an explanation to your standards (like limits and ground) and voters (like fairness and education). This usually includes warranted reasons to prefer and comparative analysis. For Aff specifically, I think it is strategic that you have some offense, pre-fiat arguments against T, a discussion of case lists, and/or neg args.

Theory:

I think theory involves the rules and/or norms of debate that are challenged, changed, or presented. I think theory arguments have general components. I was never a theory hack or anything. If you go for a(n) potential/in-round abuse story, then it is probably offense, and you should give me warrants and have an impact story. Tell me how and why I should evaluate. If you run any theory (especially if it’s what you decide to go for), you probably need to warrant it and have some framing mechanism and some offense.

Note: I probably default to fairness as an internal link to education for impacts like education or fairness, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Disads:

When you win the disad, you should also be winning some disad-case comparison portion of the debate (disad outweighs case, disad turns case, case solves disad, case outweighs disad, etc.).

Counterplans:

Counterplans are cool unless you tell me otherwise. To win the counterplan, you probably need to be winning some net benefit and/or competitiveness argument. I like some comparative analysis discussions like counterplan uniquely solves, aff solvency deficit, aff solvency advocate or mechanism not key, etc.

Kritiks:

Disregarding my knowledge, you should always assume you know your literature better than me or that I am unfamiliar with it. In high school, I read Technocracy, Myth of Model Minority, Cap, Neolib, and Security. Planless Affs I read included a Disaster Cap and a Baudrillard one. Please give me an overview for the K (try not to make it too long, like minutes on end long, because you might as well do the line-by-line at that point). I like clear explanations and warrants, like pulling specific lines from the evidence or generating links off Aff ev. There should be a discussion of how the K functions in the round, probably some framework debate, and an alt explanation (or the linear disad explanation). Be mindful of the floating PIKs.

Perms:

Be specific. For example, I think that saying “Perm do both” isn’t enough. There should probably be a solvency discussion. The severance, advocacy, intrinsic, etc. could go on the top level, and/or the theory page.

Affs:

I am usually pretty good with any format. If it is performance, a planless affirmative, and/or K aff, I would prefer you give me a ROB and/or ROJ. Take clear stances and advocacies, and contextualize them. You should pull warrants and provide explanations of the arguments and the method/reps/advocacy, etc.

Otherwise...

Ask questions.

I’ll evaluate the round in whatever framework you place me in, and I’m fine with judging whatever form of argumentation you feel like presenting. However, I strongly prefer that you make that framework explicit — tell me what to vote on and why.

I want a balance between evidence/cards and analysis, especially later in the round.

Stylistically, I’m fine with speed as long as taglines and analysis are clear. If there is a clarity issue (not just speed but diction, volume, etc.), I won’t call clear or put down my pen; I'll continue attempting to flow and what doesn’t make it onto the flow won’t be evaluated — it’s your responsibility to make sure that I can understand you. **NOTE: in an online format, I’m much more lenient about speech clarity — if I can’t understand you due to mic issues, etc. I’ll let you know in the chat. I'll follow the TFA guidelines for tech time (10 minutes of tech time) for most rounds. Beyond this time, we will start running prep.**

I like very structured speeches with clear signposting, clear organization, delineation between arguments, etc.

Add me to the email chain — my email is colbymenefee@utexas.edu. Also feel free to email me if you have any questions about your ballot, the round, etc. Do not email me paradigm questions before the round — I’m glad to discuss my paradigm further and answer specific questions in-round, where your opponent can also hear my answers.

If there is an email chain I would like to be on it. alexpulcinedebate@gmail.com he/him.

If you need to contact me for whatever reason (including docs) email me at apulcine23@gmail.com. Please do not put this email on the chain.

tldr: Do you what you do best. I mostly read policy arguments in high school. If you are a K team spend the time to explain the lit that you almost definitely know more than me about. Be nice and make the debate accessible. If you have questions, ask them. For LD, most everything applies, just for phil rounds hold my hand and trix are probably a no for me.

Speaks: To get good speaks in front of me I want good line by line, impact weighing, and judge instruction. I also try to reward strategy in speaks but not as heavily as earlier listed things. Being rude, overly aggressive, discriminatory, or just overall hateful is a pretty good way to end up with bad speaks. Something I want to make sure to emphasize is PLEASE MAKE THE DEBATE ACCESSIBLE. No, I am not asking you to jeopardize the round. I am just asking that you reconsider your plan to absolutely demolish your novice opponent in an attempt to look like a good debater. If you decide against this, you won't lose the ballot but you will lose speaks and make me sad.

Style/Speed: Make sure to sign post well so I can stay organized. Fine with speed slow down on analytics if I dont have them. Please please please please please read prewritten blocks slower than you would read a card. I'll give more leeway on this if what you're reading is in the doc but if not please slow down.

Logistics: Flash or email isn't prep just don't take forever. If you want to delete analytics from the speech doc please do so before ending prep.

T: Can either be pretty interesting or really really boring. Not saying don’t read T, just saying that a meaningful standards debate and proof of in round abuse will go a long way. T is a voter and RVIs are probably not the best idea in front of me.

Theory: probably reject the argument unless condo. I don’t like the 3 second ASPEC blips or ASPEC hidden in the word doc with no verbatim heading.

DA: I don’t need really specific links, just contextualize it to the aff. I think that disad turns the aff is convincing as well as a good impact calc. Feel free to read politics or generics but specific disads are always neat. Using aff evidence, cx, and strategic choice of other off to get links for a disad is impressive and can be good strategy.

CP: Same thing as DA’s, generic is fine, specifics are cool. Make sure your cp text is specific and says the part of the aff that cp does. Something like "Have the executive do the aff" or " Do the aff and ..." is not good practice, just take the 15 seconds to type it out. I wouldn't say that cps must have a solvency advocate but it's a debate to be had that I probably favor the aff in. Don't let this discourage you from reading an analytical cp against new affs or in general, just wanted to state my bias in the issue. Reading 5 cps with no solvency advocate = :( . Affs should be able to explain what each perm would look like. Tell me if you want 2nr judge kick.

K: They can be fun with good debating and understanding of the argument. I am not going to know as much about the K literature as you do, debate accordingly. Specific links can be convincing but contextualization of any link to the aff is a must. I think long K overviews don't help my understanding as much as you would think / as much as they might for other judges. I would much rather a shorter overview and more explanation in the line by line.

K Aff: Same thing as K, do some work explaining the thesis but feel free to read them. I feel like affs should win their model and be able to tell me what voting aff does.

Case: read it and impact turns can be fun if you really flesh them out in the block/2nr.

LD: for larp / k everything above applies. Feel free to have a more traditional round but just understand that I rely heavily on offense / defense in my understanding of debate so you will need to do work in that respect. Phil - I'm not totally against it, I just rarely judge these types of debates so you will need to hold my hand. I will most likely have little to zero prior knowledge on your phil lit.I also have trouble voting for phil debaters that don't answer / only answer with phil args vs policy arguments. Trix - probably not your guy, if you decide to read trix anyways explain acronyms, give me extra pen time, and generally walk me through your args like you would a T.

Howard Ritz

I have been Judge, Debate Coach for 26 twenty six years now in Texas circuits both UIL, TFA, and NSDA. I did not debate in college but have taught, coached, judged Debate for Rio Vista HS, Burleson High School, Wichita Falls HS, Northwest HS, and Now Mansfield Legacy High School, all in the DFW area of Texas. Have judged outside the area at Harvard U. , Berkley U, and Stanford, as well as colleges in Texas. Taught Policy and LD debate at Cameron University Summer Debate work shop for several years.

My Policy Debate Paradigms fall in the Traditional Debate category. I look for quality of arguments over quantity. Although I classify myself as a Stock Issue judge, I am open to some Negative Kritiks and conterplans but Kritiks and counterplans must be directly linked to the Aff Case. I am not a fan of theory based affirmatives or alternate worlds and really hate performance debate. Spreading will cost you speaker points if not the round if I can not understand your case. No Open CX for me. No Prompting of Partners written or verbal. Make arguments clear. Evidence and cards should be followed by analytics but analytics without evidence is of little value in my book. Show me that you understand what you are reading and not just reading cards.

A college student at the University of Texas at Austin. Majoring in International Relations, Government, Italian Studies, and European Studies

- Put me in the email chain: sale.connor@yahoo.com

~ Debated at Melissa High School for 4 years. Competed in Policy, PF, and Congress

~ Speech at Melissa High School for 4 years. Competed in Persuasive and International Extemp

~ Competed in national circuit tournaments (Harvard, UT, UofH), UIL, and TFA

~ State Qualifier in Congress, Regional Qualifier in Persuasive Extemp, and National Qualifier in World Schools Debate

I believe that Debate at its core is educational if you make any person or team feel objectified, excluded, or stupid, it will show in the speaker points. Educational opportunities come out of every debate, thus I NEED you to explain your arguments not only to clarify the round but to educate everyone on different perspectives.

Policy Debate:

I'm open to most any arguments. Emphasize framework arguments to show me what lens to look at the round through. Don't use stupid theory arguments (i.e. shoe theory, laptop theory, etc.). NEG should consolidate to 1 or 2 args to show me the major reasons the AFF should be rejected.

AFF:

I'm good with any type of AFF case. Debated mostly soft left affs while at Melissa. I will not make any assumptions about the AFF, so you must explain to me what the AFF will do and how it will be done. Don't be abusive to the Negative by cornering their position any further than it already is. If you are running a K AFF... explain the crap out of the links, and impact arguments, I'm fine with Ks you just need to explain.

NEG:

On-case arguments:

Should be case-specific don't make general arguments and assume I will weigh them the same. Framework arguments are important, If you don't want to use the AFF framing, then make your own and show me why it's better.

Off-case arguments:

The field is quite even. I don't really care what you run as long as it is appropriate within the round. Don't drop an off-case argument without kicking it, it will flow against you. If you think that your opponent simply doesn't understand your argument, effectively explain in cross-x when they ask you. K's will need more explanation than other arguments but I am good with anything. Don't use stupid theory arguments, please.

FW/T/Theory:

Very familiar. Defend your impacts. Specify ground loss. Go slower through these. Do the internal link work (connect your standards to your impacts).

Tricks:

Not a fan. I largely find them to be not educational. Please explain in detail what you are saying. Unless you are just wiping the floor with the other debater, I will hesitate in voting.

Public Forum:

I don't care what you do in PF. Just make it informational/stick to mainstream events. Make current events and issues central to your case. See "other general things" for extra stuff. I love arguments involving international problems that could impact (i am majoring in this in college)... know your audience.

Other General Things:

I'm fine with speed, but if I think you are going too fast or I can't understand you I will say clear. If you think that I am not understanding your argument then you need a better argument/need to explain it better. When it comes down to it explain it to me as if I am a third-grader. Otherwise, that's on you :)

Disclosure:

if someone discloses on open source and you read disclosure……………. If you read disclosure but didn’t reach out to your opponent before the round……… if you read disclosure but didn’t disclose………. Stop.

HOW TO LOSE:

Being or reading arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, ableist, xenophobic, bigoted, etc.

Clipping/skipping/cutting evidence.

Being an overall terrible person to your opponent, especially when it is obvious they are at a lower level than you (i.e. novices)

Appearance:

I could care less about how you dress or look. Misogynistic and gendered norms are really ugly. Also, I don't care if you sit down during cross-ex. Just make sure I can hear/see you. Whatever makes you comfortable.

Last couple of things:

I flow on paper and sometimes on my computer. Every contention/advantage will be its own sheet and every off will be its own sheet. I will flow everything you say. I don't count flashing as prep unless it becomes excessive.

Any questions you have feel free to email me, give me some time to respond, or ask me right before the round.

Background: I currently coach at Caddo Mills High School. I attended Athens High School and competed in forensics all four years, graduating in '14. I also competed on the collegiate level at Tyler Junior College and UT Tyler.

If you have any questions about a particular round, feel free to email me at phillipmichaelw91@gmail.com

For my general paradigm:

I consider myself a tab judge. I'll listen to any arguments that you want to run as long as you're doing the work and telling me why they matter (I shouldn't have to say this but I also expect a level of civility in your arguments, i.e. no racist, sexist, or any other blatantly offensive arguments will be tolerated). When I am evaluating the round, I will look for the path of least resistance, meaning I'm looking to do the least amount of work possible. At the end of the round, I would like you to make the decision for me; meaning you should be telling me how to vote and why. However, if need be, I will default to a policymaker.

Speed is okay with me. However, as the activity has become more reliant on the sharing of speech docs, I don't think this means you get to be utterly incomprehensible. If I can't understand you I will call "clear" once. If your clarity does not improve, I will stop flowing. I also believe that debates should be as inclusive as possible and speed, by its very nature, tends to be incredibly exclusive via ablenormativity. If your opponents have trouble understanding you and call "clear," I believe it is your job to create a space that is inclusive for them. *Note: this is not a green light to call "clear" on your opponents as many times as you'd like and vice versa. Once is sufficient. If clarity does not improve, I will make notes on the ballot and dock speaks accordingly. Keep in mind that the best debaters do not need to rely on speed to win.

Please keep your own time.

I evaluate LD, Policy, and PFD through the same lens. I'm looking for offense and I'm voting for whoever tells me why their offense is more important. This doesn't mean that you can't run defense but 99% of the time, defense alone, will not win you my ballot.

As for how I feel about certain arguments:

Theory/Topicality: I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. There are a few things that I want if you're going to run and or win on theory. First, I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory, that tells me that it's not worth my time voting on it. This means if you go for T and a disad, I won't vote on the Topicality, even if you're winning it. Second, I want to know where the in-round abuse is. How is what the other team is doing specifically detrimental to your ability to win? (hint: don't just say "That's abusive") Lastly, please extend an impact. Why is the way that the other team has chosen to debate bad? Please don't stop at the internal links, i.e. saying "it's bad for limits/ground/etc.". Tell me why that matters for debate.

Framework: I look to FW before evaluating the rest of the round, after theory. It would probably be beneficial to run arguments on both sides of the framework in case I wind up voting against or in favor of the framework you go for (especially in LD).

Kritiks: If you want to run a K, I would like it to be done well. That means you should have framework/a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making. I will listen to multiple worlds arguments but if it becomes ridiculous I will not be afraid to vote on abuse. To win the kritik, I expect well-fleshed-out arguments that are extended throughout the round.

Counterplans/Disads: Counterplans don't have to be topical. They should be competitive. Please don't read counter-plan theory on the same sheet of paper as the counter-plan proper. Tell me to get another sheet of paper. Your theory position should still have an interp., standards, and voters. Disads should be structured well and have case-specific links.

In LD, I don't think running counterplans makes a ton of sense if the Affirmative is not defending a plan of action (Hint: defending the resolution is not a plan). This is because there is no opportunity cost, which means the perm is always going to function. If you're going to run a counterplan, you're going to have to do a lot of work to prove to me that you still get to weigh the counterplan against the Aff case.


If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm or the way in which I evaluate the round, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.