PF: Pro should advocate for the resolution’s worthiness while the Con should show the disadvantages of the resolution and why it should not be adopted. In the 1st speech, both teams should have an introduction to frame the team’s case. The summary needs to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the differences exist and are clear and the issues need to be prioritized. Final focus needs to be a big picture concept. I will evaluate your evidence and expect you to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. PLEASE weigh your arguments and make it clear how I should evaluate this round and what really matters. Explain why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. I do not form part of the email chain.

IEs: I've judged all IEs for over 30 years for different circuits and at different levels (including state and nationals). On EXTEMPT/INF/OO, make sure to speak clearly avoiding excessive word crutches and cite your sources. Follow the standard speech outline for each event and approach topic creatively. Make sure to actually answer the question (topic chosen) clearly and that the points discussed in the body of the speech support the answer. Use time wisely/effectively to fully develop the speech. If you are using props (for speech events), make sure they go with the topic and are easily handled. They don't need to be complicated. The simpler the better. On INTERP, I look at who transported me into the story and kept me there. Make sure all movements (gestures, head, and other body movements) are done with purpose and should not distract from the selection being presented. Characterization is also very important to keep me in the story. Use the whole "stage" for your presentation if the event allows it. It's your performance. Entertain me! POI: You can incorporate the binder as a prop if you want making sure it isn't so distracting that it takes away from your program.

LD: I am a traditional LD judge. This means the debate should be a value debate. Framework of the debate is of the utmost importance because it will force me to evaluate your impacts before the other team’s impacts and nullifies most, if not all, of the other team’s offense. The contentions should be used to demonstrate a real-world example of the framework in action. For any claim made during the entire debate (constructive and rebuttal speeches), you should have evidential support. PLEASE weigh your arguments, make it clear how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and show me what really matters in the round. Explain clearly why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. There is no need for spreading. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. I do not form part of the email chain. If it's important, make sure to explain it clearly during your speeches.

Congress: When preparing a speech, make sure to follow standard speech outline and cite your sources. Approach legislation creatively. If you speak later in the session, do not rehash old arguments already brought up by previous representatives. Bring in new arguments to advance the debate. Also, you must clash with opponents. Don't just give your speech. It's a debate after all. Bring up points mentioned by opposing side, show your view point and not just say they are wrong or you don't agree. Give specific reasons why you don't agree and provide the evidence to prove your point. Have your speech so well prepared that you will be able to defend it during cross and not stumble during questioning. As Parliamentarian, I will make sure correct parliamentary procedure is followed.

WSD: Since arguments should be based in reality and each team is fighting on behalf of their respective worlds, the debate should show which world is more likely and/or better and how it will be actualized in the big picture rather than the individual arguments being made. Provide specific world (not just U.S.) examples to your claims. Burdens and mechanism/model should be clear. On the reply speeches, crystallize the round highlighting the main points of contention (2 or 3 key points) and tell me why your team won those points therefore winning the debate. Make sure there is clash on both sides and watch rate of delivery.

CX: As a stock issues judge, I expect the affirmative team’s plan to retain all stock issues and should label them clearly during the debate. The negative needs to prove that the affirmative fails to meet at least one issue in order to win. I require both sides to provide offense. Sufficient evidence is needed for any claim made during the entire debate. All debaters must speak clearly in order for me to hear all of their points and must watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important, how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and why I should vote for them. I do not form part of an email chain since I don't want to read speeches. I want to hear them. If it's important, make sure to express it clearly. New on case arguments are ok in 2NC, but not off case.

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.

Hi my name is Sarayu and I am a junior at McNeil Highschool. I'm good with anything, just make sure to explain your links properly and weigh. I'm good with speed too, just make sure your opponent is also okay with spreading. Be nice and don't say anything offensive.

Include me on the email chain: sarayub2005@gmail.com

live

laugh

love

lose

BACKGROUND:

Have been involved in debate as a student, high school debater, college debater, high school coach or a college coach since the Nixon administration. Yes I actually cut Watergate cards. So pardon my smile when asked how I feel about speed etc.

PHILOSOPHY

Try to be Tab as much as possible. But like all judges I have some personal preferences listed below:

TOPICALITY

Is a voter, don't usually vote on it unless it is mishandled or extremely squirely. Make sure to have a violation, standard and voter in shell. Haven't previously voted on a RVI on T.

THEORY

Tend to look at in round abuse.

KRITIKS

They are fine, but make sure you understand the literature, spend a lot of quality time on the link and have a clear alternative.

PRESENTATION

Speed is ok as long as you are clear. If you are not clear, I will say "clear". Make a clear distinction between your taglines and and your cards.

OTHER ISSUES:

Will vote you down for being rude or sarcastic. Proper decorum is a must. I will vote against sexist, racist et al. arguments.

CONCLUSION

I was fairly succinct on this paradigm, so feel free to ask me specific questions before the round. Also debate should be fun. A sense of humor is always appreciated.

speed is fine as long as you make an email chain/speech drop - email is obinnadennar@gmail.com

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

None. Good with all arguments and speed.

H.H. Dow High 2020 - Debated LD for 3 years and Policy fir 1
Hockemeyertyler@gmail.com - Please add me to the email chain

I am not a fan of spreading and mainly did trad debate. I'm perfectly fine to vote for theory and k's however you must explain it well.

I have done policy and LD for 3 years. I currently do parliamentary debate and IPDA debate.

What I like: I really enjoy line by line argumentation. Structure is key for a good debate. I enjoy critical arguments or anything fem

What I don't like: I really enjoy critical arguments but I rarely vote on K. I don't like cases that have no impacts or structures. As a female debate, I understand the sexism that some female debaters may face. So in no circumstance would I listen to an argument that is inherently racist or sexist.

This is a new tabroom account so please excuse the lack of judging history.

I have participated in PF, LD and Policy within the 8 years of me being in the debate community.

Please email me if you have any questions as I continue to update my paradigm thank you.

H.montague1998@gmail.com

OR - If you have any immediate question for PREFS you can always find me on facebook Heaven Montague

UNDER CONSTRICTION:

Tech or Truth?

I am a technical judge BUT I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY ARGUMENTS THAT MAKE STATEMENTS SUCH AS RACISM GOOD AND ETC.

Hi guys my name is Yara Mustafa and I'm an LDer from McNeil!

I would prefer to be on the email chain yaram.debate@gmail.com

Shortcuts:

Phil/K: 1

Larp: 2-3

theory : 3-4

Tricks: 4

Theory

Theory is not my strongest area of practice, but I understand and grasp all the steps and complexities of how theory works as a concept. Blippy and “sneaky” arguments blow over my head. Speed in theory is a big deal especially if it’s not in the doc, and I would appreciate it if you send your interp/counterinterp if it isn’t in the doc. Reasonability is defense and counter interps are offense. Friv theory is so yucky please don’t read it. I love 1ar shells

Phil/ Framework

This is my favorite style of debate, and I think there are so many ways to utilize phil in front of a wide array of judges. Many people hate phil debate, I genuinely have so much fun during a good phil round. Personally, I really like Deleuze, Rawls, Butler, Hobbes, and Realism. I also have experience answering different consequential frameworks, so by default I understand the intricacies of fw indicts on util and vice versa. In a framework debate it is very important to have a clear clash between how the different worlds function. For example if you read Util, justifying comparative worlds against a normative fw might be really useful in the end. I default epistemic confidence and truth testing unless directed otherwise. It's also important to have contextual responses as to why your opponents framing fails, and reasons to prefer yours. I think that hijacks and smart cross applications are really fun. TJFs are amazing and love them yayyy.

LARP

I have a lot of experience debating LARP but it is definitely not my area of expertise or my favorite. CPs and disads are very fun but they have to be heavily weighed and implicated out. I do think that in order to access your larp offense you have to win Util though. Counterplan theory is one thing that I normally need an over explanation of (textual and functional competition). I think that PICs are smart when read in round, but I do give more leeway to the aff when pics are bad is read. Perms and different types of perms against counterplans in general are needed.

Kritiks

I enjoy K framing debates alot and the utilization of the theory of power and the thesis of the kritik as responses to your opponents case. In general the Link and the alt of the kritik should be articulated well. The alt should be well explained and weighing should be done in general. A world of what the alt looks like should be articulated in a good manner. When talking about the ROB, make a clear indication of why your offense ow’s and why your opponent does not have access to that role of the ballot in the first place. Kaffs don't have to be topical, I think its a fun debate tbh. I also really think how you interpret the literature in the first place needs to be well fleshed out, so there's an explanation of the complexities of the K (ex if its ideal/non-ideal, ontology, violence). I really do like different literature but I am not familiar with the jargon of them. I have experience with Deleuze, Cap, Baudrillard (kinda), Psychoanalysis, set col, afro-pess, security, glissant, etc.

Tricks

I think tricks are fun when I am not the one debating against them!! It’s kinda awful to drown in a bunch of tricks so I do feel that tricks are gross. I never really read tricks very often, but I do think that articulation of the arguments and implications of how that argument truly functions is very important. I genuinely don’t understand some tricks though so I don’t really like hearing them round I think they are kinda bs.

Non-topical affs

I think Non-topical affs are super cool and I genuinely like hearing them, but I don’t read them at all. I’m familiar with normal kritik literature but over explanations are necessary for any specific nuance. I enjoy a good T/fw debate, and I love method debates!! I Appreciate a strategic and contextualized TVA. Having specific tvas rather than generalized tvas are key to having a good clash. Standards should be well articulated and the abuse story needs to be clear. As a response to Non-t affs, i have been learning about counter kritiks. I like optimism ks such as glissant which are cool responses to non-t affs.

I debated at Lake Travis High School for 4 years (2015-2019). I did mostly LD, but have some experience in PF, Policy, and even Congress. I debated TFA, UIL, NSDA, and TOC circuits. I ran a lot of queer theory, ableism, and LatCrit.

Put me on the email chain blake.a.ochoa@gmail.com

For PF

You can run whatever you want but don't think that because I'm an LD judge I will hack for theory or other progressive arguments. If anything it is a strong uphill battle because you will have so little time to flesh out a shell. If you think genuine abuse occurred you are better off just saying that on case than trying to read a full shell.
I need the summary and final focus to write my ballot for me. Tell me what you are winning and why it outweighs. If you don't do these things then I will have to try to figure it out myself and you are less likely to like my conclusion than if you just tell me how stuff breaks down.
You can go moderately fast but if you are just trying to go fast to scare/keep your opponent from engaging you won't get good speaks.
Refer to the speaker point scale and procedural things below, most of it still applies to PF.

Be nice and have fun!

Short Version

I will vote on anything as long as I get a clear explanation of it, but frivolous theory/tricks will be a steep uphill battle for you. I did mostly K debate, but I am well experienced in LARP, Theory, and traditional stuff as well. I won’t hack for you just because you read a K. Impact everything to a framing mechanism. I like to have a very clear explanation of what argument operates on what layer of the debate. If you go over 350 wpm you run the risk of me missing arguments. I’ll say slow/clear/fast/loud twice before it affects your speaks. I give speaks based on strategy, but being polite is a side constraint. Be nice and have fun!

Speed

I did circuit debate, so I have a decent understanding of speed, that being said slow down on important texts, analytics, and dense T/Theory analysis. If you flash me evidence I don’t care how fast you read the evidence as long as you aren’t clipping. I probably cap out around 350-400 wpm, so I might miss things over that. If you make a winning argument at that speed and I miss it, that’s your fault, not mine.

K

Note: I’m ok with 1AR K’s, but for convenience I will use neg speech titles

This was my favorite kind of argument to read in high school, but for that reason it is wise to ensure you are familiar with any K lit before you read it in front of me. I will judge based on how you articulate the argument, but I might look frustrated when you say incorrect things. I have a MUCH better understanding of identity K’s than high theory stuff, but both need to be clearly explained by the end of the 2N. I feel iffy about PIKs in general, if you want to read a PIK in front of me make it clear why perm doesn’t solve in the NC. To vote on K’s I need a clear link, impact to a framing mechanism, and a thorough explanation of the alt. If you wind up kicking the alt and going for the K as a linear DA, I will hold the link explanation to a higher standard.

T/Theory

Note: I’m ok with 1AR theory, but for convenience I will use neg speech titles

I have a strong understanding of how T/Theory functions, but I didn’t read it much, so if you are going for nuanced/ specific offense make your analysis twice as clear as you normally would. I will definitely vote if I see clear abuse, but frivolous theory will likely get an eye roll and higher expectations of what your analysis has to accomplish. I think in-round abuse outweighs potential abuse. If you go for norm-setting arguments it will be harder or you to win the theory flow (You need to win why you winning this particular round will set a norm). I will always look to paradigm issues before I analyze what happened on the T/Theory flow proper, so don’t waste your time going for a shell if you are gonna concede drop the argument. I DO NOT like a 1AR collapse to RVIs. If this is your best option in a round, go for it but I will be bored and sad.

Tricks

I have a complicated relationship with tricks. I guess I would vote for them if they are conceded, but you won’t get very high speaks because I don’t think that there is much educational value to debates that come down to “They conceded the B subpoint of the second justification of the 5th presumption spike.” That’s gross.

Basically if you want me to vote for tricks that are piffy and serve no purpose other than to confuse your opponent, I’m not down. If you supplement tricks with something more in depth go for it.

The only scenario in which I will drop you for tricks is if your opponent has a disability that is explained and you STILL go for tricks after that explanation is made.

DA

If I am going to vote on a DA with no advocacy associated I need a strong explanation of a solid link and an impact to a framing mechanism with reasons why it outweighs. I don’t think there is much else to say here.

CP

I like interesting counterplan debates, meaning that the more nuanced/fleshed out your CP the better. I think it is important that the CP text itself makes sense and isn’t a paragraph long. PICs are ok but please make them distinct enough from the affirmative to keep the debate interesting (like actor changes are fine but delay/consult Cps make me sad). I need a net benefit, solvency advocate, and an extended CP text to vote on it. A conceded perm is damning so don’t concede perms please.

Phil

My understanding of philosophical frameworks is pretty average. I have a good grasp on Kant, Hobbes, Butler, and other common stuff, but if you are going beyond the normal stuff, that’s fine but PLEASE explain it clearly. Regurgitating buzzwords will make me go “>:( .” As long as I can use your framework as an impact filter, you’re good. I do, however have an ethical problem with tricky framework for the sake of being tricky for the same reason I think Tricks debates aren’t educational. To clarify, if you can’t explain the framework to a fifth grader in the time of cx, it’s too tricky. Also, if your framework justifies morally reprehensible things and you defend those things, I won’t vote for you and your speaks will suffer.

Value/Criterion

Although I did a lot of circuit debate, I still really appreciate a good value/criterion traditional debate. Framework analysis is much more important in traditional debates, but I don’t think reading a counter framework is necessary. However, I want every impact to be contextualized in terms of some criterion/standard. If you don’t articulate why your impact outweighs your opponent, I will have to intervene and then no one will be happy.

Speaks

30-29 Seriously impressed

29-28 Pretty good, you should break

27-28 Some glaring strategy issues

27-25 Your strat was DOA or you said something overtly problematic or mean

25-0 You were so rude/ problematic that it made the debate feel unsafe

• If you make me think about the debate space/society in a different/enlightening way I will slightly inflate your speaks

Procedural Things

Here are my defaults, the lower on the list they are the less time it needs to change my mind

• Role of the ballot is the highest layer of framework
• Case can be cross applied to T/Theory
• No RVIs
• Reasonability
• Drop the argument

I do NOT have a default for layering offs (K before T, etc) so you NEED to do this analysis in front of me

I am generally tech/truth unless you are just lying (like saying that global warming isn’t real)

I will be disappointed/drop speaks if you do this

• Not clearly answering cx questions (especially status of advocacies and what layer comes first)
• Are occasionally rude (sass is ok, but teasing is not)
• Not giving content warnings before possibly triggering arguments are made

I will drop you if you do this

• Say or do anything explicitly exclusionary
• Act egregiously rude or blatantly mean towards your opponent (if you don’t know if what you do is ‘egregious’ or not it probably is)

Hi there, my name is Kevin and I debated for McNeil High school from 2016-2019 and I have experience in LD, PF, and extemp. I primarily debated LD.

I prefer to be on the email chain: kevsipa@gmail.com

As far as judging for LD, I will judge anything as long as it's not abusive. I have experience with most arguments as far as K, Theory, etc. but make sure you explain your positions/arguments well as there may be arguments that are unfamiliar to me

Email: williamsleepark@gmail.com

Hello, my name is William Park and I competed in LD for 3 years at McNeil. I competed regularly locally and more on the national level in my senior year.

Policy:

This is the style of debate that I mostly ran so I will be most comfortable with these types of arguments. Be sure to weigh impacts, compare evidence, and give me reasons to vote for you.

Performance:

I ran a performance aff in my senior year, so I am relatively familiar with the arguments, although please be sure to thoroughly explain them anyway. Be clear on what kind of offense your performance generates and how it falls under your framing, and why you're framing is better for the round.

K:

I read kritiks during my senior year and am mostly familiar with structural kritiks such as setcol and cap. I am least familiar with high theory kritiks, and there is probably more literature I am unfamiliar with so for any k debate, be clear on what your advocacy solves, and what offense you gain from it. If you have a framing, extend and emphasize why I should care. I like to see links not only made on the k proper, but also those made on the aff and an explanation of why it matters.

Theory:

I will generally vote for the better debater with these types of arguments. I favor clear impact analysis. This means weigh and frame your impacts as it makes the round a lot easier to evaluate. Other than that, I am open to listening to most types of theory.

Topicality:

Similar to theory. Make sure to explain what your model of debate looks like.

Phil:

I am familiar with util, kant, rawls, social contract stuff, butler, and less familiar with any literature outside of that. There should still be work done in explaining to me how your argument functions for any type of phil debate you're planning to have.

Tricks:

I am generally open as long as the claim warrant impact are clear. It's more difficult for me to flow many of these types of arguments if your spreading fast so please tone your speed down to 70-80%.

Speaks:

I award speaks based on clarity and good strategic vision of the round. Make sure to slow down on tags and analytics.

Avoid being rude in round.

Evidence Ethics:

If you are making a challenge, clarify that you are doing so and what the challenge is about. I will adjudicate to the best of my abilities or follow the rules of the tournament. Otherwise, if I find something obvious, such as clipping cards, I will not stop the round but it will factor into my decision after the round.

Email: bommai60@gmail.com

Conflicts: Carnegie Vanguard, McNeil

Hello! I competed in LD for 4 years at McNeil. I got 2 toc bids and qualified my senior year. I think every judge has biases/experiences that will push them one way or another so I will try to explain them as succinctly as I can.

Policy:

I am always down for these debates, this is mostly what I read. Weighing and strategic vision is the name of the game. Try to craft a story, spin goes a long way here too. Evidence comparison is also vital when there are two competing claims, it makes evaluating the round much easier and reduces the chance that I have to figure out things for myself.

Kritiks:

Read kritiks a fair amount as well. I am most familiar with structural kritiks such as setcol, afropez, and cap, impact kritiks such as security as well as being somewhat familiar with the literature of biopower and psychoanalysis. I am least familiar with high theory kritiks such as Baudrillard and Deleuzian literature broadly. Explaining how your advocacy solves your offense, what offense their advocacy can’t solve, and why that outweighs is needed from both the aff and neg.

Phil:

Caught on to phil to the later end of my time debating. I am familiar with util, kant, rawls, hobbes, butler and less familiar with anything else. I find meta weighing arguments i.e resolvability or bindingness first and winning offense under them especially helpful in evaluating these debates. I also feel somewhat hesitant to vote for independent voters that say that “x framework justifies y bad thing” because oftentimes this is just a substantive argument to reject the framework rather than a reason to drop the debater, but obviously I am open to having my mind changed.

Topicality:

I think in non-t vs FW debates, affs tend to struggle on establishing what the alternative stasis point outside the res is and largely what their model of debate looks like. I think negs tend to struggle on explaining why their offense precludes the aff, answering impact turns, and making a good TVA. Doing these things well is a big plus. Also definitions will help me greatly in understanding what your model of debate looks like in whatever type of T debate you find yourself in.

Theory:

In regards to theory generally, I don’t have draconian preferences on paradigm issues or what you can read. I find standard weighing and impact framing greatly helpful in evaluating these debates. Weighing is especially something that often times is not used which makes it hard to evaluate between standards, whether it be probability, magnitude, reversibility, strength/size of link, will help you greatly.

Tricks:

The term tricks is kinda vague but I mainly mean paradoxes, logcon, condo logic, stuff like that. I don’t mind these debates and I think they can be very interesting, if planning to read these arguments please have a claim, warrant, and impact.

Speaks will be given based off my opinion of your strategic vision and argument quality. That being said, please slow down on tags and analytics (especially in theory shells or underviews), also I personally find it hard to follow monotone spreading. Also please avoid being rude/ad hominem!

Evidence ethics is important. In the case of an evidence ethics challenge the debater making the challenge must clarify to me they are making a challenge and what that challenge is. In that case, I will adjudicate to the best of my ability or go to tab (whatever the rules of the tournament dictate).

Hello my name is Anjaly and I'm a junior at McNeil.

You're probably a novice so read whatever you're allowed to read. Weigh and explain your link chain thoroughly. I'm better at judging larp compared to phil but you can still read phil just once again be really thorough. If you say something funny I will up your speaks. That being said, you cannot be cringe or else I will lower your speaks. So really think the jokes through. Actually no, i'll genuinely laugh at anything so just say something please I really don't want to be bored. Be nice to your opponent and don't be offensive or else you'll lose.

Let me know before round if your parents are expecting you to become toc champion one day because I know how you feel. My parents never put that pressure on me but i still know how you feel. Ill sympathize with you because we must stick together. I understand you, I empathize with you, and I stand with you. Together we will make the world a better place. Together we will rise.

live laugh love lose

email chain: anjalyroy16@gmail.com

~~~

Hey I'm Rohan and I did LD at McNeil and TFA qual'ed + broke on the circuit. Policy @ UMass Amherst since Fall 2023. I was coached by Dominic Henderson & Phoenix Pittman. My views on debate were more influenced by my peers when I was debating, notably Anshul Gulati and Karthik Jayakumar.

Tech>truth but truth probably helps, tabula rasa will vote on anything that's properly warranted and extended probably except for pro s/h things. Absolutely no judge intervention except for incredibly rare special circumstances (like when whole pieces of offense are conceded on both sides). Add me to the chain rosthanu@gmail.com I'll be both listening to you and looking at the doc to make sure I don't miss anything. Don't adapt to me, adapt to the opp. pls send your docs as a .docx not pdf

pref shortcut for LD/CX + thoughts—

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[1] t/th, larp

• theory strongest area of understanding fr. I default DTD, C/I, & yes RVI. c/i = offense & reasonability = offense. pls include paradigm issues. pls pls make "X voter">K/case implications. metath is an underused hype strat. if standards/paradigm issues are cold conceded just extend one warrant for each, it's part of collapsing. I will vote on any theory shell but the worse the shell the lower the threshold I have for responding to it. friv theory doesn't exist. note perm competition isn't something i grasp too well, you can go for it but make sure to explain it really well. if you have me in the back of the room for policy i'm way way more inclined to vote on theory than most other cx judges from what i gather.
• larp anything flies with me. i love politics disads, read them a lot. knowing your evidence is key in this debate. though i love 7min impact turn spam, don't go for really bad impact turns (racism good etc). don't concede your impacts. i don't lean any which way on condo. remember to win fw so that you have offense.

[2] kritikal

• kritikal ran mostly cap/setcol/hauntology/security/reps in hs and have p good understanding of other structural k's and the more popular idpol k's. i don't care if i know what the alt does unless your opp points its incoherence out. in other words if your alt is ass but no presumption args are made i'll still vote on it if it goes extended given there's some explanation of how the alt solves even if it's really bad. don't buzzword extend.

[3] phil

• phil/fwk ran rawls/butler/young the most in hs but again i mostly read util/th. if you're reading a really dense framework case explain it well to me. permissibility/presumption usually negate. i'll vote on tjf's.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ask me if you'd like anything clarified before round!

Please signpost, weigh, order layers and give me voters.

Speaks: Go as fast as you want, I’ll 99% of the time catch everything so long as you’re not outspreading yourself and not being clear at all. Just try to adapt to your opponent ie if they're trad I don't think your strat should be to outspread them. Your speed won't effect speaks, your clarity might, and your strategy/round vision will. If you deserve to break you should be getting >28.5 from me. If you’re mean to your opponent or say smt mean I won’t vote against you unless your opponent makes it a voting issue out of it but you’ll probably get <27.

PF: i appreciate the accessibility of this event and what i'll allow will prolly be contextual to the round. if for whatever reason i'm judging elims at a circuit tournament i'll rock with th/K. if i'm judging a local and your opps are clearly not too comfy with arguments other than stock larp your speaks will probably hurt and my threshold for responses will be six feet under. most pf'ers ik are excellent speakers so while i'll vote for whoever's winning on the flow my criteria for assigning speaks might be more oriented to speaking skills.

speaking events: 60% content 40% delivery tbh since I come from a debate background. if your speech don't make sense but you're a really good speaker you'll get ranked 2 max. make sure your AGD isn't cringe.

~~~

tldr i'll pull the trigger wherever you want me to, just debate well & you should be good.

"live laugh lose lose learn" - merina joseph

"wtf is a kilometer rahhh" - nithya challa

"gotta flow" - karthik jayakumar & rohan sthanu

My pronouns are he/him. I graduated from the University of Wisconsin - Madison majoring in Statistics and Philosophy. I debated LD in High school and I have coached PF and LD as well as taught for two summers at the Texas Debate Collective. I judge very infrequently, about 1-2 tournaments a year.

I don't have a style preference on what shape your arguments take however, I will not accept racism, sexism, being homophobic, etc. I try to be completely tab and strive to know in a round only what has been told to me. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, weigh and develop a ballot story. Be nice and have fun, it's good to win but only if everyone had fun along the way. Email chains are fine, please add me in, my email is thomasonj007@gmail.com. I do not read your case during the round.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. Do not do the things I mentioned earlier as well as do not be mean, do not put down your opponent, and do not be invasive in their personal space, do not talk during opponents prep time, do not interrupt your opponent while they are speaking.

Feel free to ask me anything if any other questions arise or you just want to talk to someone.

I am a parent judge with no children. Pref accordingly.

Just kidding - I debated LD for 4 years at McNeil High School.

Contact Info -

Email - p.vijayan@utexas.edu

Issues:

Speed - I don't mind. Please be articulate. Please don't use speed as a tool against people who don't want it.

Framework - I think it's a fun debate and I'm very comfortable judging it. I prefer it used to weigh impacts in the round, rather than the only thing being discussed.

Theory - Please don't read intentionally frivolous arguments to take away from substantive debate. It's difficult to get my vote if the interpretation is unreasonable or lacks a significant abuse story - for instance, this applies to interpretations which force debaters to specify minutia, such as "brackets for clarity". Please go slower on your interpretations and standards, especially when weighing - I don't want to miss anything important. I (personally) don't like disclosure theory but I will vote on it. I will not vote on absent some egregious violation however. I tend to discount actions taken outside of the round if the abuse story is reliant on that kind of evidence. I am partial to violations which marginalize/constrain debaters' capacity to respond to a substantive argument made in the round.

T - same views as theory. I default to no RVIs, but I'm sure you can convince me.

Policy Debate - I am comfortable judging this form of debate. I enjoy hearing articulate weighing debates about real-world issues.

Critiques - I am not particularly familiar with identity-based philosophy. Please articulate your positions clearly and weigh critiques against the 1ac/1nc properly.

I will reward debaters who demonstrate an understanding of the literature in its intended (academic) context, as opposed to a surface-level utilization of critical literature for debate purposes. I will penalize debaters who did not do their due diligence before constructing their argument or twist the intended meaning of the text for a cheap win.

Tricks - I will judge them, but do not expect me to be exceptionally liberal with speaker points.

I usually give good speaks. My range is 28-30 with comparatively more 30s than 27s.

Table of contents:

1. My Background

2. Paradigm Overview

3. LD specifics

4. Policy specifics

5. World School specifics

6. Public Forum specifics

- My Background -

I have been coaching for 20+ years. Currently, I am the head debate coach at Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School in Dallas ISD, where my students primarily compete in World School, though they have also competed in LD and Policy. Before that, I was the head debate coach at the JBS Law Magnet in Dallas ISD, where I coached both LD and Policy on the Texas and national circuits. Over the years, I've also coached national circuit LD for University School (Florida) and, in Texas, at Westlake, Southlake, Marcus, and Anderson High Schools, as well as individual LDers attending high schools across the country. I have coached TFA champions in LD and Policy, as well as to elimination rounds at the TOC and NSDA Nationals.

Most of my coaching and judging experience is in LD, Policy, and World School; however, I've also coached and judged Public Forum, though to a much lesser extent.

I have a BA in Philosophy and Government from UT Austin, where I also earned a MA in Gender Studies.

I am a co-founder and Board Member of the Texas Debate Collective (TDC) and have taught at every TDC summer camp to debate. I also previously taught LD debate at NSD, VBI, NDF, and UTNIF camps. I have taught Policy and World School debate at camps hosted by the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.

- Paradigm overview -

Below I'll attempt to speak to some event-specific paradigms, but I'll start with an overview of how I tend to judge any debate event:

1. In my view, a judge should aspire to resolve issues/clash in the round based on what the debaters themselves have argued, as opposed to holding either side to the burden of debating the judge. In practice, this means that I am quite fine voting against my own beliefs and/or for arguments that I have good reasons (that were not raised in the round) for rejecting in real life. This also means that I tend to be pretty open to hearing a variety of arguments, strategies, and styles. MJPs frequently result in my judging so-called "clash of civilization" debates. Finally, this means that I think the debaters have the explanatory burden; just because you read something that I might be very familiar with, do not assume that I will fill in the gaps in your warrant and/or explanation of that philosophical theory because I will actively try my best to not give you credit for more than what you actually say.
2. I default to the view that the resolution (or, in WS, the "motion") is the stasis point for the debate. Meaning, the official topic divides ground, establishes burdens, and will basically serve as the thing being debated/clashed over by the opposing debaters/teams. (LD and Policy debaters: please note that I said, "default." I am fine with debaters shifting what that stasis point is. See the LD and Policy specific notes below).
3. I think all debaters have the burden of clear communication. For me, this doesn't dictate a particular speed or style of presentation---I'm open to many. However, it does mean that I expect to be able to flow the speeches and to use that flow to decide the round. I reject (or, at least, resist) using speech docs to fill in the gaps created by debaters' ineffective oral communication.
4. I aspire---as a judge, as a coach, as a person---to being humble, kind, respectful, open to the possibility that I am wrong, interested in learning, and more committed to becoming right, rather than being right. I expect debaters---and all people---to aspire to cultivate and exhibit those virtues as well. If you fail to do so---particularly in terms of how you relate to me, your opponent, and other people in the room---l will choose to address it in the ways that seem most appropriate and consistent with those virtues, including (but not limited to) reducing speaker points, talking to you at length after the round, and discussing it with your coach.

- LD -

Most of my experience judging and coaching has been in LD, across a wide-range of competitive styles and circuits. Below is a list of my defaults; however, please note that debater can (and often do) push me off of my defaults. Doing so requires that you make comparatively better arguments than your opponent---not that you have to defeat whatever arguments I personally have for those defaults. All that to say, feel free to argue that I should think about these issues in different---or even radically different---ways.

1. The Aff has the burden of proving the resolution true and the Neg has the burden of proving the resolution false. What that actually means, though, is determined by the winning interpretation of the resolution's meaning and other framework arguments (including the standard/criterion/role of the ballot) that establish the epistemic standards for what will qualify as having proved the resolution true or false. Again, if you want to run a non-topical (or creatively topical Aff), you are welcome and encouraged to argue that this would be the better stasis point for the debate and, if your opponent challenges this, then do a comparatively better job of arguing that your alternative stasis point will make for a better debate. I have voted for (and coached) a lot of non-topical Affs over the years.
2. On my own, I do not default/presume neg...unless the neg has made a default/presumption neg argument and the conditions for it applying have been met. In the absence of the neg making and winning such an argument, if I am in a round where neither debater has actually met their burdens, then I will vote for the debater that is closest to meeting that burden. In other words, I'll vote for the side that requires the least intervention in creating a coherent RFD.
3. On theory and topicality, I default to the paradigm of competing interpretations. I also default to the view that there is no RVI on either of these debates---unless a debater has made the argument that there is an RVI. I think there are very good reasons for an RVI, so feel free/encouraged to argue for one
4. If the Aff does not read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does not get ground to defend topical advocacies, including topical PICs or PIKs. However, if the Aff does read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does get topical PIC/PIK ground, so long as it is competitive with the Aff's plan.

- Policy -

When judging Policy debate, here are my defaults:

1. (Only in policy debate) I will default to the view that I am using a broad consequentialist decision calculus to filter and weigh impacts. I do this because that is already such a strong assumption/norm in the policy debate community; however, I think this practice is intellectually and strategically deficient. All that to say, I am always open to debaters arguing for narrower consequentialist or non-consequentialist decision calcs/roles of the ballot. If that occurs, I expect the AFF team to actually be able to defend the validity of consequentialism if they want that to remain the decision calc. Indeed, my background in LD and coaching K teams in policy makes me very open and eager to see teams contest the assumption of consequentialism.
2. I default to the view that the resolution is the stasis point for the debate. This means I default to the AFF having the burden of defending a topical advocacy; I default to the view that this requires defending the United States federal government should implement a public policy (i.e., the plan) and that the public policy is an example of the action described in the resolution. However, these are only defaults; I am completely open to AFF's making arguments to change either of these parameters. (Perhaps it's worth noting here that I have coached policy debaters across a fairly wide range of styles, including big-stick policy AFFs, topical AFF that are critical, and AFFs that are explicitly non-topical. Most of the AFFs I have helped my students create and run have leaned critical, ranging from so-called "soft-left" plans to K Affs that defend creatively-topical advocacies to K AFFs that are explicitly non-topical.) All that to say, if the AFF wants to affirm a strange/creative interpretation of the resolution or if the AFF wants to completely replace the resolution with some other stasis point for the round, the debaters will not be asked to meet some threshold I have; they need only do a comparatively better job than the negative in justifying that stasis point.
3. Relatedly, I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the explanatory burden you have to develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous arguments when you debate over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.
4. I am not going to flow/back-flow your speech based on a speech doc because I think the normalization of judges not actually listening to speeches and just flowing off of speech docs has resulted in worse debates and engagements with issues, and judges who simply miss thoughtful and intelligent analytics. If your articulation, volume, and/or signposting are not clear---especially after I verbally indicate that you need to be clearer, louder, etc---that's on you.
5. Arguments need warrants. Warrants could be, but do not have to be, cards. The belief that an analytic is categorically weaker/insufficient as a warrant is an intellectually dishonest and, quite simply, ridiculous view of knowledge that some corners of policy debate have proliferated to the detriment of our intellects. Whether a claim needs to be warranted by empirical evidence, let alone carded evidence, is mostly a feature of the specific claim being advanced. Of course, in some cases, the claim is about the empirical world and only empirical evidence will suffice, but this is not true of every claim debaters might make.
6. Theory and topicality: I default to theory and topicality both being issues of competing interpretations; though, I'm entirely open to a debater making arguments to shift that to reasonability (or some other paradigm). I also default to the view that there are no RVIS; I am open to that being contested in the round too, particularly if the 2NR goes for theory or topicality. As a generalization, I have found the theory and topicality debates in policy rounds to be abysmal --- both shells and line-by-line arguments that suffer from impoverished warranting and implicating. In my estimation, there is far too much implicit (and sometimes explicit) appeal to some supposedly settled norm, when the debaters themselves do not appear capable of critically analyzing, let alone sufficiently, defending that norm. I will always prefer to see fleshed out warrants. In the end, I'll resolve any theory and topicality debates via the clash produced by the arguments made by the debaters. I resist the idea that my role is to enforce a norm of policy simply because it has inertia.

- World School -

When judging world school, I try to adapt to the event by doing my best to follow the international norms for world school debate. With that in mind, I'll speak to a few issues that I've noticed WS students may need to be reminded of, as well as some issues that involve the biggest shift from how I evaluate other debate events:

1. Don't go fast. Even though I'll be able to flow it, you should aspire to keep your speed close to conversational because that's part of the conventions that make WS unique. If your rate of delivery is quicker than that, I'll likely not score you as high on "style."
2. Unless the topic is explicitly about one nation, you should provide examples and analysis of the motion that applies beyond the US as the context.
3. You should aim to take 1-2 POIs each speech, excluding (of course) the reply speech. Taking more signals to me that you can't fill up your time; taking fewer signals that you're afraid to be taken off your script. Either of those will result in fewer "strategy" and/or "content" points.
4. Countermodels cannot be topical; Opp's burden is to reject the motion, even if Prop has provided a model. Opp teams need to make sure that their countermodels are not simply a different way of doing the motion, which is Prop's ground in the debate.
5. Make sure you are carrying down the bench any arguments you want to keep alive in the debate. If Prop 2 doesn't extend/carry an argument down that Prop 3/Reply ends up using in their own speech, I'll be less persuaded. In the least, Prop 2 won't have earned as many "strategy" points as they could have.

- Public Forum -

I view the resolution as the stasis point for the debate. I'm fine with Pro defending the resolution as a general principle or further specifying an advocacy that is an instance of the resolution. (My default is that the Pro has the burden of defending a topical advocacy; however, I'm also equally open to the Pro defending arguments that justify they are not bound by the resolution.) If the Pro side further specifies an advocacy (for example, by defending a specific plan), then the stasis point for the debate shifts to being that advocacy statement. In the context of the arguments made in the debate, I vote Pro if I'm convinced that the arguments being won in the debate justify the truth of the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement). I vote Con if I'm convinced that the arguments being won justify that the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement) are false. The specific burdens (including the truth conditions of the resolution or advocacy statement) that must be met to vote Pro or Con are determined by the debaters: I am open to those burdens being established through an analysis of the truth conditions of the stasis point (i.e., what is logically required to prove that statement true or false) OR by appeal to debate theoretical arguments (i.e., arguments concerning what burdens structures would produce a fair and/or educational debate).

I tend to think that Public Forum debate times are not conducive to full-blown theory debates and, consequently, PF debaters would be wise to avoid initiating them because, for structural reasons, they are likely to be rather superficial and difficult to resolve entirely on the flow; however, I do not paradigmatically exclude theory arguments in PF. I'm just skeptical that it can be done well, which is why I suspect that in nearly any PF round the more decisive refutational strategy will involve "substantive" responses to supposedly "unfair" arguments from the opponent.

I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the limitations and constraints that PF time-limits create for develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous debates over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.

I debated for three years in varsity LD for Mansfield Legacy High School and competed in 30+ tournaments during that time. I did both UIL and TFA and advanced to UIL State for LD my senior year.

I have always been a more traditional debater and preferred that style of debate, however I can respect a more progressive debate style if the round warrants it. Mostly, I prefer to see a value debate with a lot of emphasis on the framework in the round. The purpose of the LD round is the framework level debate, so that will be the majority of what I vote on, the more your case supports the framework and you achieve the highest value in the round, the better chance you have of winning.

The most important thing I'll be looking for is your voters and signposting, tell me what you are addressing so I can keep up with the flow and make sure neither side drops an argument and make sure you tell me the reasons I should vote for you. If you tell me why I should vote for you and make everything crystal clear on the flow, it will only benefit you on the ballot.

Speaking wise I don't mind a little bit of speed but I'd prefer you fall short of spreading. I'll count speaking points based off of your familiarity with what you are saying and the preparation put into your speech and how well you can articulate your points.