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.

The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL so respect is key. (Yes, I also find it strange that I have to clarify respect is a need, but hey I've seen some bad rounds) So any ad hominem, whether directly stated, insinuated, or indirectly introduced to the round (for example through a card/argument) will NOT be tolerated.

General Debate Philosophy: At the end of the day debate is about persuasion, your job as a debater is to persuade me as the judge to vote for you. That means that just because you run an argument that does not mean you will be able to persuade me on that argument aka just because you run it does not me I have t buy it.

Debate is a communication event so guess what I believe is key…communication! I do believe that speaker points hold value, I repeat SPEAK POINTS DO HOLD VALUE and believe that speaker points come from multiple areas in the round. I am stingy with speaker points so you EARN every point with me. With that being said, every speaker will start in the middle of the range and either move up or down dependent on communication ability argumentation, and decorum; YES decorum does matter A LOT.

LD Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. If there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. I am a traditional judge when it comes to LD debate aka do NOT run a plan. It will be hard for me to get behind an Affirmative who advocates for a plan when they shouldn’t be advocating for a plan. Aff, you must uphold the resolution, do not try to spike out of it. I believe that observations are not voting issues, however, if ran correctly they may frame the round correctly to influence my vote. If an observation is not refuted or a counter observation is not proposed, and you bring this back up then that is how I will view the round.

Neg, for all that is good CLASH WITH THE AFF. I do not want to hear another round that is just two ships passing in the night. I want you to make arguments against the Aff and PROVE why they are wrong.

When it comes to FW, this is not the holy grail argument that will win the round, but it is a pretty good one to make. If you cannot uphold either VC then why would I vote for you? I do not find it abusive to absorb your opponent’s VC while also advocating for yours.

However, just because you win the VC that does not mean the round flows to you, if you can remove the opponent’s case, whether it be through removing impacts or attacking their warrants, then your opponent doesn’t really have ground to stand on.

I said this first, but I am reiterating this now. GIVE ME VOTERS!

Policy Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. IF there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. Similar to LD I am a traditional judge. I normally do not pref, but AFF it is your job to prove that SQ is not preferred, so read into that what you will. Constructive are used to construct any new arguments, do not run anything new in the rebuttals. If you wish to bring supporting evidence or extensions that is fine, but you better be sure that it is 100% not new or I will not flow it. (This won’t cost you the round, but I won’t be happy with it as it is abusive).

YES the neg block does exist. NO Aff, just because they split it, that does not mean you get to. You are more than welcome to run an argument against this if you wish, but you see my philosophy on the matter.

In regards to. Neg strat, I will vote for generic arguments, but don’t want to. Aff you have every right to refute with non-uniqueness, but that does not mean the argument just goes away, it is your job to argue why this matters and why the non-uniq should be a voting issue. Also, Topicality is NEVER theory, it IS a stock issue, which is one of the foundations of this event. However, if you argue topicality be careful that you do not contradict yourself.

Below is a little more detail about different strategies and approaches to the event to help each team out, but full disclosure the easiest way for the Neg to get my ballot is to prove the Aff has no Inherency:

Closed Cross Examination X---------------------------------------------I need my partner to ask good questions and answer questions for me (same holds for prompting)

Policy--------------X-------------------------------K

(If you run a K and then On-Case without kicking OR playing scenarios, you are risking losing my ballot)

Tech-----------------------X------------Truth
(This is a tough one for me as I have seen both sides unfairly cost someone the round. I will listen to arguments, but as I stated earlier you need to persuade me on it, just because there is a card that says x that does not necessarily make it true. For example there are "cards" that argue the Holocaust never happened. So basically I do my best to keep my knowledge or understanding out of the round, but there are just some things that I cannot let slide (next sentence is an exmaple). Essentially, just make sure your arguments hold validity and warrants to them, don't tell me that Haiti will cause nuclear war when it's the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere...no one should accept that argument)

Read no cards-----------------------X------------Read all the cards

(Analytical arguments can 100% be used against cards)

Quality ------------X------------------------Quantity

(I do tend to lean more quality, but this is tough for me. Here's why, if you can layer arguments then do so, but if you run 5 different arguments and the opposing team can group and refute/disprove with one card then kudos to them!)

Conditionality good---------X---------------------Conditionality bad

(Just give me a reason to buy either argument)

States CP good----------------X------------------States CP bad

(Eh…it is what it is, just tired of hearing it)

Politics DA is a thing-------X----------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most--------------------------X-------Link matters most

Clarity X---------------------------------------------Um...who doesn't like clarity

Limits------------X----------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption-----------------------------X---------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev---------------------------X---------------More ev
(Please do not read me a novel)

I’m a book worm-----------X----------------I only read what you read

(I will only flow what you said/what can be understood, but be aware 9 times out of 8 [yes you read that correctly] during prep,I will read the evidence in your card that you didn’t read to ensure you are not misrepresenting or power tagging. Dependent on the severity, this may cost you the round without opponent call out. Don't think this is fair, then you should have cut the card correctly and fairly. If you did powertag and your opp calls you out, good luck getting my ballot)

Fiat anything you desire--------------X----------Let's be realistic about this

CX about impacts--------------X------------------CX about links and solvency

DA’s -----------------------X----------------------On Case

Theory -----------------------------------X---------- Traditional (The more believable the chain link the more likely I am to to buy the impacts. It is hard for me to imagine sending Smallpox Vaccines to SSA will lead to Nuclear War)

Dash from Zootopia ------------------------------X-----------------Amateur Auctioneer

(I am fine with speed, debate should be faster than conversational, but not a race. I hate spreading/rapid fire because let’s be honest no one is good at it, you sound horrible, and it’s not impressive)

Quantity of Arguments ----------------------------------------------X-Quality of Arguments

(I have voted on a round because of T, despite the AFF having a 12 page case)

At State in LD and Policy my default is 27, unless you are truly impressive or the opposite.

Congressional Debate: If you just read out loud to me do not expect a speech ranking higher than a 3 or to be ranked in the room. The purpose of this event is to make extemporaneous speeches, yes research is key, NO do not have a pre-written speech. The students that deliver the best speeches, while also showing they are aware of the debate in the chamber will win my ballot.

PF Debate: Don’t have me judge PF

WSD Debate: I have somewhat of an idea of what I am doing in this round. I am wanting to learn this event to judge, but just not there yet

Interp

Do NOT try to read me. Don't try to read me to determine how you are doing, you can be giving a performance of a lifetime and I may look disinterested, even though I am fully captivated. Or I may react to the literature, but that does not mean the performance is on par with the strength of the piece. I have heard many funny pieces that were not performed well and heard very powerful lines that were just thrown away.

There is no magic/secret thing to do to win my ballot, except give the best performance. I know super helpful, right? I consider multiple different aspects when judging: polished (holding and mastery of the manuscript), presence in the room, delivery style, performer connection to selection, audience connection, did I get drawn into the performance, etc.

I do realize that because you are interpreting you have to be extra big, but I do look for realism in the performance. Ex: Should someone be sobbing because they spilt milk? Why is someone smiling when the love of their life just died? Remember, this performance is all about peaks and valleys, if everything is delivered the same, or on one level, then nothing is important and nothing stands out to me. If I am convinced that the performer is actually experiencing the piece, that is the best way to win my ballot, because it will draw me in. If I am not drawn in then I don't believe you really interpreted the piece. Make me care about the characters, if something is suppose to be sad I want to be sad with the character. If you don't draw me in/I don't make a connection with a character, then "I won't care that your sister died".

In introductions, I like to get to see you as a person. I want the intro to sound natural and not like a memorized piece of information. Let me see/hear YOU.

Cx:

Aff: Make sure to have an inherency otherwise you fall into the status quo and the whole point of being Aff is to be a part of the change, I won't hold it against you unless NEG mentions it. Defend your solvency, if your case has no solvency there is no reason to vote the AFF up. Argue against topicality and Ks, just because the NEG throws it at you doesn't mean you can't hit it out of the park. Just because an argument runs against you doesn't mean it will stick, if they can't explain its importance I won't flow it. If the NEG proposes a non-unique or non-linked DA, you still need to argue against it and show how it doesn't apply. If you are going to argue perm on a counter-plan, you need an explanation, not just claiming you will perm.

Neg: Make sure you can explain a topicality if you run one, if you can't elaborate on its importance, I won't flow it, same with Ks, counter plans, and DAs. Off-case arguments need to be complete or I won't highly take them into consideration. If you run a K and don't provide an alternative to the word you are criticizing, then I will consider it incomplete. Topicality needs to have an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters, otherwise it will be considered incomplete. Counter plans need to have your plan stated with solvency and show how the case is net-beneficial. DA's need to be completely put together with a uniqueness, link, possibly an internal link, and an impact. If the DA isn't unique or specifically linked to the case and the AFF acknowledges it and adequately defends against it, I will flow it to the AFF. The impacts of DAs need to be more realistic. I will still flow the apocalypse, but it isn't unique. RUN ON-CASE. If you do not attack the solvency, inherency, or any advantages it makes it harder to see the flaws within the AFF's case.

Both CX & LD: No spreading, I would rather you give a couple of articulated points with good explanation and understanding behind them instead of word vomiting 10+ points with no explanation. I understand sometimes nerves can get the best of us while speaking, so try to do your best! Make sure to keep track of your timing, I will give a verbal stop when the time is reached. During the questioning periods, you may only answer questions if you are the one being cross-examined, and only ask questions if you are cross-examining. I understand sometimes it can be hard to not want to start an argument, but it won't be beneficial to the round. If it gets out of hand I will intervene. Elaborate on impacts. Why should I vote for you over the other team? Lastly, I will not tolerate bullying or disrespect if a competitor is going out of their way to be rude I will vote the team down.

Interp: make sure to have an introduction memorized. Hold your book properly if you use one, I should not be able to see you turn pages, and barely if so. POSTURE. If a timekeeper isn't present I will try my best to give signals. I will give a verbal stop when your time is up so you don't get DQ.

Extemp: If you are using a notecard, try your best to only glance at it and not read off of it. Make sure you say your topic (if you don't say it verbatim it is okay as long as it is close to the question, especially with lengthy topics), have three points, and at least one source to back up each point. Try your best to elaborate on each point and explain its importance. If you aren't good at intros it's okay, try your best. I wasn't good at them either and made it to nats.

PF:I will only judge what I can hear or understand. Therefore, spread at your own risk. Make sure that you are respectful during crossfire questioning and don’t cut off your opponents. Sign posting is appreciated to help me follow where you are in your speeches and to know if certain sections are being attacked or dropped. If you’re going to use theory arguments, you need to be able to explain and defend it well. If you do not attack a contention or important part of your opponent’s speech it will be considered against your team in my rfd. Realistic “now” and not “nuclear war” arguments or impacts are more beneficial to the round, this isn’t CX.

LD: Make sure that you are very clear about which section you are reading, aka signposting so that it is easier to flow and keep track of where you are in your speech. You can run theory, CP, and DA arguments, but I am not a fan of them. I will not vote down for drops unless the opposing team mentions it, otherwise, I will just give notes about it on your personal ballot. Make sure to show the significance of your framework, criteria, and contentions. Why should I view the round from your FRAME and VC over theirs? You can bring up definitions, but they are rarely a voter for me. Don't waste half of your speech arguing about DEFs. Logic arguments are valued equally as evidence cards, except if you're providing something statistical, then you should probably have a source. Voters and impact calc at end of rebuttal is important!

I’m tab. I’m good with anything. If you have more specific questions you can email me -holzwarth589@gmail.com or just ask me before round

I am a policy and stock issues judge! I want to hear plans that will actually make a change, not just a basic or generic 1A that everyone else is running. If you are running a generic case, I want to hear extravagant arguments to those generic ideas.

CLASH is extremely important for me. I need something that will excite me. Both teams bouncing back and forth with good arguments that can tear down each other. I really like to hear arguments being set up in the cross-examination periods.

Clearly state your stocks, ORGANIZATION!!! Please do not be all over the place.

Be clear on each speech on why I should vote for you, not just rereading your cards, what do those cards mean.

Most importantly, even if you aren't sure what you are talking about I have to hear confident speaking! Clear and precise.

-I will not flow your speech if you spread.

This is literally my passion, so please no petty arguments in the round. Good clash and remember debating is always a learning experience.

(He/Him)

Lindale HS (2017-2021)

North Texas (2021-Present)

If you are a senior and graduating this year (whether you do PF, LD, or policy), UNT has a debate program! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via the email listed below and we can talk about what UNT debate can offer you!

Add me to the email chain zachjdebate@gmail.com

TL;DR

I am good for any substantive style of debate that you partake in, I have experience both debating and judging high-level policy, clash of civs, and K v K debates. Not as great for theory debates, particularly the proliferation of them in high school LD, but am more than able to evaluate those debates should they be necessary, just slow down a bit on these. I have a slight preference for kritikal debates. Aff's do not need to defend the resolution or the USFG but should have a topic link. I lean affirmative on Condo in HSLD, can go either way in policy.

For Prefs (Ranked from top to bottom)

Clash - 1

K - 1

Policy - 2

Phil - 4

Trad - 4

Theory - 4 (I refuse to believe this exists as an argument preference for people but I've known LDers in my time who called it their argument of choice so I figured I'd put it here)

Tricks - 5

My Experience:

I did policy at Lindale high school in East Texas, I competed in both traditional (Texas UIL) and national (TOC) circuits in policy and just about everything in between. At the University of North Texas I compete in both NDT debate and NFA-LD, Do what you do best, and don't change your general strategy for me, just be ethical and all will be okay

Individuals who have shaped the way I view debates: Colin Quinn, Louie Petit, Rory McKenzie, Cody Gustafson.

I flow on my laptop and would say I am about a 7/10 when it comes to speed compared to other circuit judges, just slow down a bit in dense and quick theory debates.

My general opinions I have about debate are the following:

Affirmatives should be tangentially related to the topic (I can be persuaded otherwise) but that doesn't require the reading of a plan or an endorsement of the USFG (I can be persuaded otherwise). I think that I probably have a slight bias affirmative in debates over T-USFG but don't let that persuade you against it as a 2NR choice.

Counterplan theory, PICS are definitely good, most CPs are good, but I lean affirmative on conditions, international, and object fiat. Though if these debates exist in the literature I can definitely be persuaded that these debates are educational. it's largely a question of the quality of the solvency advocate here. I enjoy a good theory debate as long as teams actively clash here, too often I see teams just reading generic 2NC/1NR condo shells and then moving on without answering the 2ACs shell.

Conditionality is bad in HSLD, though I can be persuaded otherwise of course. I don't have a preference in policy.

Topicality is not a voting issue in it of itself, 2NRs need to win an impact. A 2NR on T does not need to spend their entire time here, but your speech on T should include a clear link story and terminal impact. Simply being non-topical is not a reason to vote the team down, non-topicality as a link to the aff necessarily creating a model of debate that leads to "x" terminal impact is a reason to vote the team down.

0% Risk is possible

Speech times are non-negotiables.

Speaks start at 28.3 — your decisions can either add or subtract from that baseline. I shouldn't have to mention this but bigotry is clearly a loss and 0 speaks,

HS LD, I am bad for tricks debates and phil debates, obviously willing to adjudicate them but have next to no experience with these debates or the literature in phil debates. I will likely never vote for an RVI on principle, something absurd would need to happen for me to vote for one.

If you have any other, more specific questions just ask me before the round :)

TL;DR: I debated in high school. Any speed or style is fine by me, please don't change your argumentation to fit me! Semi-versed in everything typically run. Add me to the email chain by copying and pasting this:

hjordanpro@gmail.com

Feel free to email me if you want more clarity on an RFD, card, or feedback.

Note: Please, call me Hunter/He/Him! Don't call me 'judge" or "sir", it comes across awkwardly.

I have zero tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or bullying of any type

Background

Debated in CX for 3 years at Prosper HS in Texas mainly at local TFA tournaments. Broke at a few national tournaments, including NSDA, and won a third-place medal at UIL State. I don't have a set style, just thoughts on what I normally see run in a debate round. I did both policy & K debate.

Arguments I went for too much in my high school days: Capitalism, Bio/Necro ptx, Ptx DAs, and environmental impacts.

No one is truly tab, but I try my best to be open-minded and unbiased to any argument, and generally, I will default to tech > truth, barring a compelling reason. There are exceptions for this, but I hope you're not invoking them.

Ptx junkie, so I have a higher threshold on elections/senate/x bill DAs. I will burn terrible uniqueness cards into smithereens.

I can still do my pen flip from high school, but only with my eyes closed.

Don't be obnoxiously rude in any round with a clear skill gap between the teams, just debate normally and without condescending moments.

Toxicity is always bad. Respect the pronouns, experiences, or identities of the other debaters/judge(s)/crowd. Treat your partner nicely, and don't lash out if the round isn't going your way.

There's a line between arrogance and confidence, and you should try to stay on the confident side.

I was definitely an intense debater, but remember that it's just a debate round at the end of the day.

Do these things:

-Specific line-by-line analysis/organized speeches = cool

-ROB/Framing = cooler

-Warrants are the coolest.

Avoid these things:

-Blippy, blitz analytics

-Late-breaking shifts

-Generics

-Stealing prep, I'll probably notice you doing it.

*Merging docs together or whatever as your partner furiously types is still prep*

Speaks

I'm not a hard judge to impress, so if you want higher speaker points, debate however you normally would. Please don't try to 'adapt' to me, I won't hurt any debater's speaks for using whatever style they prefer.

On my speaker points scale, the points are typically 27.5 - 30. That's the range, but it's kinda hard to be at the lower end of the spectrum with me judging, I'm pretty forgiving. Still, I'll adjust it slightly to the tournament setting if I need to, yet a 30 is almost always a 30. Post-rounding is fine, but don't overdo it.

RFD's

- I'll always try to give an oral decision and RFD.

- Please feel free to ask questions and interrogate it, if it's a panel, maybe hold off until the other judges have spoken. Even though I'm fine with you grilling me about my ballot, recognize that it won't change either way.

- If we're in a rush or whatever, shoot me an email or find me later on at the tournament to clear anything up.

Policy Affs

-Don't assume I know the aff or topic literature, especially at the beginning of the year.

-Please don't ignore the mechanism of the aff post 1AC, sticking a line in the overview isn't enough either.

-Weaponize the aff, most of the time the neg team does minimal actual debating on the solvency or inner workings of a 1AC, and they shift the focus purely to internal links to the impact scenarios.

-I think aff teams that can extend and expand on the core thesis of the plan are a lot more likely to win a perm or beat a CP or Alt straight up.

-Solvency advocates are nice but you can win without one

Topicality

-Every aff challenges T in some way. I'll default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise persuasively. Reasonability is a contextual argument, it can definitely be won in front of me.

-The neg needs to win an impact here, and the more articulated this is, the more comfortable I am voting on T.

-I think FXT and Extra - T are severely underused arguments that can prove abuse.

-I like the Block/2NR to have a case list of hypothetical topical affs.

-If the aff is questionably topical, make sure you convince me that it is/isn't topical

K Affs

-These are super common, read them if you want, I've certainly read my fair share.

-Outline the methodology or the stance, don't be beyond shifty in CX on what the aff actually does.

-Please try to keep it in the direction of the topic.

-I'm well versed in most K lit, but don't assume I understand your unique spin on "insert author here".

-The same logic applies as above, most neg teams still fail to attack the actual mechanism of the aff, so utilize that.

-Performance affs are also awesome and totally have a place in the debate space, I've judged them

Framework

-The best FW args are the ones that actually recognize the point of a K aff.

-A TVA or SSD is much more persuasive than fairness by itself as a voting impact

-That being said, in round abuse exists, and FW can easily be won in front of me.

-Just tread carefully, and keep how you access the ballot as the focus (for both teams, if that wasn't clear.)

K's

-Win a strong link. Articulate an impact chain. Outline the method of the alternative for me.

-Don't assume I know the K lit. Avoid buzzwords and 4-minute overviews.

-Remember that ROB/ROJ args make it a much easier ballot for the K.

-I'll vote for any K argument that you can explain to me, but sometimes more is less with K debate on the links or MPX.

-If the K is your typical strategy, don't change it in front of me

DA

-The more specific they are, the better!

-Don't read outdated ptx scenarios or whatever if you can avoid it

-Internal link chains are nice when remembered.

-A 2NR can totally torpedo a solid policy aff with an equally solid DA, if this is your style, go for it.

-I enjoy a unique DA with a fun impact scenario!

CP

-Innovative CPs are much more likely to get my ballot, but I'll listen to whatever.

-Consult, delay and that whole crowd are probably abusive and a reason to reject the CP outright.

-A CP that goes for sufficiency framing is cool, but your CP out-solve (resolve?) the aff too.

-Solvency advocates crystallize a CP for me, but you don't necessarily need one

-Net benefits are under-explained or often chalked up to a DA, so focus a tad more on how you differentiate from the aff.

Theory

-I don't like intervening, so please don't make me vote on whether your 15-second blip in the 2AC/the block that became 5 minutes of the 2NR/2AR was worthy of voting down the other team, yet...

- Disclosure theory is :( and usually used by big schools to bully smaller institutions, but brand new K affs are probably bad.

-CP's theory is the most common stuff I come across, go for it. I'll def entertain condo theory if there are 3+ CPs or Ks or whatever. As noted above, abusive CPs like consult or delay are legit theoretical aff objections.

-Speed theory or something along those lines is solid if you can explain an accessibility concern, that's a true reason to vote down a team.

LD

-I have a decent enough background with LD. Do whatever you normally do, everything noted above and below applies with a few caveats.

-Theory hacking is annoying and quite boring. Time sucks are probably bad.

-LARP or progressive debate techniques are totally welcomed in front of me

-Some sort of framing is probably a good idea, but I'm not some value/criterion absolutist.

PF

-I will never approach a PF debate as a lay judge, sorry.

-Refer to the above

-Sticky defense is fine

-Send the speech docs, I like to read PF evidence since it's so blippy.

-Impact debate is really cool, but framing is even cooler.

-Feel free to run CX/LD style arguments

I'm a tab judge who defaults to policymaker if you do not give me any other framework in the debate round. I do require debaters to give me voters and impact calculus otherwise the round becomes messy as I judge the debate on the things that happen in the round.

I do not tolerate racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive arguments or behavior in-round, including being disrespectful or condescending to lesser-experienced teams. Additionally, I have no tolerance for male teams who belittle women who are being aggressive. I do not care how far ahead you are on the flow; I will vote you down if you engage in this kind of behavior.

I also need to add this as well: Please remember that this activity is supposed to foster education and a sense of community. There is no reason to be condescending or rude to your opponents, your teammates, your judges, your coaches, or tournament staff. If you do so then your speaks will reflect as such.

Also if you post-round me expect me to edit your speaks for them to be dropped as well.

Questions? Just ask.

Email Chain: kmartin08@gmail.com

kedarpandya459@gmail.com

I debated for Elkins High School in Policy and LD. I primarily worked with the K and IR Policy, and that is what I most like to judge.

CX/LD:

TLDR: Tech>Truth. High threshold on T arguments against K affs. Fave debates are K aff v K, or Big Stick v Big Stick.

K and K aff: (top of the pref) -

Know your K. I'm not going to hold small semantic mistakes against you, but if they start adding up it'll make it much harder for me to vote. I'd like to think I know most kritiks and the arguments of their authors, but I'm always open to new ideas.

I need specific arguments about the assumptions/structures you critique, and how they relate to the affirmative. That goes for everything, but generalities tend to pop up in link, K solves case, and A2 Perm arguments.

I also like multi-layer interaction. I default to the idea that debate is kids learning things by arguing about them in a room, not a vacuum. That means real issues that you critique outside of debate exist in debate. K debaters rarely take the jump from critiquing a problem that exists in the world to finding its implications for the round. "What's the point of argumentation skills if they just end up being marketized to serve the constant expansion of global capital," is something I really like to hear an argument about.

More creative/out there the K, more speaks you get. Especially if I feel the need to google the author.

DA, CP, Policy Aff: (top of the pref for IR) (#2 or #3 for anything else)

I give some leniency towards the conclusiveness of a card vs. the purported conclusiveness of a tag. Well-researched is always better than randomly cobbled.

T/Theory: (near the bottom of the pref is this is usually your 2nr)

High threshold against K affs, Default to Reasonability and have to be convinced otherwise, I need actual explanations of terminal impacts beyond the 1nc shell.

Phil: (in the middle of the pref)

I didn't read much of this, but I don't have any predispositions about it.

Speaks: Dune and well-done Star Wars references will get you a 30. Being egregiously mean, or engaging in any phobic/rac/sex-ist behavior will get you a 25. Creative IR and K arguments, especially if I've never heard the scenario or author, will get you a 30.

PF - Be as fast and progressive as you want.

Email: joshbutdebate@gmail.com

College: UT Tyler 21-Present

High School: Lindale 17-21

General philosophy: Feel free to read whatever you feel most comfortable with. I went for critical arguments almost every debate my senior year, but the previous three years I spent reading exclusively policy arguments and I read a mix of the two in college. You know what is and is not appropriate to say within rounds and if you don't adhere to that, your points and ballot will reflect it. If you have any questions about your argument and whether or not I'd be receptive to it, it's better to ask than be bothered by my ballot.

Comments:

If you say the words "for a brief off time roadmap," I am going to be sad.

Tech>truth. A dropped argument isn't assumed true without an extended and weighable warrant.

Depth>breadth. I'm not the best judge for more than 6 or 7 off, but if you feel like you need 13 pages to win a debate, I'll just be sad.

I prefer you to not read 30 cards in a speech. Evidence quality is really important and if you throw that out of the window just to throw the other team off, your speaks will reflect it. Comparing evidence quality is a great way to turn the tide in your favor in debates in front of me, as I will do my absolute best to evaluate only what was said in the round.

If it gives you better context, the most influential people to how I view debate are Cody Gustafson, Quaram Robinson, Yao Yao Chen and Nico Juarez.

Disads

-Uniqueness controls the direction of the link, this goes for both sides. If you want to win a link turn, you must win that the disad is non-unique and if you want to win the link you must win that it is.

-Zero risk is possible

Counterplans

-Much more persuasive if they have a solvency advocate, just reading a line in the 1NC just to dump 6 minutes on it in the block means that I give the aff leniency in rebuttals to catch up, but that isn't an excuse for sloppy 2ACs

-This is one place I am very up for a theory debate, whack counterplans that wipe out much of the aff lit base are probably bad for everyone, but the amount of times I've gone for counterplans that definitely cheat on some level puts me in the middle here.

-Doesn't really bother me if they're specific or not, but even if you don't have specific cards you should be able to explain why the counterplan solves the specific harms of the aff with a risk of a net benefit

-Generally for judge-kick, you just need to actually say it. This doesn't mean I can't be dissuaded by the other team in the final speech though.

Kritiks

-Feel free to read them on affirmative or negative, but don't get lazy with them and engage with the arguments the other team is making. Just reading the blocks you wrote at the beginning of the season and not referencing specific authors, lines of evidence from either side and engaging with arguments without specificity is a good way to get really behind in these debates.

-Framework isn't as important to win on negative in a lot of these debates, but if winning a research method through framework is what your critique is all about, of course you must win it.

-Most familiar with critiques of capitalism, settler colonialism and various areas of literature involving anti-blackness. Have read a bit of PoMo, but it is probably the argument you will need to spend the most time explaining. Regardless of my familiarity with your argument, you should be doing the work as if I've never heard your argument before.

-Specific links and explanations of links to either the topic or the affirmative are really important. Even if your link is generic and fits into every shell, that doesn't mean your 2NC or 2AC should sound the same every round. Great link explanation and application is a great way to get better speaks. The inverse is true as well.

-Impact and alt debates are often very muddy. Explaining your impact in a way that it can result from the links and be resolved by the alternative is something that is important. Alt explanation doesn't have to be hard, you just need to do it. History is your greatest resource in these debates, don't forget about it. Examples and explanations are great ways not just to get better speaks, but to win my ballot.

Framework

-Do your thing here and go for the impacts you are most comfortable going for. These debates often get lost in the internal links and fall short in the impact debate, be very careful there.

-Topical versions are important, but you need to make inroads outside of them to implicate why they're important within the debate. Don't just shallowly extend it or acknowledge it and move on, these can shred most of your offense on either side, but are very important to win when aff.

-Impact turns and impact defense are important here, but fleshing these arguments out is something a lot of teams don't do.

Topicality

-I have a higher threshold for voting for this against policy affs, some of these T interps are getting out of hand. That being said, T and advantage counterplans were my favorite arguments to go for, so feel free to read it if you think you can win it. Sometimes you might need to take these debates a little more slowly, it will benefit my comprehension given there are generally fewer pieces of evidence in these debates.

-Having good definitions (that define words in the resolution) is important.

-Please don't refer to a sheet by the authors name, instead refer to it by the word/phrase that the author intends to define.

Theory

-Please no tricks, they're bad for everyone

-Reasons to reject require warrants and weighable impacts

-Counterplan theory is probably a good idea, look above.

-IVIs/RVIs are cool, but not every sheet is an IVI. For example, if the negative reads a topicality shell in the 1NC and then choose not to go for it, that isn't a reason to vote affirmative.

3 years of CX with Prosper High School (TX)

Broke at TFA state and nat circuit tournaments

Important for online debates! I'm hard of hearing. For whatever reason, my hearing aids have difficulties picking up every word over online debate platforms. Spreading at your top speed for online debates probably isn't the best due to lag and me not being able to lipread properly. It's probably safest to spread at 80% of your normal speed, I'll let you know if it isn't clear enough for me to hear. FLASH YOUR ANALYTICS PLEASE! If you have any questions related to speed, feel free to spread a couple of sentences before the round starts for me and I'll let you know. :)

General Preferences:

-Put me on the email chain: addison.wellen@gmail.com

-I'll give an RFD unless something weird happens/the tournament is significantly delayed. If you still have questions after the round, feel free to email me

-Speed is fine. Slow down for analytics if I don’t have them.

-I'm mostly truth over tech unless the drops are very significant or if I'm convinced to prefer tech over truth. If you're trying to convince me to prefer tech over truth, make sure you explain why the arguments dropped should influence the direction of the round. (If I'm not flowing on paper, I promise I'm flowing on my laptop)

-Open CX is fine. So is prompting. (Anything too excessive may affect speaker points, and avoid interrupting or talking over a female partner as it can be very obvious and offputting)

-Line by line >>>>>>>>> overviews

-I ran more K arguments than non-K arguments, but a well-run policy argument is better than a terribly run K

-BE NICE! Especially in rounds where one team/partner is more experienced than the other, be nice. Please respect other people's identities/experiences, and treat your partner nicely

-I don't count sending the cards as prep but merging docs while your partner is typing as fast as possible is prep

LD/Anything Other Than CX:

-Just do what you normally do. Keep in mind what my CX paradigm says and feel free to ask questions about it before the round starts.

-I really like framing in LD, please have it!

-Slow down on topic-specific arguments and explain them more than you normally would.

-CPs, Plans, and Kritikal stuff is fine in LD.

-Traditional value/criterion arguments are totally fine, so is less traditional framing. Just please, please have framing arguments. :)

Policy Affs:

-Don’t assume that I know everything about the aff, especially at the start of the season.

-I’d vote on presumption if the argument is well-made.

-I especially like cases with framing in the 1ac.

-Actually explain your solvency mechanism (having a solvency advocate is also nice). Far too often, neg teams will only debate impacts and don't respond to the solvency of the aff.

-Especially for novices, don't drop your case in the rebuttals. Make sure you extend your case and not just your responses to the case arguments. Dropping the case is an easy way to lose my ballot (unless you're dropping it for a strategic/theory-related reason).

K Affs:

-I’ve run them, I love them.

-Please!! Don't have super long overviews!! Please do line-by-line!!

-They don’t have to have real-world solvency unless the neg convinces me that they do.

-Please don't be super shifty in cross about what your k does, try to explain and stick to the mechanism of your advocacy/alt

-If it’s from an uncommon K lit base, you should probably explain it to me. You can ask me before the round if I know a specific lit base. (I specialize in qt, settler colonialism, disability ks, biopower)

-If it isn't in the direction of the topic at all, your framing should be really good. (Try to keep it in the direction of the topic please)

-I ran a k aff my senior year and did a 2ar against cap and/or t usfg nearly every single round, so try to spice it up a bit if you're neg

-Also, it's super important to be extra nice if the other team is unfamiliar with k affs.

Performance Affs:

-Just tell me why to vote for you and why your performance matters for the world of debate. I ran a narrative/identity aff my senior year if that means anything to you. I’m not going to vote you up for the only reason that you perform (framing will be an important issue) but I’ll 100% vote for a performance.

Framing:

-Please, please have it. Tell me how to vote for you and why your framework outweighs.

-I love role of the ballot/judge, especially if they aren’t self-serving and can improve the overall world of debate.

-Reading a generic framing block is a lot more boring than reading framing specific to the issues of the round (but it's still better than no framing at all)

K:

-Please!! Don't have super long overviews!! Please do line-by-line!!

-I was mostly a K debater my senior year, but please don’t run a K you don’t understand to try and get my ballot because I'd rather a well-run policy argument than a terribly run K. Don’t assume I know everything about a kritik.

-Explain the alt to me (and it doesn’t have to be pragmatic/material unless the aff convinces me that it does; just explain what it looks like). Don't be shifty about the alt in cx

-Explain why perms can/can’t solve.

-K framing is going to be pretty important.

-Root cause claims are also a debate to be had.

-I'm not super familiar with every single post-modernism argument

T/Framework:

-T and Framework debates are especially important near the start of the season.

-Please don’t extend this into the 2nr if you’re going for another offcase (unless you have a good reason).

-I’ll default to reasonability or competing interps- just tell me (it’ll be reasonability if you don’t specify).

-TVAs+SSD with clear explanations are infinitely more convincing that "they're unfair that's bad" arguments. Fairness is a voter but there are better reasons to vote for T/FW

-A framework debate that is specific to the aff is the best type. If it's obvious you/your team read this exact framework shell in response to every single k aff ever, it's so much less persuasive.

DA:

-Specificity + uniqueness >>>> super generic

-I’d prefer it if you have specific links. Make sure you warrant each card in the rebuttals and tell me why the impacts outweigh.

-Please don't read outdated politics disads, it'll lose you a lot of credibility/speaker points

-If it's a politics disad, I love evidence recency (and also debates on why recency should/shouldn't matter).

CP:

-Innovative, unique CPs are better than a generic CP (but I'll vote for whatever)

-Explain why they can’t perm, especially if you have good no perm cards.

-“Cheating” CPs are fine unless the aff says they’re not and gives a good reason.

-Solvency advocates make your CP so much better.

-Explain your net benefit and if it is something other than avoids the DA, that's even better

Theory:

-Tell me why to vote for it and how it improves the world of debate. If you're reading 4+ theory shells as a time suck that's not cool and will likely annoy me :(

-I hate intervening and voting for theory if it was a 5 second blip in the 2ac/block

-I'm a lot more likely to vote for condo if there's more than 3 condo arguments (if there's less than 3, I'll still vote if it's well explained)

-I really don't like disclosure theory but I'll vote on it if the argument is well made

-Speed theory/accessibility-related things are interesting

-Please do slow down on theory if its not in the speech doc. If its a 5 second blip that's not in the speech doc, I'll have a lot harder time flowing the theory argument

Speaker Points:

I generally give high speaker points. I won't go below 27.5 unless something problematic happens.

My speaker points will vary based off of the tournament (a 30 at a local probably won't be a 30 at the TOC)

30: Wonderful debater :)

29-29.9: Very good speaker and you make very minimal mistakes

28.5-28.9: I can tell that you’re trying although you’re doing some things that annoy me (like not warranting things or telling me why to vote for you)

27.5-28.4: You’re making significant mistakes either because you don’t care or you don’t know any better yet

0-25: I'll give the lowest speaker points possible if you're being super problematic/racist/sexist/etc

I am Dyspolity@gmail.com on email chains.

NSDA update:

I love judging here. Principally this is because the schools who compete the most robust circuits have to slow down and I get to be a meaningful participant in the debates. I am not fast enough to judge the TOC circuit and even my home circuit, TFA can have me out over my skis trying to follow. But here, my experience has been that the very best schools adapt to the format by slowing their roll and this allows me to viscerally enjoy the beauty and rigor of their advocacy. Do not confuse my pace limitations with cognitive limits.

Who I am:

Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.

I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools and currently I coach at Athens in East Texas. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments.

I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.

Likes:

Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.

Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is almost never one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.

Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.

Dislikes:

Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.

Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?

Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.

Circuit level speed.

I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.

Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you are functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.

One More Concern:

There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.

Policy Debate:

I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.

LD Debate:

Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.

I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.

PF Debate:

I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.

Congress:

1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. 3)I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. 4)If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. 5) Your language choices should reflect scholarship. 6) All debate is about the resolution of substantive issues central to some controversy, as such clash is critical.

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.